jpeg for travel photos?

[sm23221]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Do most of you use jpegs for travel photos (to avoid time intensive RAW processing) or do you stick with RAW? Thanks in advance.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[moikle]

Always raw regardless of the subject. It must be something built into me from the age of negatives.

 

Mike

[andybarton]

I either use film, or RAW. Never just jpgs. Can't see the point of just using jpgs unless you are running out of card space in the middle of nowhere.

 

As a rank amateur, most of my better shots have been taken while travelling, so I want to be able to get the best out of them when I get home.

 

If you just want jpgs from the shots, it's dead easy to export a load as jpgs in any RAW processor

[leicanut2]

I always shot jpeg. Sometime I think it would be fun to change some colors here and there or sharpen a picture a bit but I just hate sitting on a computer for more than 30 or 40 min at a time.

 

Jan

[jaapv]

Do most of you use jpegs for travel photos (to avoid time intensive RAW processing) or do you stick with RAW? Thanks in advance.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by time intensive RAW processing. Raw conversion takes only a few seconds, far less if you process a whole batch in one go. It is time consuming if you want to optimize (crop, levels, curves, colors, sharpening) each shot individually, but it takes far more time with less result if you want to do that from Jpg. Jpgs have a place if you are a war correspondent and need to upload your images to your editor immediately on a slow connection, or if you don't care and just drop your SD card at Wallmart, but for anything else...

[lars_bergquist]

When cake mixes were introduced on the market way back in the 1950's, many women resisted them. It was found that the reason was that they felt like cheating. So the mixes were changed so that the lady had to add one egg. This did the trick: A woman who added something herself was a real proper housewife. Even if it was as trivial as breaking and stirring in one egg.

 

Lots of people insist on DNG because they would not feel like real proper housewives -- sorry, photographers -- using JPEG. The truth is that as long as you know how to expose properly (and by God, we learned that in the Kodachrome Age!) going DNG is pretty pointless. It is, unless you have goofed badly. I learned my ropes in the wet wild darkroom, where anything went if it gave you the result you wanted. You might as well discuss table manners with a Neanderthal.

 

The wild old man from the Kodachrome Age

[rob_x2004]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you dont know enough about your kit to get it right out of the box shoot raw.

[sm23221]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by time intensive RAW processing..

 

For jpegs all of the processing is done in the camera and one doesn't have to batch convert and individually set levels, curves, sharpen etc. afterward.

 

The jpegs are surprisingly good right out of the M9. RAW sucks when converted unless imported to PS and manipulated individually. It's hard to globally process 1,000's of photos correctly. With jpegs, each one is processed in the camera - much easier.

 

I always use uncompressed RAW for my landscape work. But for travel???

[jaapv]

If your RAW conversion sucks, you are doing something wrong. Since I use C1-5 there is very little tweaking to be done in CS4, except for special cases. Quality wise it beats the in-camera jpg by quite a length, although I admit the M9 is somewhat better than the M8 in that respect.

 

Oh - and, Lars, I think cakes made from cake mixes are not very nice...I prefer the ones I make from scratch; and so does everybody else

 

But if you dislike postprocessing and/or are unwilling to learn, yes, in that case jpg is the only option. as is cakemix.

[jaapv]

For jpegs all of the processing is done in the camera and one doesn't have to batch convert and individually set levels, curves, sharpen etc. afterward.

No, you have to set sharpness, saturation and contrast for each shot in the camera menu individually- and watch your whitebalance at the same time.

[bybrett]

No, you have to set sharpness, saturation and contrast for each shot in the camera menu individually- and watch your whitebalance at the same time.

 

Stay within your comfort zone... shoot JPG and DNG. Use the JPG's now, archive the DNG's, you may have a use for them in the future. Post processing software is getting easier all the time.

 

PS RAW eggs can be dangerous.

[richam]

When cake mixes were introduced on the market way back in the 1950's, many women resisted them. It was found that the reason was that they felt like cheating. So the mixes were changed so that the lady had to add one egg. This did the trick: A woman who added something herself was a real proper housewife. Even if it was as trivial as breaking and stirring in one egg.

 

Lars, I don't think DNG vs. JPEG has the symbolism that an egg in cake mix has -- we're not having a baby, after all. With the cost of storage on today's huge SD cards and hard drives, the JPEG only format hardly costs anything. And any conversion is almost transparent if one uses software like Lightroom. Lightroom automatically catalogs DNG + JPEG images together, making things very easy.

 

So, I always shoot DNG + JPEG while traveling. Often, I shoot in difficult lighting situations, particularly in the evening or night, where colors, contrast, exposure, and sensor noise need to be worked on with Lightroom or Photoshop in order to produce an acceptable image. Better to do this on the computer than rely on in-camera settings. I do use JPEG only in some situations, usually with my D-Lux 4, when requested to take "snapshots" at a party or gathering of some type. Otherwise, DNG + JPEG for me.

[bill]

Like so many things in life, it depends.

 

There is an interesting article by Lee Frost in this month's Black and White that addresses this issue; well worth a read if you can get hold of a copy.

 

"Real men don't eat quiche"

"Real photographers don't shoot jpeg"

 

Both of the above are complete nonsense.

 

I will shoot jpeg, RAW or both depending on two key factors; the camera in use and the circumstances. For example, I never shoot RAW with my LC-1 any more; the jpegs are that good, and I would not use it in a situation where I might need the RAW "safety net". Similarly I don't bother with RAW when using the D-Lux 4. With my Olympus DSLRs, however, I shoot RAW often.

 

To me, jpeg requires that you get it right up front; RAW gives you a second chance.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Jeff S]

With an M8.2, I use DNG. Early on, I experimented with DNG + JPEG, but it slowed the camera down, ate batteries and filled up my computer screen.

 

DNG-only allows me to better concentrate on framing and exposing the scene correctly, leaving other adjustments for later. If I do my job right, my former darkroom slave is left with a lot less work.

 

Jeff

[farnz]

With my M8 I normally shoot RAW only unless a potential shot looks like it might suit black and white, in which case I'll shoot RAW plus JPEG set to b&w because I like the M8's b&w rendering.

 

Same goes for travelling or otherwise.

 

Pete.

[chuckw]

Jpegs are amazingly good these days but why give up the chance do be able to do the extensive post processing available with raw images? If the raw shot is wonderful right out of the camera then, great, converting to a jpeg is just a matter of seconds. But, if the white balance needs correcting, or the exposure, starting with a raw image sure helps.

[andybarton]

And why would you throw away half the colour depth before you've even started?

[FiZZ]

I shoot Ilford Delta...

 

No really.

 

Ok fine. When I went to Istanbul I wanted to teach myself how to edit shots on digital. I started out RAW but I realized I was running out of space, and switched to medium JPEG. I used the digital just for snap shots to show the folks back home. The real work was done on film.

 

I use RAW until I can find a JPEG setting that gives me good results for most snaps.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sm23221]

If you dont know enough about your kit to get it right out of the box shoot raw.

 

LOL!! I'm beginning to agree with this. A properly exposed jpeg, in my experience, prints as nicely as a RAW converted one in most instances (but not all).

[leica dream]

Being very inexperienced I have used JPEGs to date, but have been experimenting recently with RAW. My VLUX-1 does both together if I want, so I have a fall back. I use Photoshop for post processing, and have found that, for my needs, VLUX mildly adjusted JPEG final images are almost indestinguishable from RAW images processed and adjusted through ACR.

Richard