Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: jpegs only, please  (Read 2178 times)

bluekorn

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 141
jpegs only, please
« on: November 09, 2008, 08:43:58 pm »

Hello,

I'm finally beginning to understand where the learning curve is, to say nothing of how far behind I am. Much gratitude to those of you that openly post your questions and concerns and to those of you who take the time to answer. This forum, as it relates to digital photography, is mostly about shooting and processing in raw. It's possible that I should have taken this question to the beginner's forum but since I've been stumbling around here for some time, I decided to post here.

Maybe one day I will feel the need to shoot in raw but for the time being I'm going to continue to shoot the finest and largest jpegs in which ever camera system I decided to buy. What I have learned here is that when shooting jpegs the camera processing from lens to memory does a whole lot for you that most all of you folks choose to do in post processing because you use the raw mode. I, shooting jpegs, am constrained in what I can do after the image is stored. I love including this quote from a 16:9 article written last May because it describes precisely what I like in beholding photographs. "The mystery was that Minolta never made a camera to match the professional appeal of the lenses. So pros moved on to Canon and Nikon. And though their loyalty to Minolta glass was broadly supplanted by relationships with optical stars of a different stripe, many working shooters missed the Minolta drawing style: lush colour, smoother-than-smooth bokeh and an appealing rendition that eschews the dramatically contrasty nature of Canon and Nikon lenses in favour of a Leica-flavoured, high-res presentation that gently rolls off the tonal extremes for open shadows and well-tamed highlights."

Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sony, all have fairly elaborate menu choices for tweaking saturation, sharpness, contrast, hue, and possibly furthur catagories. As a jpeg shooter I can, through experiment, set up my camera to find the settings that best serve my desired outcome. I can learn where best to place exposure. Then I trip the shutter and concede all that raw potential for a result greatly limited but still available for some manipulation. The question then is, all things considered, does one have a better chance of achieving that "high-res presentation that gently rolls off the tonal extremes for open shadows and well-tamed highlights", with one camera's jpeg processor than another's?

I shoot landscapes and love "natural" color. I don't want to ask a question merely moot but if there are decided differences to be considered that experienced photographers understand about the way the different cameras render jpeg images and deposit them in memory I would like very much to know. I'm considering Nikon, Sony, Olympus and Canon, FX or DX. Thank you very much.

Peter

Logged

Jim Pascoe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1131
    • http://www.jimpascoe.co.uk
jpegs only, please
« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2008, 08:33:13 am »

Peter

There is nothing wrong in using jpeg files.  I used them all of the time until about two years ago, for my professional wedding photography,
and also my personal work.  And I had great pictures!  However, using software like Lightroom, makes shooting raw no more complicated than
shooting jpeg.  I believe that you can even save presets similar to setting them in the camera if you wish.

However, you say that you like shooting 'natural colour'.  Sometimes the actual colour that you perceive at the time of shooting is not what you
want when you come to edit and print the image.  Colour is very subjective.  Shooting in raw just gives you the ability to control some of the
process after the shoot instead of making all the decisions while on location.  
The same goes for exposure.  You can set the jpeg in-camera settings to decide on contrast and sharpness too, but why not leave it to the
comfort of the home!

Sometimes, having the image in raw has saved my bacon, particularly where I have got the exposure way out!  In jpeg the image would have been
trashed immediately!

I know that many users of this forum bang on about the better quality of raw shooting, and in truth they are right.  But it is still possible to get
excellent results from jpeg shooting, so if you do not feel the need to shoot raw then don't.  But if you do try, there is lots of good information
and advice on The Luminous Landscape to help.

The end result is what counts!

Jim
Logged

situgrrl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
    • http://www.charlyburnett.com
jpegs only, please
« Reply #2 on: November 10, 2008, 09:25:10 am »

Why not buy a minolta and shoot film then?

This might sound facetious but I don't mean it that way - but at the same time, shooting jpeg only has DISADVANTAGES compared to RAW - afterall - neither file is optimised for printing and both will need post-processing for an optimal result.  The RAW file though has plenty more latitude for that processing to take place with.  

If you shoot E6 film and print your finest using a pro lab (if you can find one) then you have overcome this problem.  If you are printing at 4x6, shoot jpg out of a compact camera and enjoy a nice holiday with what you have saved.  If you want to print large pieces of art, I'm afraid you have to learn how first.  As you say, "It's the end result that counts!"

All that said, the digital workflow has changed so much since Michael first wrote about it that moving to digital is a whole world less daunting than it was.  Learning Photoshop might seem like a life's work - but you no longer need to.  Learning Lightroom will take days.  Get the tutorial, download the demo and you'll be sussed on it very quickly.

DarkPenguin

  • Guest
jpegs only, please
« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2008, 03:02:22 pm »

Quote
"high-res presentation that gently rolls off the tonal extremes for open shadows and well-tamed highlights"

In a jpeg?

Try Oly.
Logged

bluekorn

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 141
jpegs only, please
« Reply #4 on: November 10, 2008, 08:46:38 pm »

Quote from: DarkPenguin
In a jpeg?

Try Oly.


Deep, a member here, also recommended Olympus very highly.  I was under the impression that "high-res presentation that gently rolls off the tonal extremes for open shadows and well-tamed highlights" was an attribute of Leica glass.
Logged

DarkPenguin

  • Guest
jpegs only, please
« Reply #5 on: November 10, 2008, 09:14:08 pm »

The Oly jpeg engine is pretty well respected.  If you want leica glass, tho, why not shoot leica?
Logged

bluekorn

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 141
jpegs only, please
« Reply #6 on: November 10, 2008, 09:50:20 pm »

Quote from: DarkPenguin
The Oly jpeg engine is pretty well respected.  If you want leica glass, tho, why not shoot leica?
I don't know if the minolta/leica "look" (from leica brochures advertising the film cameras) can be duplicated in this digital age. I don't know if Leica digital gets the same look from their glass with digital cameras. And, I presently have three grand to invest.  



                       
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up