• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Forums > Back > jpeg out of camera (which is good enough) ?
#11
Well, i almost always shoot exclusively RAW, I can use them almost like JPGs and whenever I need JPG files it is easy to extract.

However I surely need good camera JPG, when I have to deliver prints or give the files same day. Also note that OEM raw converter uses same JPG engine as the camera so when the camera has good JPG you will expect also good jpg files out of the RAW files.

With storage media prices that became dirt cheap, always having the RAW files isn't a bad idea.
  Reply
#12
Quote:Well, i almost always shoot exclusively RAW, I can use them almost like JPGs and whenever I need JPG files it is easy to extract.

However I surely need good camera JPG, when I have to deliver prints or give the files same day. Also note that OEM raw converter uses same JPG engine as the camera so when the camera has good JPG you will expect also good jpg files out of the RAW files.

With storage media prices that became dirt cheap, always having the RAW files isn't a bad idea.
It is incorrect, to assume that OEM RAW converters use the same "JPEG engine" as the camera does. At least for Canon, that certainly is NOT true. I doubt that it is true for most other manufacturers. 
  Reply
#13
Personally, I always shoot JPEG+RAW, on any camera, and I also adjust the jpeg-settings in-camera to my personal liking. With Canon that means slightly up on sharpening and colour, as by default the jpegs are too neutral to me. This way they look similar to Nikon jpegs Wink.

 

With the Olympus, it means they stay on default - the jpegs are truly excellent IMO. With Panasonic they need a little extra colour.

 

This way, I have acceptable jpegs at all times, and the RAWs for the special stuff, whether for corrections or otherwise.

 

I learnt the hard way that I do indeed need RAWs too - the first few months in digital, about 10 years ago already, I accidentally only shot jpegs Smile, and got bitten by a shot that required extensive work in Photoshop due to some weird reflections. What I could do was limited with the jpeg, I wish I had had the RAW back then.

 

I guess that if they like the Canon and Nikon best, wha they are saying is that they like the relative good neutral processing.

 

Kind regards, Wim

Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
Away
  Reply
#14
Quote:It is incorrect, to assume that OEM RAW converters use the same "JPEG engine" as the camera does. At least for Canon, that certainly is NOT true. I doubt that it is true for most other manufacturers.
If you are referring to DPP 4 for older cameras yes, but my own long experience with 30D and DPP says results are at least extremely similar.
  Reply
#15
Quote:If you are referring to DPP 4 for older cameras yes, but my own long experience with 30D and DPP says results are at least extremely similar.
Similar in colour tone, sure. Not similar in sharpening/ness, detail, NR.

And DPP3.x also evolved over time.

  Reply
#16
Quote:People can shoot whatever they want. I really don't care.



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

      "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."

 

 Where's the rubbishing of Jpgs?

 

       I started by shooting Jpgs, they were poor at that time, they're much better now.

 

       Now I shoot RAW, why do you find that impossible?

   

     

 

   Most of the time I'm shooting at 1/1600-1/2500 sec.at F8-11, up go the ISOs, for birding it's not beneficial, on FF it's still OK, on APSc it's tougher, so straight off the bat you need all the help you can get trying not to lose detail in the feathers and shadow noise, most wildlife shooters use RAW files....... some don't!

 

  Maybe the difference is I actually enjoy  PP,  to me it's a pleasure, it's my hobby, there's nothing preposterous about it, I'm making images because I enjoy it, to me there's more to it than just taking the shot.

 

 

   I've yet to get the "I shoot RAW" T shirt though!  Big Grin  Rolleyes 

 

    

<p style="font-size:14px;"> 

 

  Reply
#17
If someone says that they shoot mainly RAW or mainly RAW+JPEG or mainly this or that, I would say "whatever".


But when someone says I shoot 100% RAW and not a single JPEG file has ever touched my memory card then it needs to be pointed out that this is preposterous.


It is equivalent to people who make absurd claims that they shoot 100% in M mode.


Without stating the obvious,100% means every single shot without exception. I am currently culling my images and am down to about 150,000.


If everyone of these were RAW, I would say to myself that there is something seriously wrong with me.
  Reply
#18
Quote:If someone says that they shoot mainly RAW or mainly RAW+JPEG or mainly this or that, I would say "whatever".


But when someone says I shoot 100% RAW and not a single JPEG file has ever touched my memory card then it needs to be pointed out that this is preposterous.


It is equivalent to people who make absurd claims that they shoot 100% in M mode.


Without stating the obvious,100% means every single shot without exception. I am currently culling my images and am down to about 150,000.


If everyone of these were RAW, I would say to myself that there is something seriously wrong with me.
 

 

  I'll take preposterous, no problem with that!  Oh and I do shoot manual too!

 

     Coincidentally,  on Flikr I created a group entitled  "Ludicrous birds" 

 

  So I guess I'll call myself  "The absurdly preposterous ludicrous bird photographer"........

 

                ........rolls straight off the tongue right?

 

  Hmmm.....  would have liked to have squeezed in a few more expletives.......but hey, brevity!  Big Grin  Tongue  

 

Flickr: LB.

 

https://www.flickr.com/groups/2843253@N21/

  Reply
#19
Quote: 

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.

 

 

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

 
 

I actually know a guy who shoots in RAW only and on M mode all the time. Of course he has a Sigma Art lens and he never uses JPEG, he uses TIFF even for the most basic things.
  Reply
#20
Quote:So please, stop being heroes with this I shoot 100% RAW. It's a load of nonsense.
 

I shoot 100% Raw with my old 5D because it gives visibly better results than OOC Jpgs 

in every situation and every type of light. The Jpg-Engine of the 5D is really really weak.

 

So ... no nonsense , I believe.

 

Anyhow, you asked not to emphasise or judge the way we shoot.

And what do you do next? Insult those who shoot raw!

You do excatly what you ask the others to stop doing!

May be something to think about?

 

Rainer
  Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)