Interesting article about shooting JPG...

kelly1

http://www.michaelfurtman.com/jpeg_myths.htm

Would like to hear some views.

Borderfox

I use jpg most of the time, weddings I shoot in RAW but I would be just as happy to shoot in jpeg and I might switch over in the future. All my RDS Horse show work was shot in jpeg and this is going to magazines.

charybdis

Sweet Jesus.

The goggles, they do nothing.

This is exactly the scenario for which Readability was made.

edit:

Now that my visual cortices have recovered, I've read the article and it's terrible. Most of the guy's argument revolves around him not understanding lossy compression and assuming others have an even worse understanding of it than he does. His comments about exposure latitude lack any countenance of subtleties like the effect of reduced bit depth as opposed to the amount of recoverable shadow/highlight information.

Arguably, there are reasons to use JPEG; these aren't them.

stcstc

well having had a quik read

there are one or two points he makes that does make sense, but theres a whole lot of bluff there too. for example he has fallen into the trap of suggesting using AdobeRGB for everything. I personally dont belive in doing this. for example for portraits i actually think you get better results from sRGB. theres maths behind why but will explain if someone wants to know

he also has neglected to talk about some of the more subtle apsects of raw files that are very important. for example the fact that most moden cameras shoot at least 12 if not 14bit raw files, this is a huge ammount for range for starters

not to mention he neglected to talk about colour and whitebalance

his prinicple of both formats have their uses is true, but his hype it just that i belive

kelly1

He has good tip there about turning off jpg processing.

kelly1

stcstc wrote: »

well having had a quik read

there are one or two points he makes that does make sense, but theres a whole lot of bluff there too. for example he has fallen into the trap of suggesting using AdobeRGB for everything. I personally dont belive in doing this. for example for portraits i actually think you get better results from sRGB. theres maths behind why but will explain if someone wants to know

he also has neglected to talk about some of the more subtle apsects of raw files that are very important. for example the fact that most moden cameras shoot at least 12 if not 14bit raw files, this is a huge ammount for range for starters

not to mention he neglected to talk about colour and whitebalance

his prinicple of both formats have their uses is true, but his hype it just that i belive

Yes very true about a greater dynamic range with jpgs and you have to get your exposure, white balance fairly accurate in camera. But I don't think it makes sense to shoot RAW exclusively.

melekalikimaka

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes very true about a greater dynamic range with jpgs and you have to get your exposure, white balance fairly accurate in camera. But I don't think it makes sense to shoot RAW exclusively.

If you care enough about the images you take and you arent on a deadline(like borderfox) theres imo no excuse not to shoot raw, the only people i know who shoot jpeg not on deadlines are people who dint understand raw processing or are too lazy to learn, and the laziness reflects in their images in general

kelly1

charybdis wrote: »

Now that my visual cortices have recovered, I've read the article and it's terrible. Most of the guy's argument revolves around him not understanding lossy compression and assuming others have an even worse understanding of it than he does.

Of course there is some loss but if you use Lightroom or similar, you don't modify the original image.

charybdis wrote: »

His comments about exposure latitude lack any countenance of subtleties like the effect of reduced bit depth as opposed to the amount of recoverable shadow/highlight information.

But you can't recover blown high-lights anyway? If you don't plan on doing heavy levels adjustments, jpgs aren't too bad.

stcstc

well it depends what you mean by blown

if you mean by looking at the histogram on your camera then yes you can recover around 1.5 stops depending on the camera

this is where the extra range comes in, as the jpg is only 8 bits ( and actually thats where the histogram comes from and not the raw) you are loosing a huge ammount of data, which equates to range basically (although this is me being simplistic)

so if you have an image where the highlights look blown normally you will be able to recover from the raw.

charybdis

kelly1 wrote: »

Of course there is some loss but if you use Lightroom or similar, you don't modify the original image.

Lightroom displays an image based around a list of adjustments stored in metadata so the recompression only happens when you export the image, which is effectively copying it and then applying the changes in the smartest way possible. Lightroom saves people from themselves (at least some of the time).

kelly1 wrote: »

But you can't recover blown high-lights anyway?

Not to the same degree you could with a raw file and at the expense of visible dynamic range. Also, highlight recovery so that they look natural is almost never possible, the best you can usually do is improve the rolloff.

kelly1 wrote: »

If you don't plan on doing heavy levels adjustments, jpgs aren't too bad.

JPEGs aren't awful, but they've a lot less flexibility than raw files for post processing. Saying JPEGs aren't too bad for post processing is like saying a sieve isn't too bad for drinking from.

smelltheglove

There may be one or two points in there but I wouldnt agree with it on a whole. Borderfox is a prime example as to why jpeg can be used, obviously with his vast experience he would find it easy enough to get each image spot on when doing his shows, no hassles and needs a quick turnaround time also. Im sure even PCPhoto may use jpeg for work when under a deadline but I agree that when not under a deadline Raw should be used.

One example, when I am taking pictures at a wedding I have my camera set to manual so each exposure is the same. The biggest culprit for me is the signing of the register, this is the moment when the guests get snap happy and crowd around me taking photographs, I could have 3 photographs one after another, settings exactly the same but on the second image another camera flashes at the same time and blows out part of my image as I generally have my flash set low, if I really like the expressions in this image I can usually recover with raw, if I shot in jpeg the image would be entirely lost. I feel it is my duty to my client to ensure they get the best on their big day, this means I need to allow for issues like this so RAW all the way!

kelly1

stcstc wrote: »

well it depends what you mean by blown

I mean where the high-light detail is lost because the dynamic range is exceeded.

stcstc wrote: »

this is where the extra range comes in, as the jpg is only 8 bits ( and actually thats where the histogram comes from and not the raw) you are loosing a huge ammount of data, which equates to range basically (although this is me being simplistic)

OK, so the true histogram for a raw file will be different to what you see on the the camera? Wasn't aware of that.

Apparently 8 bits was chosen for jpg because using a higher number of bits doesn't give any discernible tonal variation. Of couse this all changes when you start adjusting levels.

stcstc wrote: »

so if you have an image where the highlights look blown normally you will be able to recover from the raw.

Thanks, didn't know that. So how do you know if you've actually blown it with raw?

stcstc

actully the wedding example is a good one

if you were to shoot a wedding in jpg, it would be hard to keep the colour and whitbalance correct thoughout the day ( i am sure there are people that can)

but with raw, managing things like skintones is much more flexible.

i hate seeing wedding photos where the colour of both the brides dress and skintones change throughout the album!!!!

smelltheglove

Another very good point by Steve, wb is a nightmare and at the end of the day, do you really want to be holding up a bride and groom trying to get the wb perfect every time you change room or location.... no as long as you get it close enough you can tweak it later and focus on the more important things at the time.

kelly1

smelltheglove wrote: »

Another very good point by Steve, wb is a nightmare and at the end of the day, do you really want to be holding up a bride and groom trying to get the wb perfect every time you change room or location.... no as long as you get it close enough you can tweak it later and focus on the more important things at the time.

There's no way I'd use jpg for a wedding! I was tasked with taking photos for a marathon recently and took 1000 shots. That would be 20GB of raw files and I only have 1 8GB card...

I just don't agree with people who say that raw should always be used.

smelltheglove

I always use raw, having said that I usually need to, i.e. paid work by clients expecting the best with no urgent deadline. I cant even use jpeg for family pictures as I notice it myself, its like an addiction but yes jpeg can be used in a lot of situations.

Re. your 8gb card, I dont even use 8 gb, I use multiple 4gb, if my camera gets stolen on the way home, at least I have only lost some of the images! If like the unfortunate guy in the video posted here recently I fall into some water and damage my camera, again only part of the images are lost!

Borderfox

You can also shoot in both formats and if the jpeg is good enough delete the raw if the jpeg is not then use the raw, everybody's happy including Sandisk...

TinyExplosions

melekalikimaka wrote: »

If you care enough about the images you take and you arent on a deadline(like borderfox) theres imo no excuse not to shoot raw, the only people i know who shoot jpeg not on deadlines are people who dint understand raw processing or are too lazy to learn, and the laziness reflects in their images in general

Agreed -if you have to get images into the paper as quickly as possible and you won't be adjusting them too much in post, go for Jpeg, if you want maximum flexability, use RAW -memory cards are cheap!

Borderfox wrote: »

You can also shoot in both formats and if the jpeg is good enough delete the raw if the jpeg is not then use the raw, everybody's happy including Sandisk...

That's probably the best idea -then you have the best of both worlds, and little baby Sandisk can co to college

Morrisseeee

The thing about JPG though is that you had better get it RIGHT first time, otherwise there isn't much of a comeback. In RAW you have total control and alot of 'errors' can be adjusted without grossly deteriorating the image.

Cameraman

In the article he says this :

"It is important that you preserve the integrity of your JPEG file. In addition to insuring that your retain the original file without over-writing it (make alterations to a copy), it is wise to turn off any in-camera processing, such as sharpening, contrast, and hue adjustments. Not only should you make these modifications in Photoshop, where you can do a more precise job, you want as "clean" a JPEG file as possible. Any processing done in-camera to a JPEG file can not be undone. Most dSLRs will allow you to turn off in-camera processing, although some point-and-shoot digital cameras will not."

The JPEG you get from your camera is - by definition - processed. You can make some adjustments to the in-camera processing - but it's still a processed version of the RAW file your camera produces. You cannot remove all the processing. So, if you follow his argument to its logical conclusion - why not remove all the in-camera processing - and use RAW files only. Then you can do a more precise job of turning the RAW file into a JPEG and adding any necessary adjustments.

The only situation where I think there is an actual real advantage to using JPEG vs RAW is for situations such as event photography, especially where you want to go to print quickly.

Thecageyone

JPEGS are grand for you family shots, messing about and shooting nothing serious, where you don't plan on doing much, if any, PP.

I made the mistake of shooting a gig the other week in Jpeg. I have 2 4GB CF cards but shooting RAW I do find I'll fill them very quickly - and I was taking pics from 3pm - 1am! I needed to be sure I had enough space. It was a silly move in the end as I found next day at the pc. I had left the LCD on +2 brightness, so when shooting I thought I was getting nice light, but they were all well underexposed, dark and dreary. The WB was all over the shop, band members had horrible orange and blue toned skin etc ... I just wished I'd shot in RAW so the fixes would be much quicker and more basic. I had to process the bejaysis out of all images worth keeping in the end.

If you've got the space, there's no reason NOT to shoot RAW. To save some a better idea would be to reduce the Image sizes and keep it in RAW.

kelly1

OK, OK, OK, ye win!

I admit it, I don't like waiting around for Lightroom to convert my CR2s to DNG. And I backup my files to DVD and I can only fit about 300 shots on a DVD. Time to buy and external hard drive...

Thanks for all the comments!

jpb1974

I don't like waiting around for Lightroom to convert my CR2s to DNG

Then don't bother converting to DNG... simples.

Thecageyone

One thing I do soon as I stick the card into the pc is a ruthless weed out! Delete anything that I just know I won't use. Breaking it down to only keepers makes processing in Lightroom a hell of a lot more pleasant. I've also learned to c&p settings over to the following file in sequence, taken in the same place/lighting - sometimes they only require light tweaks after that.

kelly1

Sorry, what's c&p?

Thecageyone

kelly1 wrote: »

Sorry, what's c&p?

Copy & paste. Lower left in Lightroom, when developing, there's buttons for both. After tweaking an image you can copy all or a selection of the settings and paste them onto the next image It's not always going to be spot on, as I said, some minor tweaks will be needed if there's any change in lighting/exposure etc ... but it's a lot faster than starting every image from scratch.

mrboswell

melekalikimaka wrote: »

If you care enough about the images you take and you arent on a deadline(like borderfox) theres imo no excuse not to shoot raw, the only people i know who shoot jpeg not on deadlines are people who dint understand raw processing or are too lazy to learn, and the laziness reflects in their images in general

I would be of the same opinion as borberfox, but what you say kind of implies that people can't really get a good enough picture from their cameras. It is understandable that colour correction might be required but it should be possible to get very close to the perfect exposure?? Of course there will always be an exceptional circumstances.

Jpeg is fine.
If sooting raw was that important then surely everyone would be doing it - including people under time restraints.

melekalikimaka

mrboswell wrote: »

I would be of the same opinion as borberfox, but what you say kind of implies that people can't really get a good enough picture from their cameras. It is understandable that colour correction might be required but it should be possible to get very close to the perfect exposure?? Of course there will always be an exceptional circumstances.

Jpeg is fine.
If sooting raw was that important then surely everyone would be doing it - including people under time restraints.

I think almost everyone does shoot raw, those that don't merely haven't seen the light

Fionn

mission critical stuff - i shoot RAW + L sometimes sRAW + L/M (always have both formats going) usually theres very little difference! except WB sometimes. perhaps thats something to do with the sensor size on the camera - i don't know.

Infrared - Always RAW

all other stuff - jpeg

Cameraman

mrboswell wrote: »

If sooting raw was that important then surely everyone would be doing it -

Everyone is ! Some people just choose to throw it away

charybdis

It bares repeating that the there are reasons to use raw other than as a safety net or to "fix" things in post. Yes, you can get it right in-camera and use JPEG, but you can also get it right in-camera and use raw.

Whether or not you should use raw is very simple: if you're going to post-process an image: use raw; if you're not going to post-process an image: use JPEG.

sineadw

Printers now also support 16bit files. Another reason not to shoot jpeg..

CabanSail

I shoot RAW nearly all the time. The exceptions are when I will be loading a record shot straight to the net and also when I was shooting a Marathon (21000 RAW images would take just too much memory and it was the company spec)

That article was written back in 2005 when this was more of a debate.

Adriatic

Another advantage of RAW is the ability to make a HDR from one RAW image instead of three jpegs. (yes I know it's a pseudo HDR but still)