JTLeica Posted January 20 Share #41  Posted January 20 Advertisement (gone after registration) 17 hours ago, boojum said: We keep wandering off my argument. I said and still say that for all practical purposes the camera generated JPG is just as good as the one generated from the DNG on a computer. That's my argument. In each case the end result is an 8 bit file. If people think that they can take a DNG and generate a JPG from it that is significantly better than the one automatically generated in the camera show me.  I am, not arguing that JPG is better than RAW. Let me say this one last time so that everybody can understand it: the in camera generated JPG is as good as the one generated on a computer from a RAW file for all practical purposes. I do not think this is ambiguous. But if anyone is having trouble grasping this please say so and I will try to explain it more clearly.  Cheers Sure a JPG is a JPG.  It of course if you use DNG you choice everything that makes up that final JPG. So, you either start from scratch or you accept the cameras own interpretation of colour / contrast / sharpening and so on Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 20 Posted January 20 Hi JTLeica, Take a look here Q3 Jpg Noise Question. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
M11 for me Posted January 20 Share #42  Posted January 20 vor 5 Stunden schrieb shopaholic: IMO,  the processed DNG file should reflects how the scene was when the image was captured- the light, shadows, colors in the sky or landscape etc., etc., whereas the in camera process simply applies a standard set of pre programmed adjustments per the camera manufacturer. If you are happy with in camera processing, fine. I for one and am sure most photographers enjoy the post processing or editing images as much as capturing them as a hobby. I am a raw shooter. Only raw. It took me a long time to come to that. In the beginning of electronic cameras I shoot JPG. But that is a long time ago in the years 2000 to 2005 about. I had no post processing tool and on a PC it was quite difficult to look at the images as I had no app. I remeber well that at the time I put my JPGs into a Powerpoint file and then deleted the JPGs 😤. What a crime. But Icould show photo presentations to my family and friends. Later I shoot both JPG and RAW and it always was a hassle to decide which one to take or to keep. Only recently (probably around 2012) I started to do "tests" and I found out that in many cases the JPG was as good as the RAW or vice versa. BUT . . . There were quite a few cases of JPGs that were never as good as what I could make out of the RAW equivalent. And I never had the opposite that out of a RAW I could only get a result that was worse than the JPG. That did not exist. So my finding then: Often the JPG was as good as the RAW but in some cases I needed the RAW processing. Then I took a decision: Stop taking all images in JPG plus RAW and then compare them one by one. That was time consuming and boaring. I stopped taking JPGs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianforber Posted January 23 Share #43  Posted January 23 On 1/20/2025 at 6:58 AM, shopaholic said: IMO,  the processed DNG file should reflects how the scene was when the image was captured- the light, shadows, colors in the sky or landscape etc., etc., whereas the in camera process simply applies a standard set of pre programmed adjustments per the camera manufacturer. If you are happy with in camera processing, fine. I for one and am sure most photographers enjoy the post processing or editing images as much as capturing them as a hobby. I hate post processing! I still do it but unless I’m processing infrared or long exposure images, I try to keep it to a minimum. The only time I spend more than 2-3 mins on an image is if I really like it and I’m working on getting it as good as I can, usually in SFX. Unfortunately, so few of my images meet this standard that I rarely spend more than about 1 minute per image, including deletion time. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boojum Posted January 25 Share #44  Posted January 25 (edited) On 1/20/2025 at 2:08 AM, JTLeica said: Sure a JPG is a JPG.  It of course if you use DNG you choice everything that makes up that final JPG. So, you either start from scratch or you accept the cameras own interpretation of colour / contrast / sharpening and so on  Correct me if I am wrong here but I think that the captured image is always RAW. It may then be converted to JPG or not and after being converted the RAW file may be deleted or not. That is to say, I do not believe that images are captured directly as JPG. Does someone have the definitive answer here? Not an opinion, we are awash in those. But some substantiated proof as to whether the camera goes straight to JPG rather than getting there through RAW. These folks say JPG are created by themselves without an intermediate step. "It has to be true, it's on the Internet." Does anyone know??  https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/129551/how-does-a-modern-digital-camera-process-to-jpg#129552 Edited January 25 by boojum added link Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M11 for me Posted January 25 Share #45  Posted January 25 vor einer Stunde schrieb boojum: I do not believe that images are captured directly as JPG I do not believe that either 🤣. The sensorks sensels only measure electric voltage. All that information nicely bundeled into a file that can be read and interpreted by other programmes in postprocessing we call a RAW file. Besides that the internal processor of each camera has the capability to transform the information into a JPG directly in-camera. Only this JPG-file you can then look at as an image. And without that capability you would see nothing on the back screen of your camera. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted January 25 Share #46 Â Posted January 25 Socrates here. For those who say an in-camera JPG is the best image possible, or that a raw file processed by the photographer can produce a JPG image better than the in-camera one........... What do you mean by 'best' or 'better'? (That should keep this thread running for a few more pages.)Â 1 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
costa43 Posted January 25 Share #47  Posted January 25 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) I’ll do my bit to keep it going😀 there is never a best or better with a photo. What someone finds aesthetically pleasing is always subjective. That said, in the hands of a skilled person, a raw file will always give you more scope in determining your final version. Whether it’s more pleasing to others or even to ourselves is another matter! Over to the next chap/lady   Edited January 25 by costa43 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTLeica Posted January 25 Share #48  Posted January 25 4 hours ago, boojum said:  Correct me if I am wrong here but I think that the captured image is always RAW. It may then be converted to JPG or not and after being converted the RAW file may be deleted or not. That is to say, I do not believe that images are captured directly as JPG. Does someone have the definitive answer here? Not an opinion, we are awash in those. But some substantiated proof as to whether the camera goes straight to JPG rather than getting there through RAW. These folks say JPG are created by themselves without an intermediate step. "It has to be true, it's on the Internet." Does anyone know??  https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/129551/how-does-a-modern-digital-camera-process-to-jpg#129552 Yes images have to be captured in raw first and then converted to JPG in camera. Can’t imagine any other way. The sensor will always record that it’s given. Hence why sharpening applied without a detail threshold will show as grainy or noisy.  Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtodrick Posted January 25 Share #49  Posted January 25 4 hours ago, costa43 said: I’ll do my bit to keep it going😀 there is never a best or better with a photo. What someone finds aesthetically pleasing is always subjective. That said, in the hands of a skilled person, a raw file will always give you more scope in determining your final version. Whether it’s more pleasing to others or even to ourselves is another matter! Over to the next chap/lady   I completely agree.  In the past (film days) I was part of a photographic collective of about 10 photographers…all advanced and most pros.  Our purpose was to obtain gallery shows (we were quite successful) and sell our work. When we got a show we would all bring samples of what we wanted to include and jury the pieces to decide what went in. One of the issues we occasionally had was someone would present a piece and others would comment on what the person could do to ‘improve it’ (bear in mind we were all past the point of having to fix dust spots or crooked horizon lines). This was hard to do because often the person would say ‘that was the way I saw the scene’ (for example is some thought it to light or dark. As you say, it is subjective…if you are pleased with a JPEG and the people whose opinion you value think your image good….then JPEG it is. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
valdaliso Posted June 5 Share #50  Posted June 5 On 5/27/2025 at 10:18 AM, Jskywalker said: I'm lazy. I'm a JPEG shooter. am currently using a Q2.  I usually use the VIV or STD mode. In VIV mode, I changed the following : Saturation +1 Contrast +1 Shadow -1 I use STD as is. Go play with it. What noise reduction setting do you use. I am forced to just shoot JPEG for an all night grad party. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 6 Share #51  Posted June 6 Who forces you to shoot jpg only if you can set the camera to DNG+jpg? The noise reduction needed is determined by the amount of light in the image, which, provided that you expose properly, results in an ISO value. . 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jskywalker Posted June 6 Share #52  Posted June 6 2 hours ago, valdaliso said: What noise reduction setting do you use. I am forced to just shoot JPEG for an all night grad party. I usually keep my ISO at 1600 and occasionally 3200. It’s challenging to shoot at a night party when you need to keep the shutter speed reasonably high.  Suggest you use a small flash and keep the ISO below 1000. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.