Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Sun May 19, 2013 5:54 pm

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Cameras, lenses and flashes: by manufacturer » Sony

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
Jamanamana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 6:04 am
Posts: 186
Yeah, I suppose so. I dont know - anybody here edit and save and edit and save jpegs?

I think thats a bonus with JPEGs, not because its more practical because its definitely not - but it keeps you on your toes. You need to pay attention to things like white balance before you shoot.
Top
 Profile  
 
vpell
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 2:28 am
Posts: 43
Sublimity wrote:
Please use Adobe Lightroom 2.0. Your photos will thank you.
This. RAW + Lightroom 2, use it all the time, every time. Period.
Top
 Profile  
 
vpell
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 2:28 am
Posts: 43
pgtips wrote:
Anbesol wrote:
Heres another problem - processing jpegs, and re-saving them as jpegs, every time you save as jpeg, the image goes through yet another compression routine and degrades the image. Time after time after time, it can have a very negative impact on the image.


I've always found this argument against JPEGs to be fairly academic. How many people actually edit the out-of-camera JPEGs directly and then save over it? Most people would duplicate the original JPEG and edit that or if they make edits they'll save it into a lossless format like TIFF or PSD, like you are currently doing. In theory, that could happen. In practice, that never happens unless you were being particularly obtuse.

Having said all that, there's a list on these forums somewhere with new year's resolutions and mine was to shoot JPEGs this year. I'm glad to say I'm still keeping at it and it's helped my photography tremendously as I shift out of the "Oh, I'll photoshop it later" mentality to a more "Get it right in camera" mentality. That's just me though, so YMMV.
I think the Get it right in camera applies much more to lighting and exposure abilities than whether you're shooting JPEG or RAW.
Top
 Profile  
 
Jamanamana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 6:04 am
Posts: 186
vpell wrote:
pgtips wrote:
Anbesol wrote:
Heres another problem - processing jpegs, and re-saving them as jpegs, every time you save as jpeg, the image goes through yet another compression routine and degrades the image. Time after time after time, it can have a very negative impact on the image.


I've always found this argument against JPEGs to be fairly academic. How many people actually edit the out-of-camera JPEGs directly and then save over it? Most people would duplicate the original JPEG and edit that or if they make edits they'll save it into a lossless format like TIFF or PSD, like you are currently doing. In theory, that could happen. In practice, that never happens unless you were being particularly obtuse.

Having said all that, there's a list on these forums somewhere with new year's resolutions and mine was to shoot JPEGs this year. I'm glad to say I'm still keeping at it and it's helped my photography tremendously as I shift out of the "Oh, I'll photoshop it later" mentality to a more "Get it right in camera" mentality. That's just me though, so YMMV.
I think the Get it right in camera applies much more to lighting and exposure abilities than whether you're shooting JPEG or RAW.

Not white balance, in raw you can shoot Auto, or heck - shoot some completely goofy and totally wrong white balance, then you can just reset it in processing no sweat. Shoot some screwed up white balance in JPEG and you're stuck with it.
Top
 Profile  
 
vpell
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 2:28 am
Posts: 43
Anbesol wrote:
vpell wrote:
pgtips wrote:
Anbesol wrote:
Heres another problem - processing jpegs, and re-saving them as jpegs, every time you save as jpeg, the image goes through yet another compression routine and degrades the image. Time after time after time, it can have a very negative impact on the image.


I've always found this argument against JPEGs to be fairly academic. How many people actually edit the out-of-camera JPEGs directly and then save over it? Most people would duplicate the original JPEG and edit that or if they make edits they'll save it into a lossless format like TIFF or PSD, like you are currently doing. In theory, that could happen. In practice, that never happens unless you were being particularly obtuse.

Having said all that, there's a list on these forums somewhere with new year's resolutions and mine was to shoot JPEGs this year. I'm glad to say I'm still keeping at it and it's helped my photography tremendously as I shift out of the "Oh, I'll photoshop it later" mentality to a more "Get it right in camera" mentality. That's just me though, so YMMV.
I think the Get it right in camera applies much more to lighting and exposure abilities than whether you're shooting JPEG or RAW.

Not white balance, in raw you can shoot Auto, or heck - shoot some completely goofy and totally wrong white balance, then you can just reset it in processing no sweat. Shoot some screwed up white balance in JPEG and you're stuck with it.
That's true. But that's even a good example for what I was saying. Letting your Camera do all the processing work, is still processing work. I think the ultimate goal to be set in this arena is getting it right in camera while shooting RAW. heh.
Top
 Profile  
 
vpell
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 2:28 am
Posts: 43
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, shooting JPEG for the reasons stated by pgtips seems a bit more like "Fixing it right in camera" than "getting it right in camera", you might be shooting it wrong, but the in camera processing will never let you know it.
Top
 Profile  
 
popo
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 12:48 pm
Posts: 7873
Location: UK
Do you *really* need to quote so much???

At the end of the day, the end result is what matters. If a jpeg is "good enough" does it matter? While holding less data than raw, I have found them highly editable while retaining a great output. Colour corrections and lighting adjustments are easy enough.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.
Top
 Profile  
 
pgtips
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 5:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 6:00 pm
Posts: 2781
vpell wrote:
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, shooting JPEG for the reasons stated by pgtips seems a bit more like "Fixing it right in camera" than "getting it right in camera", you might be shooting it wrong, but the in camera processing will never let you know it.


JPEG has a lot less processing latitude than RAW files, so I have no idea what you mean by in-camera processing never letting you know that you're shooting wrong. If anything, the opposite is more accurate. Shooting in RAW and then running it through a RAW converter and enabling automatic exposure correction will tend to hide most metering flaws.

The issue I'm having is one that's more mental than anything real. I've stated this before elsewhere, but I'll reiterate it here. I find that when I'm shooting in JPEG, I approach photography slightly differently. I end up taking more time per shot, this not only allows me to carefully consider what white balance to use, this slowing down also allows me to focus more on composition.

At the end of the day, this is what works for me and it's the most efficient workflow that I've discovered. YMMV (your mileage might vary) of course.

_________________
PhilipGoh.com
Top
 Profile  
 
pgtips
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 5:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 6:00 pm
Posts: 2781
popo wrote:
At the end of the day, the end result is what matters. If a jpeg is "good enough" does it matter? While holding less data than raw, I have found them highly editable while retaining a great output. Colour corrections and lighting adjustments are easy enough.


QFT. All edits you can do in RAW can be just as easily done in JPEG. RAW just allows you to perform more drastic edits.

_________________
PhilipGoh.com
Top
 Profile  
 
vpell
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 2:28 am
Posts: 43
pgtips wrote:
vpell wrote:
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, shooting JPEG for the reasons stated by pgtips seems a bit more like "Fixing it right in camera" than "getting it right in camera", you might be shooting it wrong, but the in camera processing will never let you know it.


JPEG has a lot less processing latitude than RAW files, so I have no idea what you mean by in-camera processing never letting you know that you're shooting wrong. If anything, the opposite is more accurate. Shooting in RAW and then running it through a RAW converter and enabling automatic exposure correction will tend to hide most metering flaws.


Then don't enable automatic exposure correction.
Top
 Profile  
 
pgtips
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 6:00 pm
Posts: 2781
vpell wrote:
Then don't enable automatic exposure correction.


That still doesn't detract from the fact that JPEGs provide less latitude for post processing than RAW files, so I don't understand your original comment.

_________________
PhilipGoh.com
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Board index » Cameras, lenses and flashes: by manufacturer » Sony

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group