How to shoot JPEG
Feb 1, 2023 23:10:20 #
Delderby wrote:
Thanks OP for your post. I have, in the past, won Panasonic's "Photo of the Week" shooting JPG only - just to confirm what can be done with JPG. It seems to me that RAW pundits often alter their pictures away from reality - adjusting for tone etc and lighting shadows etc. And why not? whatever floats the boat! I prefer what I call "True Natural." However, I do shoot both - but I don't do action photography and I have plenty of memory cards.
Congratulation on your win.
Feb 1, 2023 23:11:38 #
Badgertale wrote:
What a great post. I will have a deeper read of it tomorrow morning. I love that there is so much to read and experiment with. Thanks!
Thanks and have fun
Feb 1, 2023 23:30:13 #
awesome14 wrote:
I never knew there was that much to think about. J... (show quote)
JPG can be edited too. If it is properly taken and of sufficient size (pixel count not filesize), it will take to editing really well.
But if the photographer actually plans to edit the image, then it is better to use RAW.
Size was actually discussed, just not delving that it was the main issue in the past as they are no longer relevant. Today, file size issues are mainly about the camera buffer and the write speed to memory.
Feb 1, 2023 23:45:30 #
ELNikkor wrote:
Shoot 90% jpegs, when an amazing scene, or very contrasty situation, add RAW.
That's my choice too.
I only use RAW when I see the need for it.
Feb 1, 2023 23:55:20 #
Retired CPO wrote:
I agree with everything said in the original post. My main reason for shooting jpegs is that I refuse to spend hours on the computer finagling photos that should be good to go almost SOOC with MINIMAL post processing. If I come across a potentially nice photo that I can't rescue using Picasa, I call it a failure and go out to try again! Always have, always will!!
As mentioned in the original post, SOOC JPEG can be enough.
But there are also instances or need where using RAW is the wiser decision. Should you encounter such occasion or need, don't limit yourself. Even hammers come in different sizes and design for different uses.
Feb 1, 2023 23:59:05 #
Longshadow wrote:
I shoot RAW+JPEG.
I peruse the JPEG shots in File Explorer.
(My wife can peruse them also. She knows how to use Explorer, but not any editors.)
If I want to do something to a shot, I edit the RAW file.
I don't edit files until I want to use them for something.
Real simple for me.
I peruse the JPEG shots in File Explorer.
(My wife can peruse them also. She knows how to use Explorer, but not any editors.)
If I want to do something to a shot, I edit the RAW file.
I don't edit files until I want to use them for something.
Real simple for me.
Feb 2, 2023 00:01:57 #
Sidwalkastronomy wrote:
128 memory cards under $30,
B and H
B and H
True, unfortunately it would not improve the buffer of the camera. Not everyone can afford the big boy toys.
Feb 2, 2023 00:25:58 #
JohnSwanda wrote:
I have spent many hours processing photos on my co... (show quote)
The main difference really is that one gets automated processing in the camera to produce JPEG, while the RAW gets processed elsewhere -to be converted to (usually)JPEG.
The main factor is that in-camera processing is preset only. Use the wrong preset and one is screwed. Whereas RAW processing can be discriminately applied and unless the RAW file itself gets corrupted, can be changed again and again.
Although many believe that RAW processed file looks better, the reality is the outcome actually depends on how good the operator is and his personal taste.
The biggest take away from using RAW is being able to save all the initial data one begins with. Like having the whole kitchen instead of just enjoying the cake.
Some people like to cook, some would cook occasionally and many others just want the cake. But let us not forget, in some picnic, bringing the kitchen is not an option.
Feb 2, 2023 00:31:00 #
Iron Sight wrote:
I shoot both. Camera is set to shoot both.
Mostly initial view in JPG and note Keepers.
Edit Keepers from RAW with Photoshop Elements.
Mostly initial view in JPG and note Keepers.
Edit Keepers from RAW with Photoshop Elements.
Feb 2, 2023 00:43:01 #
gwilliams6 wrote:
You say this isn't a raw vs jpeg thread, and then you proceed to make exactly those kinds of arguments in your thread post .
This is the third such similar UHH thread right now. Did you not see and participate in the other such threads where all this was discussed "ad nauseum" ? LOL
Cheers and best to you
This is the third such similar UHH thread right now. Did you not see and participate in the other such threads where all this was discussed "ad nauseum" ? LOL
Cheers and best to you
The post was how to get the best SOOC JPEG photo and when not use SOOC JPEG. It is not JPEG vs RAW and in every participation of JPEG vs RAW, I always say (or mean) that it is a DUMB discussion. They both have their use and place in photography and polarising to one thought and expecting others to agree is really stupid.
Cheers as well.
Feb 2, 2023 06:37:48 #
Artcameraman wrote:
Bring back Tri-X.
It really happened! I just returned from a 6-week trip to Indonesia and found two bricks of fresh Tri-X on my couch! Turns out my son, on his way out of an RIT internship with Kodak's film bundling dept., was told he could take some film if he wanted it for "batch testing". He doesn't shoot, but his older brother and I do, so he loaded up with Tri-X and T-Max 100 as Christmas gifts for us.
Feb 2, 2023 07:23:02 #
Feb 2, 2023 08:38:24 #
ELNikkor wrote:
It really happened! I just returned from a 6-week trip to Indonesia and found two bricks of fresh Tri-X on my couch! Turns out my son, on his way out of an RIT internship with Kodak's film bundling dept., was told he could take some film if he wanted it for "batch testing". He doesn't shoot, but his older brother and I do, so he loaded up with Tri-X and T-Max 100 as Christmas gifts for us.
Feb 2, 2023 09:02:25 #
Delderby wrote "BUT today's JPGS are not 1990's JPGS! and I am shooting in the 2020's."
Yes, you are shooting with JPEG files that are better than ever. It will not stop here, manufacturers of softwares keep on doing research on how to continue to improve on the quality of JPEG files.
If there is something that hurts a JPEG files is further manipulation during editing. A small amount of manipulation is tolerable but even so it is better to get our act together when setting the camera for JPEG shooting. We all know that the problem is that we are dealing with a file with 8 bits of information and subtle changes in colors is always possible. I would say that when we pay attention JPEG shooting should be successful at a high rate, most probably 90% or more. Incidentally, the JPEG files from my Olympus cameras when set to Super Fine quality are outstanding files with beautiful colors if the colors were set to Natural.
RAW data records more information because the camera does not process the data like it does with JPEG. Once we edit the data unless it is saved as a RAW or a 16 bits TIFF the same process done to a JPEG applies. How much data we lose I do not really know.
I tend to use both files and when properly done I usually keep the JPEG saving all the editing.
I know a professional wedding photographer in the Miami area that only shoots JPEG. She never had a customer returning a print because it was a JPEG.
Yes, you are shooting with JPEG files that are better than ever. It will not stop here, manufacturers of softwares keep on doing research on how to continue to improve on the quality of JPEG files.
If there is something that hurts a JPEG files is further manipulation during editing. A small amount of manipulation is tolerable but even so it is better to get our act together when setting the camera for JPEG shooting. We all know that the problem is that we are dealing with a file with 8 bits of information and subtle changes in colors is always possible. I would say that when we pay attention JPEG shooting should be successful at a high rate, most probably 90% or more. Incidentally, the JPEG files from my Olympus cameras when set to Super Fine quality are outstanding files with beautiful colors if the colors were set to Natural.
RAW data records more information because the camera does not process the data like it does with JPEG. Once we edit the data unless it is saved as a RAW or a 16 bits TIFF the same process done to a JPEG applies. How much data we lose I do not really know.
I tend to use both files and when properly done I usually keep the JPEG saving all the editing.
I know a professional wedding photographer in the Miami area that only shoots JPEG. She never had a customer returning a print because it was a JPEG.
Feb 2, 2023 09:45:06 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.