How to get the best out of your JPEGs

[Mike Buckley]

In photography the JPEG clan is simply not going to get along with the RAW clan.

My perspective is that the JPEG clan can get along quite well with the RAW clan. It's the RAW clan that almost always wants to exclude the JPEG clan. I won't explain why I think that's the case because nothing constructive would come of it.

[John 2]

So that the chances of a Cannon shooter who shoots Raw ever talking to a Nikon shooter who shoots JPG are so slim as to be infinitesimal. No I don't see this debate as it's turned out, to be a Raw Vs JPG battle. The advice about the advantages of Raw or the need to get it right in camera for JPG are well meant. I think it would be fair to say that the transition from JPG to Raw, where it happens, is part of the journey for most photographers. I know I shot JPG (and still do) for many years before I moved on which is why I said the article might be of interest to those just starting out or who just don't have Raw conversion software.

[george013]

So that the chances of a Cannon shooter who shoots Raw ever talking to a Nikon shooter who shoots JPG are so slim as to be infinitesimal. No I don't see this debate as it's turned out to be a Raw Vs Jpg battle. The advice about the advantages of Raw or the need to get it right in camera for JPG are well meant. I think it would be fair to say that the transition from JPG to Raw, where it happens, is part of the journey for most photographers. I know I shot JPG (and still do) for many years before I moved on which is why I said the article might be of interest to those just starting out or just don't have Raw conversion software.

Looking at the possibilities given for Nikon, the article mentions Picture Control and Active Day Lighting. The first can't be disabled. The second one can, and also changes the raw data for it changes the exposure, when needed. It all comes down to some basic understanding how the camera works.

George

[Manfred M]

John - of all the commercial photographers I know, most are 100% jpeg shooters. These cover the areas of photography from wedding, portraiture, event, sports and even product photography. I understand that most real estate photographers are jpeg shooters too.

The camera manufacturers have put a lot of features into their higher (and lower) end cameras aimed 100% at jpeg shooters, as these features do not impact the raw data.

Raw seems to be the domain of some high end shooters; both commercial and advanced amateurs.

[JBW]

John - of all the commercial photographers I know, most are 100% jpeg shooters. These cover the areas of photography from wedding, portraiture, event, sports and even product photography. I understand that most real estate photographers are jpeg shooters too.

The camera manufacturers have put a lot of features into their higher (and lower) end cameras aimed 100% at jpeg shooters, as these features do not impact the raw data.

Raw seems to be the domain of some high end shooters commercial and advanced amateurs.

Does that make me an advanced amateur. If I am now I certainly wasn't when I moved into manual and Raw. Some of us just like doing it ourselves.

However aside from shooting in RAW I pp in Sony Raw to start, then if I'm going to use Fiji or Gimp I move into Tiff and for my final check before final export I switch into JPEG because that's what I'll be uploading.

[MrB]

Manfred, thank you for your Post #24.

Many of the posts in forums discussing this topic convey an attitude of arrogant contempt for those who capture JPEG images. Either directly or by implication, they promote the view that anyone who shoots JPEGs cannot be serious about photography, and has no right to be using anything more than a phone-cam or a P&S compact, or viewing anything bigger than 6x4 inches.

Your comments go quite some way towards redressing the balance and giving reassurance that it must be OK to shoot JPEGs, if and whenever we choose to do so.

Cheers.
Philip

[John 2]

John - of all the commercial photographers I know, most are 100% jpeg shooters. These cover the areas of photography from wedding, portraiture, event, sports and even product photography. I understand that most real estate photographers are jpeg shooters too.

The camera manufacturers have put a lot of features into their higher (and lower) end cameras aimed 100% at jpeg shooters, as these features do not impact the raw data.

Raw seems to be the domain of some high end shooters; both commercial and advanced amateurs.

Manfred, I have not, nor would I ever, suggest otherwise. I believe that the statement ".....I think it would be fair to say that the transition from JPG to Raw, where it happens, is part of the journey for most photographers...." recognises that not all photographers rely on RAW. (BTW, you missed out photo journalists.)

Philip, I find your comment offensive by implication. To my knowledge, no such suggestion has ever been made either in this post or on this forum at large. What goes on elsewhere is of no consequence here.

One thing is for certain, I shall in future think twice before posting any link aimed at being helpful.

[MrB]

Philip, I find your comment offensive by implication. To my knowledge, no such suggestion has ever been made either in this post or on this forum at large. What goes on elsewhere is of no consequence here.

John, perhaps this is an example of the perils of trying to communicate in printed text rather than by face to face discussion. No offense was intended to you or anyone here. I was trying to express a positive reaction to Manfred's post, in which he listed many fields of photography where serious professionals shoot JPEGs, a point of information which I did not know, something which I find encouraging, and something which is relevant in its contrast to the impression one can get from what goes on elsewhere.

Cheers.
Philip

[Manfred M]

John - the comments were never directed at you, but rather Andy Westlake's article. It strikes me that he was asked to write an article on the subject and really did not get enough direction. He really missed the boat on some of the key issues on shooting jpeg.

There are quite a few questionable articles and videos on the internet produced by people who present questionable advice by seemingly not understanding the difference between opinion and fact. Having large followings does not necessarily mean that the information is particularly good. Two of my favourites in this category would be Ken Rockwell and Tony Northrup.

That doesn't include the hundreds of amateurs who don't really have a clue as to what they are doing and are offering up their advice. Don't get me wrong; there are some real gems out there too. These especially useful once you get away from some of the mainstream subjects, but again, there is both "gold" and "garbage" out there too so the end user needs to have enough expertise to filter out the garbage..

[miatab]

John, If your statement,".....I think it would be fair to say that the transition from JPG to Raw, where it happens, is part of the journey for most photographers...." means simply those photographers who choose to embrace raw, I can 100% agree, but if it means that most photographers choose raw, or that most photographers, be they raw or Jpeg photographers see it as part of the journey for most photographers, then I disagree. I believe your choice of "most" is the wrong noun modifier here.

[John 2]

Manfred, I guess my point is that if the article is factually wrong then by all means correct it. If however, in its own limited way it is none the less accurate then it might still benefit some. I would also ask, does it warrant the debate that has gone on here particularly where it has deteriorated into the RAW vs JPG aspect.

Philip, accepted. My problem was the statement that a balance was being redressed because if that need applied only elsewhere, I couldn't see the need to say it in the context of this post and this forum.