[Guest]

The camera store did a This is most likely spam content of recent camera (nikon, canon, pentax, fuji, olympus, panasonic, iphone) (one from each brand) and to my surprise found nikon/canon with the best out of camera jpeg.

-

I'm curious for those of you who actually use more than 3 cameras of recent vintage and brand if this matches your finding. olympus/fuji seem to always have very high reputation for quality jpeg (esp compared to raw) but bit surprise by their finding.

-

https://youtu.be/FRQpueEvb-U

-

There is a bit of summary fo the video on fuji rumours. One caveat is that it sounds like they used the default settings which to me always undrepresented the camera peak performance.

[JJ_SO]

I didn't watch the video, because to me too often JPG fail in a challenging light situation.


Since the lazy programmers at Phase One still didn't manage to bring out their Capture One in a version which can handle compressed Fuji X-T2 raw I use JPG and those overly fat 50 MB raw files just because too often the JPGs fall short in shadows, highlights or color or the camera is just not set up properly for the current situation and I have no time to change those settings next to others I also have to take an eye on.


The JPGs I only use to organise the pictures in Aperture which is no longer maintained by even only lazy programmers.


I must say, after using the X-T2 for 2 months now, my feelings about it are not overly enthusiastic anymore. I don't see it as primarily JPG optimised.


Also, the camerastore's way of doing default set JPG and then print it, might be pragmatically appropriate, but hardly the best possible way to get out best results. And that's going for all tested cameras.

[davidmanze]

           TCS knows that these camera videos are a good form of "presence" in the photography world for their store, things are quiet on the new products front, so that gives a space to look at other aspects of imaging. The JPG vs RAW saga has it's protractors on both sides, this time it's the JPG format which has it's golden hour. 

 To me it means very little, to others maybe a lot more, it amazes me however that there still very many who just can't be bothered with the RAW file!

  

 Since ACR doesn't support the RAW D500 files, I now have to pass another step going through Adobe DNG converter, it's an additional pain in the veritable sphericals!

 

  The winner was Nikon     , although I've really no idea how good the JPGs are..... they never go to my cards!

[Studor13]

 it amazes me however that there still very many who just can't be bothered with the RAW file!

  

 ..., although I've really no idea how good the JPGs are..... they never go to my cards!

It amazes me even more that there are people who think that it is somehow important or even necessary to shoot RAW 100%.


Look, I shoot RAW when there is something I want to do with a RAW file. But when I don't have a need to shoot RAW I shoot JPEG.


For example, I want to compare how two (or ten) leses compare at the corners. On my D800 that's 25MB per file in RAW. Why would anybody in their right mind shoot RAW for this?


Is someone going to give me a medal or what?


Yesterday I went shopping with the wife. I just got the V3 and I just wanted to spend the day playing with how the camea handled whilst pretending that I was interested in going around the shopping centre. I didn't shoot one image in RAW. Why would I?


So please, stop being heroes with this I shoot 100% RAW. It's a load of nonsense.

[Guest]

Not that it is relevant but I shoot JPG+RAW. I almost never much witht he raw file but i have it in case there is a need.

[obican]

It amazes me even more that there are people who think that it is somehow important or even necessary to shoot RAW 100%.


Look, I shoot RAW when there is something I want to do with a RAW file. But when I don't have a need to shoot RAW I shoot JPEG.


For example, I want to compare how two (or ten) leses compare at the corners. On my D800 that's 25MB per file in RAW. Why would anybody in their right mind shoot RAW for this?


Is someone going to give me a medal or what?


Yesterday I went shopping with the wife. I just got the V3 and I just wanted to spend the day playing with how the camea handled whilst pretending that I was interested in going around the shopping centre. I didn't shoot one image in RAW. Why would I?


So please, stop being heroes with this I shoot 100% RAW. It's a load of nonsense.

 

There has been a lot of times when I encountered a great image without any preperation whatsoever. I had seconds to capture that moment and sometimes I had to do varying amounts of post processing on the resulting image.

 

I'd rather leave the camera on RAW+JPEG all the time than miss that one very good image.

[Brightcolours]

When I shoot images for others (the files would be for them) I usually shoot JPEG. For myself, I tend to shoot mainly RAW since you never know when you get a special image where RAW would have been preferred.

[Studor13]

I'd rather leave the camera on RAW+JPEG all the time than miss that one very good image.

 

When you leave the camera on RAW + JPEG you get a JPEG file as well. But when you shoot only RAW 100% of the time you have no choice but to deal with images and spend time post processing.

 

I find it impossible that people have every single image that is so special that it had to be shot in RAW and RAW only.

 

It is as if it is a badge of honour and that you need to tell everyone. It's like those people who have this need to stress out that they shoot 100% in M mode. It is preposterous to have this stand.

 

The wife asked me today to take a photo of a letter of hers and send it by email. She just needed some telephone numbers and the like on the letter. I shot it with my iPad and sent it without any changes.

 

But there are people on the planet, apparently, who would have shoot this with their best camera and lens, and in RAW! Really?

 

 

As a side note, let me explain some benefits of (Nikon's) JPEG:

 

- they are significantly smaller (sometimes I shoot 5000 images on a weekend)

- you can view them from your card without any special RAW decoder

- Nikon's profiles are already as good as they get 

(Nikon has a team of engineers working out the best possible JPEG files. Are people so arrogant that they think that as individuals they can do a better job then Nikon?)

- If you don't have Nikon's camera profiles who's exactly do you use? Adobe's is good but I think that Nikon's propriety algorithms are just a bit better)

- having a JPEG already gives you a great starting point when you work on the RAW (for comparisons)

- having JPEGs allow you to stitch panoramas quickly for inspection. You can then use RAW files to extract richer details

 

There are more reasons but from my experience I can say that there is nothing wrong with shooting JPEG.

[davidmanze]

  For general shooting of landscapes and family scenes I probably wouldn't need to shoot RAW.(but I do anyway).

  I shoot uniquely RAW because I shoot mainly birds, often bright white ones set against backgrounds that are very dark if exposed for the bird, that requires at least -1 stop exposure maybe more. Maybe I'll shoot 200 shots or more when I'm out for the day, and I'll be happy if I use/post three or four.

  For my part I can't imagine shooting 5,000 pics in a day and keeping them, after a year or two of that you'll have zillions, will you ever look at them?

 I enjoy PP and often spend 2-3 hours processing just one shot,often 15-20 adjustment brush pins, some lightening some adding contrast and holding back the whites, colour, noise reduction, I want it right.....hey but that's me, I'm really only interested in my better shots.

 

  Here's a shot that I took of an egret through leaves and branches heavily cropped and PPed, I'm not claiming it's an art work or the like, but before processing it just wasn't a shot at all.

 

   The deal is we are all different and do different things, otherwise we would all like the most beautiful woman on the planet and only one of us would get her, beauty turns up in all shapes and sizes and just as well!

[Studor13]

People can shoot whatever they want. I really don't care.


But if the topic is about JPEG and someone needs to say "I shoot 100% RAW and I don't understand why people are shooting JPEG" then I'm gonna tell them that they need to post their opinions in another thread.


Instead of rubbishing JPEG why not try for yourself. I am certain you will be surprised.


For some strange reason there seems to be this train of thought that JPEG files can't be worked on. You can do a lot!


Not as much as a RAW file, obviously, but if you have captured the entire dynamic range you can do wonders.


And with modern bodies like the D800 the dynamic range is really impressive, especially when used with ADL.