raw converted jpegs vs camera shot jpegs

[mudman]

i have been thing about my issue of needing to convert raw files to jpeg for ps pp
do jpegs produced in raw converters have a higher dynamic range than jpegs shot in camera?
if they don't why shoot RAW?
cheers

[ameerat42]

Dynamic range (DR), as such, does not apply in the case of files, Muddie.
That is a property of sensors, monitors, audio speakers, AND film (as it's a sensor), etc.

Files have what's called "bit depth", which can be "sort of thought of" as representing DR.

Now, a jpeg has a bit depth of 8, - ie, it can differentiate between and store "8 bits" (or levels) of image information.
A raw file can be "12-bit or 14-bit" (I think the K1 is 14-bit).

The important reason for the "quotes": you must read 8-bit etc as 2⁸, 2¹⁴, etc
That equates to 256 different tonal levels, or 4096 and 16384 levels respectively. So that leaves 256 rather
in the shade for storing info.

So a raw file can discriminate between a lot more of image level brightnesses than a jpeg can.

The ULTIMATE AIM of any imaging system (including PP done on computers) is to compress as much of
the ORIGINAL INFO into - typically for the Internet - an 8-bit display. (Some TVs have 10 and 12-bit displays.)

THE IDEA of you using the camera's raw files is so that you can have as much control as possible in achieving
the display aim.

For example, the little jpeg output shown on the camera LCD MAY shown blown highlights in the sky, BUT the raw file
will have recorded a lot more useful bright info. Same idea goes for the shadows.

That'll do from me for now...

- - - Updated - - -

PS: Oh, implicit in the foregoing is that the resulting in-camera jpegs may not be very good.
May, mind you, depending on the scene.

[feathers]

PS: Oh, implicit in the foregoing is that the resulting in-camera jpegs may not be very good.
May, mind you, depending on the scene.

Question. I'm curious. If l were to take a perfect in camera jpeg shot, would you notice any difference if a raw shot was fired simultaneously?. As l would understand it you would now have to PS the raw image to bring it up to the jpeg standard, if that makes sense and please keep your answer simple, as l have the brain of a goldfish ><> ><>

[ameerat42]

Feavvers. I tried to be careful in the statement above.

It's NOT that in-camera jpegs are intrinsically worse than a processed raw.
Rather, it's just that you get what you get, and if lighting conditions are "iffy",
you are likely to end up with some unrecoverable highlights or shadows.

I'm talking of the likes of sunrises -sets, high-contrast light and shade situations.

With those provisoes, now to your question: I'd say "probably not".

[feathers]

Feavvers. I tried to be careful in the statement above.

It's NOT that in-camera jpegs are intrinsically worse than a processed raw.
Rather, it's just that you get what you get, and if lighting conditions are "iffy",
you are likely to end up with some unrecoverable highlights or shadows.

I'm talking of the likes of sunrises -sets, high-contrast light and shade situations.

With those provisoes, now to your question: I'd say "probably not".

Thanks AM
When l youtubed some camera instructions a few years back, this chap in his concluding remarks, said jpeg was the way to go, and he basically accepted that his views might be heretical, but l think he was indicating that modern cameras get it pretty close, and you can do minor adjustments on jpeg images. I now for instance do my HDR shots in jpeg, as my laptop struggles with 36mp raw files. With portraits l shoot in both formats, and pick the best image. Cheers.

[Geoff79]

I used to shoot in RAW around 2010 to 2011. Problem was, I had no idea what to do with the RAW image, so I kept butchering them until I finally just though, why am I wasting time processing these RAW files when they're turning out 10 times worse than if I'd just taken a JPEG image in the first place?!

So I then proceeded to shoot JPEG exclusively from about 2011 to this year.

Indirectly, it was actually my return to this site that led me to give RAW another go. The moment I opened an image in Camera RAW I realised what I'd been missing.

I still think my PP is terrible, but I understand how to use ACR 100% more than I did in 2011. It is definitely a very powerful tool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MissionMan]

I think unless your post processing skills are intermediate, you don't get much benefit from raw, at least until you know what you are doing. The challenge I noticed is that the profiles in Lightroom are pretty horrible compared to most in camera JPG's so you really need to be at a position to get the best out of them. This tends to apply to a lot of areas like sharpening and noise reduction.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying don't shoot raw, I'm just saying that the results you get initially may not be much better than the JPG.

[Geoff79]

I think unless your post processing skills are intermediate, you don't get much benefit from raw, at least until you know what you are doing. The challenge I noticed is that the profiles in Lightroom are pretty horrible compared to most in camera JPG's so you really need to be at a position to get the best out of them. This tends to apply to a lot of areas like sharpening and noise reduction.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying don't shoot raw, I'm just saying that the results you get initially may not be much better than the JPG.

I completely agree. As per my post above, if you don't have some idea of what to do with the RAW file, you can waste a lot of time working on an end product that may be vastly inferior to what you'd have come up with if you originally shot a JPEG image.

Referencing Am and Alex's discussion above, if you're 100% comfortable that you have nailed every aspect of your photo - perfect lighting and all - why not just "skip the middle man," so to speak, and go straight to the finished product, bring the JPEG file?

That said, I haven't taken a photo since I started re-using RAW images that didn't benefit from at least a little tweak or two.

That also said, come my next holiday, I'll still be shooting a lot of JPEG images, purely due to space issues on memory cards (I take a hell of a lot of photos on holidays) so I'll have to practice getting that right.

In Vanuatu, I shot everything in difficult light in RAW (all my sunrises, and overcast days) but all the general kid shots and stuff mostly JPEG. That'll probably be my pattern from now on.

Only problem is, I love lifting some of the shadows from the kids' faces in shots in direct sunlight...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[farmmax]

Question. I'm curious. If l were to take a perfect in camera jpeg shot, would you notice any difference if a raw shot was fired simultaneously?. As l would understand it you would now have to PS the raw image to bring it up to the jpeg standard, if that makes sense and please keep your answer simple, as l have the brain of a goldfish ><> ><>

If you do not have any in-camera 'picture styles' applied, (Canon, but called different names in other brands of camera), the jpg will come out looking very similar to the raw file. The Picture Style is where the camera applies sharpening, saturation, brightening, noise reduction etc. effects, to the raw file when producing a jpg for you. Most people seem to have some in camera effects turned on, so yes, then the jpg comes out of the camera with some processing done. Then, if you want your raw file to match the jpg the camera produces at the same time, I guess you would have some PP to do.

For years, I had no camera applied effects turned on, so my camera (50D) produced jpgs looking very similar to my raw files.

Many raw files already have a full size jpg embedded in them. I never figured out why anyone wanted to shoot raw + jpg, when it is extremely easy to extract the jpg already in the raw file. I just use IJFR (Instant JPG From Raw) if I need jpgs. IJFR puts an item in your Right Click Menu so you can click on a folder containing all your raw files and it extracts the jpgs to a folder very quickly. It can do 100's in a few minutes.

These days I do have Picture Styles turned on in my camera. I discovered the power of them for cutting PP time down. In canon you can create your own personal picture styles (probably in other cameras as well.) I made one which suited my processing needs. Now the jpgs in my raw files have my picture style applied to them, so if I were to extract the jpgs, they wouldn't look at all like my raw files, but come out partly processed for me.

I don't use jpgs normally, but have found a way to open my raw files in photoshop with my camera picture styles applied. Cuts down basic processing time dramatically.

Probably just confused you all the more

[feathers]

If you do not have any in-camera 'picture styles' applied, (Canon, but called different names in other brands of camera), the jpg will come out looking very similar to the raw file. The Picture Style is where the camera applies sharpening, saturation, brightening, noise reduction etc. effects, to the raw file when producing a jpg for you. Most people seem to have some in camera effects turned on, so yes, then the jpg comes out of the camera with some processing done. Then, if you want your raw file to match the jpg the camera produces at the same time, I guess you would have some PP to do.

For years, I had no camera applied effects turned on, so my camera (50D) produced jpgs looking very similar to my raw files.

Many raw files already have a full size jpg embedded in them. I never figured out why anyone wanted to shoot raw + jpg, when it is extremely easy to extract the jpg already in the raw file. I just use IJFR (Instant JPG From Raw) if I need jpgs. IJFR puts an item in your Right Click Menu so you can click on a folder containing all your raw files and it extracts the jpgs to a folder very quickly. It can do 100's in a few minutes.

These days I do have Picture Styles turned on in my camera. I discovered the power of them for cutting PP time down. In canon you can create your own personal picture styles (probably in other cameras as well.) I made one which suited my processing needs. Now the jpgs in my raw files have my picture style applied to them, so if I were to extract the jpgs, they wouldn't look at all like my raw files, but come out partly processed for me.

I don't use jpgs normally, but have found a way to open my raw files in photoshop with my camera picture styles applied. Cuts down basic processing time dramatically.

Probably just confused you all the more

What makes you say that(a good read) Thanks MM, Geoff, farmmax I just read some stuff on the net that gives jpeg a more positive representation
Tho the files are compressed and loose some information, it was shown side by side with a raw file, and you would be checking very carefully to tell the difference. It didn't knock raw files, but showed jpegs as another useful option. Processing, and file sizes has been my concern. Cheers.

[ricktas]

Another thing to remember is that RAW files do not have a colourspace. Cameras often have options to shoot in sRGB, AdobeRGB or even ProPhotoRGB. Setting this in camera only applies to any resultant jpg file. A RAW file is devoid of a colourspace.

So when you start using RAW and importing the files into your chosen RAW converter, be aware that at that time, and only at that time is the file allocated a colourspace. Now a lot of people just leave their RAW converter set to whatever colourspace it might use as default. It is something to consider that you do some research into colourspaces and determine which one you want to use, and set your RAW converter to that, having the understanding of the colourspace you have chosen and what its benefits and limitations are.

For example, if you work in your software under AdobeRGB, and then when done, save a jpg from that image. JPG saves in sRGB. A photo edited and processed in AdobeRGB then saved in sRGB(the jpg) will often look 'washed out' in the resultant jpg. This is a result of the variances in AdobeRGB and sRGB, that when you do that final save into jpg saturation and contrast lose a little of their punch.

Learning to process RAW files is a great learning curve all on it's own.

[arthurking83]

I think unless your post processing skills are intermediate, you don't get much benefit from raw .....

+1
There are so many variables at play here that the total novice can make it worse for themselves without some idea of the entire process, or some guidance.
In this instance I always advise any new people to photography(or raw) to use the manufacturer specific raw software to get a feel for what they're doing.

If you do not have any in-camera 'picture styles' applied, (Canon, but called different names in other brands of camera), the jpg will come out looking very similar to the raw file. ....

-1 here!

Actually you can't have any image shot in a camera that doesn't apply a picture style(Canon) Picture Control(Nikon).
That is, a tone curve is always applied to the image dependent on what picture style has been chosen in camera.
The alternative (of having no picture style applied) is that you would have a totally raw completely unprocessed raw image and all the tone/colour/etc would have to be done in software.
On a photography camera this is impossible.
I think(not 100% sure, but I remember reading something like this) .. you can get truly raw capable imaging devices but that they're the type usually used in some sciencey endeavour(eg. I'm pretty sure they exist in the Astro world .. where the little camera on a heat sink has no internal CPU to process such image style info.

So the camera ALWAYS processes a raw image irrespective of whether that image is written to the card as a raw file or a jpg. The processing done internally will be exactly the same to both files for that shot. If you vary any of the settings in the picture style, then that follows to the next shots with those settings.

Another thing to remember is that RAW files do not have a colourspace. ...

+ 1 .. million!

This is one of the key points as to why we prefer to shoot raw.
Strangely too tho, other reasons to shoot raw involve the white balance setting. In a jpg it's set and can't be undone. In a raw file it can be correctly altered to suit.
Weirdly too tho(and my main reason for preferring raw file types) is going back to Picture Controls(only because I'm a Nikon user).
With a jpg, once you've rendered a picture style in a specific manner, it's harder to undo that style and use another.

*extreme example is if you choose a high contrast landscape type tone curve and add more contrast to it .. you then get this image onto the computer and decide that this may look better in a lower contrast Portrait type rendering.
Impossible to get that alternate look from a jpg, whereas having shot raw mode you just hit the new picture style and it's done.
If you compare the differences between how a raw file is rendered compared to a jpg using that example they are night and day. The jpg shot in camera simply won't have the same dynamic range contained within the file as will the jpg extracted out of the raw file.
It jpg altered in this manner will just have this grey mask like rendering over it to reduce contrast and dark tones trying to look 'more grey', as opposed to the raw file where the actual dark tones will then rendered less abruptly.

This is not about push processing(well on the jpg it actually is) but it needn't have been if the shot was raw. This is more about just making an artistic choice on that image.
I'm using these picture styles all the time.
On Nikon's there's a very subtle but important(for me) difference between how 'Landscape' and 'Vivid' Picture Controls render the start point of my image. I choose, depending on the actual scene. This is almost impossible to predict out in the field at the time of shooting, unless it's a tethered situation and you're assessing the images as you shoot. Not practical. Easy solution is to remove this variable from the consciousness completely(same with white balance) and concentrate only on the important bits .. exposure, exposure latitude(ie., dynamic range available) composition.

Question. I'm curious. If l were to take a perfect in camera jpeg shot, would you notice any difference if a raw shot was fired simultaneously?. As l would understand it you would now have to PS the raw image to bring it up to the jpeg standard, if that makes sense and please keep your answer simple, as l have the brain of a goldfish ><> ><>

Very smart goldfish asking a question like that .. . but no!
You don't have to Ps anything to get bring it up to the same rendering.
The important note to absorb here is that while Adobe make some interesting* software they are a thirdparty interloper here. They don't have full access to the internal workings of the manufacturers raw file types.
** hopefully an agreeable format will be in the future too, as DNG seems to have hit a brick wall! **

Anyhow, back to the raw image needing to be PS'ed.
I've mentioned this before on numerous occasions. If you open the raw file and jpg file in the manufacturers software they will render exactly the same way.
That is, the manufacturer knows the exact rendering routine in the raw file, the camera has applied it's picture style(picture enhancement processing) to both the raw file and jpg file. Irrespective of how one tweaks the various settings in that picture style it has to be applied to the images both raw and jpg. Difference is that, on the jpg it can't be undone. it can be mildly tweaked a bit, but not undone and another style applied.
For the raw file to be rendered quickly and easily it has numerous embedded jpg file contained within the raw pixel data. You can extract that jpg out of the raw file if you want a true jpg image rendered exactly as it was in the camera and you only rely on thirdparty software(ie. no manufacturer software). Extract the jpg file from the raw and compare it to how the thirdparty software renders that raw file to see the difference. That jpg file tho is still 'hard set' with the cameras picture style settings tho.
These are the images you see on your review screen on the camera.

if you're not seeing the raw file in the same way you see the jpg file on the computer, it's simply due to the inability(or accuracy) of how the raw converter software is applying the tone curve that has been applied in camera.
AND!! .. if you don't want to rely on the manufacturer to see this same rendering method, you can create camera profiles to mimic(almost exactly) for your thirdparty raw converter. it's a tedious process, and involves some external hardware, but the thirdparty software can be 'taught' to apply the same tone curves as the camera and manufacturer raw converter both use.

If you're a Nikon user adn curious about picture styles, I have a thread I made up years ago(do a search) on using Picture Controls via Nikon's software where you can upload your own truly unique tone curve to those that Nikon supply in camera.
I've had a quick play with Canon's software too and it seems you can do similar things there too.

And to answer the question that mudman originally posed .. no! the jpg file itself won't have a higher dynamic range.
The raw file itself will have more possibility for exposure and tonal latitude which can then be applied to the jpg file .. which can then be sent to Ps for further editing.
The software used to apply this additional tonal and exposure latitude in the raw file is independent of the software used to extract this additional data(from the raw file).

.. sorry long post .. my bad!

[ameerat42]

So last night I thought about a discussion thread about various image file types
and their applications. This thread has fairly turned into that, so...

The thing I was trying to avoid is the tendency to have an X vs Y argument, because there
is little need for such, since there are reasons for using each image file type.

JPEG, after all, stands for Joint Photographic Experts Group, so they did not develop a
generally useless file format. Similarly, camera manufacturers offer a direct JPEG image
recording facility. It's just that the particular file type has some limitations. But as long as you
work within those limitations, you can use jpegs for lots of applications. One of the main ones is
to render images fairly realistically on-line.

You can use either straight jpegs or shoot raw in the camera. Hopefully, when someone advises
to shoot in raw, there are cogent reasons given. The need to record as much dynamic range from
a scene as possible being one of the basic reasons.

Back to the Experts: I am sure (not having read all the relelvant literature) that they developed JPEGs
to, in part, cover a great slather of everyday shooting situations.

I hope I have squashed any irrelevant looking bias I may have expressed above.

[MissionMan]

+1
There are so many variables at play here that the total novice can make it worse for themselves without some idea of the entire process, or some guidance.
In this instance I always advise any new people to photography(or raw) to use the manufacturer specific raw software to get a feel for what they're doing.


-1 here!

Actually you can't have any image shot in a camera that doesn't apply a picture style(Canon) Picture Control(Nikon).
That is, a tone curve is always applied to the image dependent on what picture style has been chosen in camera.
The alternative (of having no picture style applied) is that you would have a totally raw completely unprocessed raw image and all the tone/colour/etc would have to be done in software.
On a photography camera this is impossible.
I think(not 100% sure, but I remember reading something like this) .. you can get truly raw capable imaging devices but that they're the type usually used in some sciencey endeavour(eg. I'm pretty sure they exist in the Astro world .. where the little camera on a heat sink has no internal CPU to process such image style info.

So the camera ALWAYS processes a raw image irrespective of whether that image is written to the card as a raw file or a jpg. The processing done internally will be exactly the same to both files for that shot. If you vary any of the settings in the picture style, then that follows to the next shots with those settings.



+ 1 .. million!

This is one of the key points as to why we prefer to shoot raw.
Strangely too tho, other reasons to shoot raw involve the white balance setting. In a jpg it's set and can't be undone. In a raw file it can be correctly altered to suit.
Weirdly too tho(and my main reason for preferring raw file types) is going back to Picture Controls(only because I'm a Nikon user).
With a jpg, once you've rendered a picture style in a specific manner, it's harder to undo that style and use another.

*extreme example is if you choose a high contrast landscape type tone curve and add more contrast to it .. you then get this image onto the computer and decide that this may look better in a lower contrast Portrait type rendering.
Impossible to get that alternate look from a jpg, whereas having shot raw mode you just hit the new picture style and it's done.
If you compare the differences between how a raw file is rendered compared to a jpg using that example they are night and day. The jpg shot in camera simply won't have the same dynamic range contained within the file as will the jpg extracted out of the raw file.
It jpg altered in this manner will just have this grey mask like rendering over it to reduce contrast and dark tones trying to look 'more grey', as opposed to the raw file where the actual dark tones will then rendered less abruptly.

This is not about push processing(well on the jpg it actually is) but it needn't have been if the shot was raw. This is more about just making an artistic choice on that image.
I'm using these picture styles all the time.
On Nikon's there's a very subtle but important(for me) difference between how 'Landscape' and 'Vivid' Picture Controls render the start point of my image. I choose, depending on the actual scene. This is almost impossible to predict out in the field at the time of shooting, unless it's a tethered situation and you're assessing the images as you shoot. Not practical. Easy solution is to remove this variable from the consciousness completely(same with white balance) and concentrate only on the important bits .. exposure, exposure latitude(ie., dynamic range available) composition.



Very smart goldfish asking a question like that .. . but no!
You don't have to Ps anything to get bring it up to the same rendering.
The important note to absorb here is that while Adobe make some interesting* software they are a thirdparty interloper here. They don't have full access to the internal workings of the manufacturers raw file types.
** hopefully an agreeable format will be in the future too, as DNG seems to have hit a brick wall! **

Anyhow, back to the raw image needing to be PS'ed.
I've mentioned this before on numerous occasions. If you open the raw file and jpg file in the manufacturers software they will render exactly the same way.
That is, the manufacturer knows the exact rendering routine in the raw file, the camera has applied it's picture style(picture enhancement processing) to both the raw file and jpg file. Irrespective of how one tweaks the various settings in that picture style it has to be applied to the images both raw and jpg. Difference is that, on the jpg it can't be undone. it can be mildly tweaked a bit, but not undone and another style applied.
For the raw file to be rendered quickly and easily it has numerous embedded jpg file contained within the raw pixel data. You can extract that jpg out of the raw file if you want a true jpg image rendered exactly as it was in the camera and you only rely on thirdparty software(ie. no manufacturer software). Extract the jpg file from the raw and compare it to how the thirdparty software renders that raw file to see the difference. That jpg file tho is still 'hard set' with the cameras picture style settings tho.
These are the images you see on your review screen on the camera.

if you're not seeing the raw file in the same way you see the jpg file on the computer, it's simply due to the inability(or accuracy) of how the raw converter software is applying the tone curve that has been applied in camera.
AND!! .. if you don't want to rely on the manufacturer to see this same rendering method, you can create camera profiles to mimic(almost exactly) for your thirdparty raw converter. it's a tedious process, and involves some external hardware, but the thirdparty software can be 'taught' to apply the same tone curves as the camera and manufacturer raw converter both use.

If you're a Nikon user adn curious about picture styles, I have a thread I made up years ago(do a search) on using Picture Controls via Nikon's software where you can upload your own truly unique tone curve to those that Nikon supply in camera.
I've had a quick play with Canon's software too and it seems you can do similar things there too.

And to answer the question that mudman originally posed .. no! the jpg file itself won't have a higher dynamic range.
The raw file itself will have more possibility for exposure and tonal latitude which can then be applied to the jpg file .. which can then be sent to Ps for further editing.
The software used to apply this additional tonal and exposure latitude in the raw file is independent of the software used to extract this additional data(from the raw file).

.. sorry long post .. my bad!

Only thing I would disagree with is the white balance. Technically yes, but there are a number of ways to work around this and you can still adjust the white balance with the dropper so it gives you some level of customisation, just not to the degree of RAW although most novices wouldn't know the difference.

- - - Updated - - -

So last night I thought about a discussion thread about various image file types
and their applications. This thread has fairly turned into that, so...

The thing I was trying to avoid is the tendency to have an X vs Y argument, because there
is little need for such, since there are reasons for using each image file type.

JPEG, after all, stands for Joint Photographic Experts Group, so they did not develop a
generally useless file format. It's just that the particular file type has some limitations.
But as long as you work within those limitations, you can use jpegs for lots of applications.
One of the main ones is to render images fairly realistically on-line.

You can use either straight jpegs or shoot raw in the camera. Hopefully, when someone advises
to shoot in raw, there are cogent reasons given. The need to record as much dynamic range from
a scene being one of the basic reasons.

Back to the Experts: I am sure (not having read all the relelvant literature) that they developed JPEGs
to, in part, cover a great slather of everyday shooting situations.

I hope I have squashed any irrelevant looking bias I may have expressed above.

I think JPG vs RAW will inevitably turn into that although it's not a heated debate area like mirrorless vs DSLR. (It might be for Ken Rockwell though). I think it's a little more clearcut from a benefits perspective so there tends to be less of a problem with it.

As an example, I shoot RAW+JPG to two separate cards, in many cases I find the JPG's usable for quick posts (facebook etc) but I have to say JPG in camera processing is improving at a rapid rate and I think the photos we get today from the in camera jpg are so much better than the past.

[arthurking83]

Only thing I would disagree with is the white balance. Technically yes, ....

Have to completely disagree there tho.
If the WB isn't too far out, WB on a jpg file isn't white balance it's simple colour manipulation. I think Ps call it channel swapping or whatever.
But it's not white balance.
You can really only see the differences if your WB as shot is monumentally out of whack. (yeah I had to much time back in the day, and did the tests).

But if you accidentally shoot in say Incandescent WB mode and it's Shady and you're shooting jpg, there are enough differences in the jpg compared to the raw file to notice.
If you set K temperature at one extreme(eg. 10000K) and try to adjust to 2000K on the jpg, you just get posterization if you try to make the vivid orange scene(@ 10000K) grey(2000K) again.

when the WB variance is very mild(ie. you shoot autoWB) I couldn't detect much difference between the jpg and raw files being edited only on WB tho .. so in that sense, we're in agreement.

issue is if you set WB and shoot jpg, and forget to reset wb for a completely different scene type.
eg. you've shot WB set to Shade(or 8000K) and then the next shoot you're indoors and under fluoro/incandescent/led type lights and have forgotten to switch to an appropriate WB value. The edit may look OK-ish, but compared to the same edit on the raw file, it's not.

[MissionMan]

Which is why I said "technically". The reality for most beginners shooting jpg is their knowledge of white balance will be fairly confined so I don't see them manually setting wb in the field or doing much more than a minor adjustment. In camera wb isn't drastically off in 99% of cases and the 1% they probably wouldn't know why it's off.

In short, for a beginner to start doing basic wb adjustments in jpg is fine and once it becomes too limiting, they are probably better off shooting raw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[feathers]

Thanks ricktas, arthur,MM,AM. Appreciated Some good reasoning and information. Cheers.

[ricktas]

Back to the Experts: I am sure (not having read all the relelvant literature) that they developed JPEGs
to, in part, cover a great slather of everyday shooting situations.

I hope I have squashed any irrelevant looking bias I may have expressed above.

if you look into the history of the Joint Photographic Experts Group, they were tasked with finding a way to compress image files to allow them to be more readily transported over the interwebs. Remember when we had 14.4kb dial-up modems.. and then a couple of years later we reached the mecca of modems when 56kb modem were released. When we would dial into the internet (and lose phone services) and wait 5-10 minutes for a web page to load?

The JPEG group were primarily tasked with finding a way to make image files smaller so they could be sent over this new fangled interwebs thing.. faster. Now they knew that they could not suddenly bring an NBN into the world, way back in the 1970's and early 1980's. So they knew they had to make the image files smaller to get them moved around the net faster. So with that they developed a way to remove some data from an image file and thus make it smaller.

So they created JPEG.. file format. Which did what they wanted, it made image files smaller. Butttt... not small enough.. so they set about making it so that every time you resaved the image file it would get smaller cause each time you saved it, more data was gathered up and chucked out. and Voila they worked out a way to get that 400kb jpg file down to 50kb and it would send to their science friend in a lab at the other side of the room... faster.

For these boffins, image quality was not the goal.. filesize was.. and as such, JPG even today suffer from repeated saving and filesize reduction, till they get to the point where photographers go ... yuk... which is often way before regular joe mc lab tech goes yuk...

JPG is a great format, and has been lauded far and wide for what it can do. But we must always remember it was primarily designed to make files smaller and that to do so, it chucks image data away.

I have no issue with anyone using jpg, as long as they know, understand and accept that they are using a format that is destroying some of the original image data.. never to be gotten back. If you know that and are happy, then by all means use it.

[ameerat42]

Muddie. I just saw this...
https://www.on1.com/promo/photo-raw-...SAAEgIzbvD_BwE

It's the "free" beta version at present. Just FYI.

[mudman]

THANKS AM. i am downloading it now.
will let you know how it goes
cheers