Am I a lonely outlier

[NZDavid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One advantage of DNG over JPEG, at least with the M10, is true blue skies instead of skies veering towards cyan. But yes, for many purposes, including professional use, JPEGs are fine.

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

Outlier?  I think as one who still prints regularly that I’m the outlier. The vast majority of people these days, whether with phone or dedicated camera, produce JPEGS for screen shots only.  And they don’t do much or any editing, or even recognize or care about potential benefits.  
 

It’s only through DNG/RAW files that I’ve been able to optimize output on a level at least consistent with, if not better than, darkroom days, when editing was also a given.  I’ve re-printed some digital files from over 10 years ago, using better software, and gained improved results that never could have been achieved using JPEGS. 

Happy to be a real outlier.

Jeff

 

[Anbaric]

On 10/9/2023 at 3:10 PM, oldwino said:

Another thing to consider - every time you edit a JPEG it looses quality. If you edit a RAW file, then the JPEG you make from that is an "original" with the best possible quality.

If you're careful, you should only need to compress the file once again (at most). Intermediate files can be saved as tiff or in your image editor's native format, and if you're working with a 'non-destructive' editor like LR, edits can be saved as metadata (as with raw) until you export. You might want your final file to be a jpeg, but that's only a single additional round of compression.

[Anbaric]

On 10/8/2023 at 5:16 PM, huwm said:

Leica jpegs really are good, should that surprise me?

When I shoot digital, I'm mostly using Fuji or Nikon, and both these companies provide 'reference' raw converters under their own branding that will spit out something very similar to an in-camera jpeg by default, using camera profiles approved by the manufacturer. So shooting raw really just costs some cheap extra storage, and a little time to run the converter, with the benefit of more freedom to edit when you need it - there's no need to shoot raw+jpeg for most purposes. Leica is the only major camera company that doesn't provide its own converter, so if you're shooting only raw and don't necessarily want to fiddle with every image, you really have to be sure that your third party converter is giving you something at least as good as Leica's in-camera jpegs by default or you are just making work for yourself. An in-camera jpeg can sometimes be better than a default conversion with a third party package, especially if it doesn't have a good profile for the camera you are shooting with.

[ianforber]

I have always shot RAW/JPEG, and delete most of my images as I don’t often consider them to be good enough. When I used Apple Aperture to process my images, I always worked from the RAW and stacked the images - RAW at the bottom and various TIFF or JPEG interpretations on top.

Now that I have work in Capture One, which does not have a stacking function, I often use the JPEG, especially for colour images, but tend to use the DNG in Silver FX when making b&w images. I rarely bother keeping the DNG original. Life’s too short to go back and reprocess stuff from years ago. 

[hirohhhh]

As I get older (or perhaps become a more experienced photographer), I find myself editing/manipulating my photos less and less. I often revisit my photos from 7-8 years ago that had presets applied, reset all the settings, and I must say, I quite like the look straight out of the camera. Of course, a bit of touch-up here and there is necessary, but I've recently found it a bit gimmicky to apply presets that completely change the look and feel of the photograph. Some photos may benefit from it, but the majority of everyday photos seem fine to me with just a touch of tweaking highlights, shadows, and maybe a bit of contrast, and that's pretty much it. So, perhaps JPEGs would make sense for me, but I know I'd likely never (though never say never) use JPEGs as a master files. To me, as someone who prints a lot of my photographs, my DNGs are far too precious.

[MindsEye]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 10/9/2023 at 4:38 AM, hansvons said:

Shooting JPEG is okay for fast-paced journalism, as it's super quick and doesn't allow manipulation. RAW is for everything else that might see a longer shelf life. I believe editing is an essential part of photography and cannot be outsourced to a digital board in the camera doing all the editing for you and spitting out JPEGs. I was never fond of the commercial prints from the supermarket, chemist, or local photography store. The same can be said of JPEGs. They may look okay, but you won't have the chance to see how much better the image would have been if you had edited the Raw file.

 

I shoot for my living so I always shoot RAW + JPEG. I agree with much of what you say about JPEG but it can have its uses; both as a learning tool (I use it for some of my workshop attendees) and a reference for processing. @hansvons, I don't know your age so you may or may not come from the film age like me. JPEG is a bit like choosing a film, only you can set contrast, sharpness, saturation, etc. Not as nuanced as raw processing but it can provide a reference for your processing. When I first started printing Cibachrome in the late 70s, my Kodachrome and Ektachrome transparencies were my reference for printing. JPEG is kind of a modern equivalent if you want to use it that way. Photographers trying to hone their skills can use JPEG as a challenge to get everything right in-camera such as exposure, focus/DOF, composition...especially if one doesn't use cropping as a crutch. Once a shooter has the skills to get it right in-camera by second nature, then JPEGs can be useful as a reference when processing. As Ansel Adams said: The negative (these days, raw file) is the score and the print is the performance. I believe processing and printing are part of the creative process so that is where we are in agreement. But for some, JPEGs have their uses.

[JamieDumont]

I shot Fuji for a few years and completely fell in love with creating presets with Fuji's JPEG options. I developed a few styles myself and pinched a few that were posted online. I took loads of family photos (more than I take now for sure) and was very happy. Lots are of my (then) two year old son. I still like them as much as I did then, but I so wish I had a RAW copy too!

My editing has vastly improved in the intervening years, and my tastes have changed. Many of my favourite images are stuck with colour palettes and contrast that I wouldn't use today. Perhaps that could be viewed as an accurate portrayal of the photographer I was then (just as I wouldn't use the same composition or depth of field for many of these images now) but I should have shot them as RAW.

[MindsEye]

On 11/7/2023 at 5:56 AM, JamieDumont said:

I shot Fuji for a few years and completely fell in love with creating presets with Fuji's JPEG options. I developed a few styles myself and pinched a few that were posted online. I took loads of family photos (more than I take now for sure) and was very happy. Lots are of my (then) two year old son. I still like them as much as I did then, but I so wish I had a RAW copy too!

My editing has vastly improved in the intervening years, and my tastes have changed. Many of my favourite images are stuck with colour palettes and contrast that I wouldn't use today. Perhaps that could be viewed as an accurate portrayal of the photographer I was then (just as I wouldn't use the same composition or depth of field for many of these images now) but I should have shot them as RAW.

I also love the Fuji film simulations. Admittedly, I also like my Q3's color rendering, but of course, not as many choices as Fuji. I think your comments reinforce the useful setting for RAW+JPEG in our cameras. I don't use my JPEGs all that often but like having them as a reference. And as I mentioned above, they have their uses. One does get the embedded JPEG in a RAW file but I still like having an associated full rez JPEG. On my X-T5 bodies I often process one or more versions of the image in-camera, sometimes on the spot, to get some different looks, especially in B&W. I know I can use Leica Looks and tweak Film Styles but I really like the versatility of Fujifilm. That said, my Q3 is the camera I like using the most: Unless I need an ILC I go for the Leica.

[jrethorst]

On 10/9/2023 at 6:20 AM, dpitt said:

> I shot with all JPEG settings on LOW. Low contrast, low sharpening, low saturation  and natural colors... Adding effects in PP is easier than removing them.

Nice tip -- thanks!

 

 

[P1505]

I understand the original sentiment. I shoot 2-3000 photos minimum before offloading the SD to the computer. And then I don’t look at the images for months or years.

All to avoid Lightroom.

But I still shoot RAW, I tried JPEG and it felt wrong. Very recently I moved to DXO for the massively better processing and to move away from my preset addiction. Only to discover Filmpack and go right back.

I enjoy photography the most when loading a roll of 120 into the Hasselblad and hearing it go “kthunk”. And then waiting for ages for the negatives to come back.

What’s very interesting to me is that scanning the negatives and working on them in the computer is pure joy, compared to working on a DNG, even though it’s a mostly identical process.

I’m still looking for a way to make digital editing as fun and physical as the darkroom.

[wda]

Try Snapseed on your smartphone 

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, P1505 said:

I shoot 2-3000 photos minimum before offloading the SD to the compute

And what will you do if the SD card fails? Rare - but it does happen.

[P1505]

21 hours ago, jaapv said:

And what will you do if the SD card fails? Rare - but it does happen.

Recover what I can and not worry.