My opinion.

[ColytonJohn]

Re: My opinion.

I hope this was OK but I grabbed this one from your Flickr page and made some quick adjustments in Lightroom (but DPP would have done it just as easily).

The original. A nicely composed image but not level and with that 'out-of-camera' dullness'

29562948812_30b680878d_o.jpg

After less than 30 seconds editing:
29562948812_30b680878d_o.jpg

All I did was:
1. Straighten the wonky horizon (unless mounted and levelled on a tripod all images will need this to some degree).
2. Reduce highlights (this reveals detail previously hidden in overbright areas).
3. Increase shadows (this reveals detail hidden in the dark areas).
4. Optimise white and black levels.
5. Increase vibrance slightly.
6. Adjust sharpening and noise reduction.

Something to bear in mind is that these adjustments were to the jpeg and the camera will have thrown away most of the data the sensor captured. Saving a RAW file will provide far, far more data for the editor to work with thereby producing superior results.

Edit> Viewing the posted images I see both suffer from direct upload but, not being my images, I didn't want these to go via Flickr.

Cheers,
John

[@imagesBV]

Re: My opinion.

I don't think anyone has any intention of being disrespectful of Canon's jpeg 'engine'...its a brilliant piece of highly developed software - or should I say firmware. In fact several years ago a Canon training 'partner' at the NEC recommended to use JPEG as most people in most situations would gain no benefit from RAW. But it remains that to use jpeg closes the door on many improvement opportunities.....just why would you do that...life's too short - as a photographer our goal is the final image ....how we get there is of secondary importance.....if some choose to limit their possibilities than that's their choice.

[rcarca]

Re: My opinion.

I don't think anyone has any intention of being disrespectful of Canon's jpeg 'engine'...its a brilliant piece of highly developed software - or should I say firmware. In fact several years ago a Canon training 'partner' at the NEC recommended to use JPEG as most people in most situations would gain no benefit from RAW. But it remains that to use jpeg closes the door on many improvement opportunities.....just why would you do that...life's too short - as a photographer our goal is the final image ....how we get there is of secondary importance.....if some choose to limit their possibilities than that's their choice.

Thank you Brian: you said it much better and less offensively than me! I have just been processing some photographs of Paris, where I have bracketed and taken five for HDR, I have also taken just one, and processed in both ways to see which I prefer. Sure I could have done some of that "in-camera" but I wouldn't have had the creative freedom, which I have enjoyed - when I get round to it, I will post some in the correct thread (to ensure I don't fall foul of Nat's zeal in having things posted in the right location!!!)

[@imagesBV]

Re: My opinion.

Cheers Richard...
I think where it might be good to use jpeg where you set up for really contrasty black and white ....or go for a grainy aged look with a sepia tint maybe....much like some of the so called 'filter' effects that some manufacturers have...i.e. Olympus and Fuji do dynamic tone with overly contrasting and saturated effects.....great if thats what you like.............but you can do that all in PP of course and still have a nice unspoilt original by taking in RAW.
(been there done that by the way - now I'm back in the room!)

[Robert Scott]

Re: My opinion.

I don't think anyone has any intention of being disrespectful of Canon's jpeg 'engine'...its a brilliant piece of highly developed software - or should I say firmware. In fact several years ago a Canon training 'partner' at the NEC recommended to use JPEG as most people in most situations would gain no benefit from RAW. But it remains that to use jpeg closes the door on many improvement opportunities.....just why would you do that...life's too short - as a photographer our goal is the final image ....how we get there is of secondary importance.....if some choose to limit their possibilities than that's their choice.

That is very patronising. I do wish that members on this forum would stop implying that people who shoot JPEG images are second-class photographers. Getting good photographs with JPEG images requires just as much skill and technical knowledge as post-processing RAW images - perhaps more so, as there is little room for error when shooting JPEGs.

If I suggested that you shoot RAW so that you can correct the mistakes made in-camera, you would be offended. So please show respect to those who accept the challenge of shooting JPEG.

[rcarca]

Re: My opinion.

That is very patronising. I do wish that members on this forum would stop implying that people who shoot JPEG images are second-class photographers. Getting good photographs with JPEG images requires just as much skill and technical knowledge as post-processing RAW images - perhaps more so, as there is little room for error when shooting JPEGs.

If I suggested that you shoot RAW so that you can correct the mistakes made in-camera, you would be offended. So please show respect to those who accept the challenge of shooting JPEG.

What is technically wrong with saying that you limit your PP potential with JPEG? There is simply less information in the file because of the compression... as I understand it. As Brian said, if that is your choice, then fine. And I wouldn't be offended by the last comment - I do believe that there is more room for correcting mistakes, and I certainly make mistakes, even after fifty+ years of taking photographs. Besides which I often don't know what I want my photographs to look like until after I get home. Perhaps if I was out on a particular photographic mission as a pro (which I am not) then I could afford what I see as the risk of taking JPEG.

Maybe that makes me a second rate photographer. But with that in mind, I feel I would be cutting off my nose despite my face if I were to choose JPEG.

So in summary, as Brian says "how we get there is of secondary importance"... Nowhere does he (or have I) said anyone is a second class photographer choosing to use JPEG. We have merely expressed our preferences and explained why...

[antoeknee]

Re: My opinion.

Every image you have ever seen, be it digital or on film, has received some post processing. No camera ever produced will record the scene as you see it. No two people see an image exactly the same.

No one should consider themselves as second class when choosing to shoot JPEG, but they should be aware that there are alternatives that offer them the option to more accurately record the scene. We have a hobby where we can strive to record the accuracy of the situation or choose to interpret it in a more creative way.

[Daisy M]

Re: My opinion.

John, I appreciate you taking the time to adjust my picture of Clevedon Pier. Very interesting. Just one question, could I have made those adjustments pre taking the photo?

[Robert Scott]

Re: My opinion.

No one should consider themselves as second class when choosing to shoot JPEG, but they should be aware that there are alternatives that offer them the option to more accurately record the scene. We have a hobby where we can strive to record the accuracy of the situation or choose to interpret it in a more creative way.

Here it is again. A steady drip, drip that implies that shooting RAW will give better images than JPEGs. Not so. Anyone who is willing to take the time and trouble to learn all about the controls available for JPEG shooting will obtain images equally as good as those shot as RAW files.

Of course, if you are unable to pre-visualise the image you want and struggle to obtain level horizons, then shooting RAW is a good option.

Post-processing is also excellent for putting the finishing touches to competition and exhibition entries. There is also lots of enjoyment to be had from adjusting tone curves and applying digital filters. But for a straight record of a scene there is little to choose between expert use of JPEG and RAW.

[ColytonJohn]

Re: My opinion.

John, I appreciate you taking the time to adjust my picture of Clevedon Pier. Very interesting. Just one question, could I have made those adjustments pre taking the photo?

I think my immediate answer would be yes... but...

You see, you can adjust settings in your camera to influence the jpeg it produces but then all photographs will be influenced by those same settings whether desirable or not. It's impossible to predict in advance and adjust settings for each image so the preferred method that the collective wisdom and experience you've found here is gently directing you to is to record all the data the sensor 'sees' (as a RAW file) and use processing software (Lightroom, DPP, et al) to produce an image that is either identical to what you saw through the viewfinder or is artistically and aesthetically satisfying.

It's important to realise just how compromised an out-of-camera jpeg is; the sensor will have recorded a (usually) 12 bit file yet a jpeg is a mere 8 bits with the difference discarded, never to be seen again. And this is a massive data loss that, by recording all that lovely data as a RAW file, avoidable.

It's not cheating nor is it black magic just pragmatically utilising the tools available to you.

Cheers,
John

[ColytonJohn]

Re: My opinion.

... But for a straight record of a scene there is little to choose between expert use of JPEG and RAW.

Exactly but few, I suggest, will have spent as much as we have just for "a straight record of a scene" - my god my smartphone will do that! No, we're striving for something a little more.

Cheers,
John

[antoeknee]

Re: My opinion.

Here it is again. A steady drip, drip that implies that shooting RAW will give better images than JPEGs. No so. Anyone who is willing to take the time and trouble to learn all about the controls available for JPEG shooting will obtain images equally as good as those shot as RAW files.

Of course, if you are unable to pre-visualise the image you want and struggle to obtain level horizons, then shooting RAW is a good option.

Post-processing is also excellent for putting the finishing touches to competition and exhibition entries. There is also lots of enjoyment to be had from adjusting tone curves and applying digital filters. But for a straight record of a scene there is little to choose between expert use of JPEG and RAW.

JPEG was never created as a way of accurately recording an image, after all some of the info is discarded. If I recall correctly the compression ratio is something like 10:1. As a way of being able to transfer images across different platforms etc it was devised as a standard and was widely used in the early days of digital photography as camera processing was quite slow and storage was somewhat expensive.

I didn't use the word 'better' as my post was trying to explain that the alternatives give you options. I shot for may years using JPEG and was happy. The use of RAW has given me some further scope to achieve the image I want but I've never said or implied JPEG is wrong. We always encourage people to move away from the fully auto mode on their cameras as the alternatives give them options that they wouldn't have in full auto.

[tesarver]

My opinion.

What I find very interesting in this thread is that it started out with the comment that if you post process your image, then you are cheating. This I think caused most of use to get our feathers ruffled and defend why we post process. I also give Daisy credit for fueling the debate up until his 15 or 16 response that he would stop using the "c" word. It wasn't till Daisy's 17th post did he state what he wanted to do was to take a better photograph with his camera. Which is what we are suppose to be doing anyway. The better we take the image in camera, the less processing we should have to do.

Back in the film days, not everyone was into developing and processing their own images. It was fun, but a lot of work. Most just bought the film, took their images and dropped them off at the store for the store to develop and process. So the only opportunity we had to produce a good image was just before we hit the shutter button. So the basis of creating a good image in camera has not changed in the digital age. It is based on 3 principles, light, light and light.

It light that creates the image and with our camera there are only 3 ways to control that light to get the best image possible. They are; ISO or in film ISA, Shutter Speed and Aperture. Learning the basics of those three things and how each work together to control the light will put you on the correct path in producing great images in camera.

So my suggestion to Daisy is if you want to learn photography, invest in Brian Peterson's book on Understanding Exposure. Once you learn how to use your camera to take the best image you can get, then open the discussion on processing.

If you plan on selling your images to a news agency then you need not worry about post processing, however if you plan on making a living as a wedding photographer, fashion photographer, or sell landscape or do any Black & White work, then you will need to do post processing.

Tom

[Daisy M]

Re: My opinion.

Thank you Tom for your advice, I do want to take better photos , this is my only ambition & have no intention of turning professional. The pleasure I get from taking & showing my pictures to family & friends is all I want, though of course, seeing my photos on Flickr, I want to improve my pre photo skills.

[rcarca]

Re: My opinion.

I often don't know what I want my photographs to look like until after I get home.

Of course, if you are unable to pre-visualise the image you want and struggle to obtain level horizons, then shooting RAW is a good option.

The issue that I was poorly trying to illustrate is that I may have options which I can capture in RAW and then finalise in PP. Is it so bad to want to have creative options.

I think you are being very thin-skinned in this debate. You have put the second class moniker on JPEG, not any of the other participants. What we all (if I dare talk for "us" for a moment) value is the optionality for future creativity that you certainly rule out by using JPEG - because you have dumped so much information. I don't mind betting that with the exception of one who is well known for his views on the subject, the vast majority of regular contributors to the forum shoot in RAW. Does any single one of us think that makes us better than those who don't. I seriously doubt it...

I actually spent a lot of time researching RAW v JPEG when I got my first serious DSLR, which happened to be a 7D. There are a few well-known blogging photographers who advocate getting it entirely right first time in-camera with JPEGs. There are far, far more who advocate capturing in RAW because of the flexibility.

Anyway, I am going to jump out of this discussion now, because it is not adding any more value and my views are now well addressed!!!