Sprintmedley Posted March 24, 2016 Share #1 Posted March 24, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) OK this is an old saw but I would like individual perspectives specific to the JPEG images particularly at the full 28mm and how this compares with color depth, saturation and contrast right out of the camera compared to JNG's that are edited. I am finding that the JPEG's are at least as color and contrast impressive as my LR edited JNG's in relatively standard well-lit scenes. I fully understand the benefits and flexibility of JNG-RAW but so far I am having superb results with native JPEG's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 24, 2016 Posted March 24, 2016 Hi Sprintmedley, Take a look here JNG/RAW vs JPEG in the Q. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Belle123 Posted March 24, 2016 Share #2 Posted March 24, 2016 OK this is an old saw but I would like individual perspectives specific to the JPEG images particularly at the full 28mm and how this compares with color depth, saturation and contrast right out of the camera compared to JNG's that are edited. I am finding that the JPEG's are at least as color and contrast impressive as my LR edited JNG's in relatively standard well-lit scenes. I fully understand the benefits and flexibility of JNG-RAW but so far I am having superb results with native JPEG's. First, it's DNG not JNG. And it's full 24mp, I assume you mean. That has to do with the file size of the DNG file, I.e. The raw file out of the camera. Of course, you can select a 24mp JPG file as well. The difference is the JPG is the edited raw data dependent on your JPG settings, and the camera does a great job. The raw file, the DNG, you can do a lot more with it using a post processor like Lightroom. I suggest taking some tutorials out there on Lightroom to see what it can really do. A lot to learn and you might be surprised what all can be done. Or, if you just like the stuff straight out of the camera, the JPG files are fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprintmedley Posted March 24, 2016 Author Share #3 Posted March 24, 2016 First, it's DNG not JNG. And it's full 24mp, I assume you mean. That has to do with the file size of the DNG file, I.e. The raw file out of the camera. Of course, you can select a 24mp JPG file as well. The difference is the JPG is the edited raw data dependent on your JPG settings, and the camera does a great job. The raw file, the DNG, you can do a lot more with it using a post processor like Lightroom. I suggest taking some tutorials out there on Lightroom to see what it can really do. A lot to learn and you might be surprised what all can be done. Or, if you just like the stuff straight out of the camera, the JPG files are fine. OOPS - I meant DNG (I do that all the time). Yes, I have a lot more to learn about LR. Thanks much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprintmedley Posted March 24, 2016 Author Share #4 Posted March 24, 2016 DNG (can't seem to type the D, ha) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belle123 Posted March 24, 2016 Share #5 Posted March 24, 2016 OOPS - I meant DNG (I do that all the time). Yes, I have a lot more to learn about LR. Thanks much. May I suggest looking up some tutorials on YouTube? Some are great and really explain how to bring a lot out of the raw files. I think a lot of people install something like Lightroom and just play around with the sliders. There is more to it than that. It's almost an art itself, post processing. So, hopefully the tutorials will help. Good luck! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herve5 Posted March 24, 2016 Share #6 Posted March 24, 2016 I shoot DNG+JPEG systematically, but once files are backed up, I generally touch the DNGs only when lightning is widely variable in the picture, be it to raise a bit the contrasts in the darks, or to correct an error on my side, like metering on the wrong place when taking the picture or poor white balancing. Honestly that's a small part of the pictures -and I believe a good photographer, efficient at metering in all situations and that has a grey card, will be even less often in need. (just look at the review example pictures when talking noise level: they almost systematically are pathetic settings to begin with : actually failed pics for which then one needs post-corrections -and OK, there, indeed, DNG lightscales are more elastic...) Now, with the DNG you have the real 15-bits-per-pixel colors, while in jpeg, whatever the compression level, it's only 256 levels : for me there is always this stumble moment when, at the end of a more or less careful adjustment, my good old editing software tells me OK, do you confirm that by switching format to jpeg, I now will be discarding all these bits? H. (yes, I have a grey card, but I don't take it out all the time, only in museums ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marchyman Posted March 24, 2016 Share #7 Posted March 24, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) May I suggest looking up some tutorials on YouTube? Good advice. Be sure to look at several videos each from several different authors. You'll find conflicting information, but that is OK. There really isn't a right or wrong -- the goal is to find out what works for you to generate images you like. My biggest gripe with some of the tutorials are those who claim somewhere in the process that they "always set this slider to 100%". If they always do that they are not looking at the image! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belle123 Posted March 24, 2016 Share #8 Posted March 24, 2016 Good advice. Be sure to look at several videos each from several different authors. You'll find conflicting information, but that is OK. There really isn't a right or wrong -- the goal is to find out what works for you to generate images you like. My biggest gripe with some of the tutorials are those who claim somewhere in the process that they "always set this slider to 100%". If they always do that they are not looking at the image! Yes, it is interesting all the variations. I have come to find a work flow that is more unique to my tastes rather than just following and copying another photographer's preferences. Just means there is much creativity in post processing. Same as working in a dark room. The real art began at that point by photographers such as Ansel Adams. But for those who just want a 'correct' image, it is probably wasted on them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprintmedley Posted March 25, 2016 Author Share #9 Posted March 25, 2016 I've used every feature of LR - with reasonable success. Retrospectively I sometimes fret on manipulating the image away from what i really saw (not a bad thing of course). After many years in photography, including with the USAF employing $900K sensors in high altitude photomapping and weather recon, I continue to wonder if there will ever be a sensor that reproduces precisely the same image as my retina captures it WITHOUT any editing. Never happen I'm afraid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belle123 Posted March 25, 2016 Share #10 Posted March 25, 2016 I've used every feature of LR - with reasonable success. Retrospectively I sometimes fret on manipulating the image away from what i really saw (not a bad thing of course). After many years in photography, including with the USAF employing $900K sensors in high altitude photomapping and weather recon, I continue to wonder if there will ever be a sensor that reproduces precisely the same image as my retina captures it WITHOUT any editing. Never happen I'm afraid. The thing is, we probably would not like an image as our retina captures. The brain has a lot to do with interpreting that signal from the eye, I.e. It is like Lightroom! And everyone eyes and brains are different. Some people desire a photo look as exact as possible, or so they think. Some people are into more the art of photography. If you looked at Ansel Adams negatives, as good as they are, there was a ton of manipulation in the darkroom to achieve his final prints. I have seen in his studio, where after his death, I guess some photography students or pros, took some of those negative and tried to reproduce his prints. Not the same. So, really is an art to it. It is not for everyone, however. But it is very rewarding, in my experience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.