Beginner I think I prefer JPG to Raw..Please dont kill me!

Nod said:
When speed is of the essence, as in sending shots into the desk from pitchside, there's little doubt that JPEGs are faster, as said by Kipax there.
Click to expand...

Yes. And that's just about the only time when shooting to JPEG is essential, when outputting direct from the camera, with no time or no access to a PC.

The doubters should remember that only a few years ago we all shot JPEGs because memory cards were small capacity and very expensive. My first card was £100 for 1gb and dog slow, my latest card was £25 for a very fast 32gb.

There's a lot of talk about lost data with JPEGs, which is true. Top of that list for me is the loss of at least one stop of highlights that are simply chopped off and lost. Try it - shoot anything with a wide dynamic range from highlight to shadows, in JPEG and Raw. Then process the Raw, and spend just a few seconds pulling down the highlights a tad to retain them, and lift the shadows to show some of the detail hidden down there. See which you prefer :)

Edit: tweak overall exposure and colour while you're at it. This is the kind of simple polish that can be used to differentiate DSLR images from iPhone snaps.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Yes. And that's just about the only time when shooting to JPEG is essential, when outputting direct from the camera, with no time or no access to a PC.
Click to expand...

That and

Client requirements
Buffer limitations
Software limitations - it's only a couple of years ago that Adobe wasn't able to properly process RAW files coming out of some of the Fuji models.
 
DemiLion said:
That and

Client requirements
Buffer limitations
Software limitations - it's only a couple of years ago that Adobe wasn't able to properly process RAW files coming out of some of the Fuji models.
Click to expand...

Yes, I forgot buffer limitations. In continuous shooting mode, quite a lot of cameras will lock up with the buffer filled after only a handful of Raw frames. Fast memory cards don't help with this, though they will clear the buffer much more quickly.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Yes. And that's just about the only time when shooting to JPEG is essential, when outputting direct from the camera, with no time or no access to a PC.

The doubters should remember that only a few years ago we all shot JPEGs because memory cards were small capacity and very expensive. My first card was £100 for 1gb and dog slow, my latest card was £25 for a very fast 32gb.

There's a lot of talk about lost data with JPEGs, which is true. Top of that list for me is the loss of at least one stop of highlights that are simply chopped off and lost. Try it - shoot anything with a wide dynamic range from highlight to shadows, in JPEG and Raw. Then process the Raw, and spend just a few seconds pulling down the highlights a tad to retain them, and lift the shadows to show some of the detail hidden down there. See which you prefer :)

Edit: tweak overall exposure and colour while you're at it. This is the kind of simple polish that can be used to differentiate DSLR images from iPhone snaps.
Click to expand...

On my newly acquired DSLR I do all of that to my RAW files with contrast adjustments etc also, and I am really pleased by the quality of the final results..
 
pjm1 said:
Yup - it's probably having a play with your camera import apps to see if it can import from raw to tiff before "investing" in PS. Making two big changes to your workflow at once is less likely to feel like the right answer!!
Click to expand...

Hey Paul

I thought the idea was "shoot raw" open it in PS (I don't do apps) adjust WB save it as a jpeg (or tiff if you intend messing with it endlessly) then do other edits inc. cloning.

Currently I shoot jpeg, view it in Picasa3 where I might crop/straighten/sharpen. If I need to go further I copy&paste it into Paint.net and/or Gimp ... they both have tools I like. The original is on my PC, and the edited is named and saved as something different. The only downside really is that you lose the EXIF when copy&pasting from one prog to another. But this EXIF is only for the benefit of others viewing my work on the net.

I've got Nikon Capture NX-D for RAW WB whatever but got bored because copy&pasting seems an impossibility. I like to work quickly using a number of different editors. Having said that, I can have an image half "processed" open on my machine for a week before deciding how I want to finish it.
 
jonbeeza said:
On my newly acquired DSLR I do all of that to my RAW files with contrast adjustments etc also, and I am really pleased by the quality of the final results..
Click to expand...

Yes, quite a few new cameras have on-board Raw post-processing. It's obviously not as extensive as on a PC, and it can be a bit of a fiddle, but it does the basics well.
 
HoppyUK said:
Yes, quite a few new cameras have on-board Raw post-processing. It's obviously not as extensive as on a PC, and it can be a bit of a fiddle, but it does the basics well.
Click to expand...
For when I am at the PC I do use the Capture NX-D Nikon RAW converter, does a pretty good job and simple to use.
 
jonbeeza said:
For when I am at the PC I do use the Capture NX-D Nikon RAW converter, does a pretty good job and simple to use.
Click to expand...

CNX-D interprets Nikon nef files well and being able to work "in software" with the picture controls is a great help. Many hate CNX-D though, and certainly it could be better. It does a good job, but it lacks the power of ACR in the area of selective editing.
 
Travelling Man said:
CNX-D interprets Nikon nef files well and being able to work "in software" with the picture controls is a great help. Many hate CNX-D though, and certainly it could be better. It does a good job, but it lacks the power of ACR in the area of selective editing.
Click to expand...
I do like using Capture NX-D just been converting more files this morning, my old PC finds it a little struggle to run the software, but so long as I just convert one file at a time it is OK.
 
I shoot jpg if I'm doing a lot of burst shots and know that I won't have to worry about pulling back detail etc as I need the buffer in my camera to clear faster.
 
Last edited:
pjm1 said:
Someone should write a song about that. It could be quite catchy...

<strolls off humming The Doors>
Click to expand...

People are strange (when you're a stranger) and there were quite a few ugly faces in Tesco this morning, though it wasn't raining. Something like that, you mean?

I bet Jim Morrison would have used .xcf or something like it to save his images.
 
Just remember, they ALL end up as JPG. Only difference is how much you want to edit before the final image is posted.
 
Craig Shue said:
Just remember, they ALL end up as JPG. Only difference is how much you want to edit before the final image is posted.
Click to expand...
We're not talking about that though, we talking shooting formats, huge difference there.
 
Craig Shue said:
Just remember, they ALL end up as JPG. Only difference is how much you want to edit before the final image is posted.
Click to expand...


Ever heard of TIFF or PNG or PSD or PDF or God forbid, BMP?

Jpeg is not the only fruit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top