The current state of out-of-camera JPEG image quality
Jun 23, 2020 00:55:58 #
Ysarex
Loc: St. Louis
Grahame wrote:
Less what?
Sorry about that; Less technical image quality.
Grahame wrote:
Generally this is the sort of statement made by someone that's simply not competent at turning out SOOC adequately 'acceptable for purpose' images.
In this kind of general topic discussion I assume a default 'purpose' to always require the best possible IQ unless otherwise specified.
Joe
Jun 23, 2020 01:13:52 #
Ysarex wrote:
Sorry about that; Less technical image quality.
To what are you referring to exactly with respect to the word "technical" within this sentence "Less technical image quality".
Ysarex wrote:
In this kind of general topic discussion I assume a default 'purpose' to always require the best possible IQ unless otherwise specified.
I'll await your definition 'specific' to the statement above.
Jun 23, 2020 01:16:53 #
Don't think that just because you've made it to the next level of photography that the RAW naysayers will just disappear ...
Jun 23, 2020 11:04:08 #
Ysarex
Loc: St. Louis
Grahame wrote:
To what are you referring to exactly with respect to the word "technical" within this sentence "Less technical image quality".
To what are you referring to exactly with respect to the word "technical" within this sentence "Less technical image quality".
One at a time:
Specifically in digital photography, the strongest possible signal produces the best technical image quality. Often talked about in terms of SNR; "Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is used in imaging to characterize image quality." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal-to-noise_ratio_(imaging) Full utilization of the sensor's capacity returns maximum DR and the lowest possible noise.
The weaker the signal the more the overall IQ is degraded.
To shoot SOOC JPEGs with today's modern cameras you must accept a weaker signal (compared with shooting raw) and so the IQ loss that comes with it = settling for less.
Joe
Jun 23, 2020 23:48:06 #
how well do you know your camera? any good camera has so many setting combos that it's easy to get quality jpegs. it's about a lot of shooting and recor
Jun 24, 2020 01:11:20 #
bull drink water wrote:
how well do you know your camera? any good camera has so many setting combos that it's easy to get quality jpegs. it's about a lot of shooting and recor
I don’t think anybody has said you can’t get quality jpegs. The discussion has been about the value of shooting raw vs shooting jpegs. Some feel their jpegs are good enough while others of us think that there are many situations where having the raw file to edit is a big advantage.
Jun 24, 2020 01:15:00 #
Ysarex
Loc: St. Louis
bull drink water wrote:
how well do you know your camera? any good camera has so many setting combos that it's easy to get quality jpegs. it's about a lot of shooting and recor
But no combination of any settings on any camera could have created the simple photo I took in the park and presented here in this thread one page ago: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-652065-9.html#11336331
Joe
Jun 24, 2020 01:20:05 #
Ysarex
Loc: St. Louis
SuperflyTNT wrote:
I don’t think anybody has said you can’t get quality jpegs. The discussion has been about the value of shooting raw vs shooting jpegs. Some feel their jpegs are good enough while others of us think that there are many situations where having the raw file to edit is a big advantage.
Modern cameras produce pretty good quality JPEGs. But I get so tired of this nonsense. I said this and I'm sticking by it: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-652065-9.html#11336111
If you shoot SOOC JPEG and you don't edit those JPEGs you save time but you settle for less.
If you shoot camera JPEGs and you do edit those JPEGs then you don't save time (likely to lose time) and you still settle for less.
My one GOOD reason/advantage for shooting raw is not settling for less.
Joe
Jun 24, 2020 01:27:44 #
Jun 24, 2020 03:42:30 #
Ysarex wrote:
One at a time: br br Specifically in digital phot... (show quote)
Thanks for the explanation to exactly what you were referring to and of course the 'facts' are a given to most of us. Simply, a cleaner wider data range gives us more scope to use as we wish compared to data with less of each.
What I do find perhaps 'ambiguous' within this is that you are equating it to "Image Quality" and "Technical Image Quality". "Image quality and "Technical Image Quality" are terms that are often very loosely used ranging between such things as lack of sharpness to jpeg artefacts and are also subjective with respect to their importance to each.
Jun 24, 2020 05:52:22 #
Ysarex
Loc: St. Louis
Grahame wrote:
Thanks for the explanation to exactly what you wer... (show quote)
Importance to each is what's subjective. 'Facts' are not subjective. Importance to each can be for various reasons including legitimate reasons. Error arises when someone for whom a 'fact' isn't important tries to deny the 'fact' because of their subjective assessment.
Joe
Jun 24, 2020 06:37:45 #
Ysarex wrote:
Importance to each is what's subjective. 'Facts' are not subjective. Importance to each can be for various reasons including legitimate reasons. Error arises when someone for whom a 'fact' isn't important tries to deny the 'fact' because of their subjective assessment.
Joe
Joe
Exactly.
Jul 3, 2020 20:32:15 #
Larry, anytime one saves a jpg, there is loss. Open one, look at it, close it...no loss. Open one, look at it, save it...loss.
--Bob
--Bob
larryepage wrote:
Every one of these parameters is controllable BY M... (show quote)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.