Are jpgs worth it?

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
8:20 AM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
Are jpgs worth it? That’s a rather stupid question. How about are jpgs worth it when you want to make a good print or a good and relatively large screen presentation? My answer is “It depends.” Depends on what? My answer is the camera you are using. Example, I have jpgs from some Leica’s, but, while a fair amount of in camera control is available for those jpgs, they don’t hold a candle to the quality and color and tonal controls available from their more economical cousins from Fuji. When I’m shooting Leica, I shoot raw only. When I’m shooting Fuji, sometimes I wonder why I’m shooting raw and jpg rather than just jpg, even though the processing programs I use offer “equivalent” film simulations. The problem is the in camera jpgs are created using image adjustments not easily made in the commercial processing programs (or so I’m told), and they can often be more pleasing to me than what I can quickly produce from the raw files. As a matter of fact, sometimes they are better than what I have produced with rather elaborate adjustments on a raw file. That's really hard on the ego of someone who thinks of himself as a really good digital darkroom printer.

How about other camera brands? I don’t know. Do you think your camera produces jpgs, although they are limited in how they can be altered compared to raw files, that, on a good day, with a few simple adjustments can produce an image of “exhibition” quality?
 
The Fuji- if it is a model using the X-Trans Sensor, I can see the in-camera firmware having algorithms optimized for the very special layout of the pixels. Other cameras that use lossy-compression on Raw images, the same- the JPEGs are produced from a true RAW image in the camera, that is decimated when stored to the memory card.

BUT- if a true Raw image is stored, with adequate meta-data such as lighting conditions, AND the post-processing software is doing a good job- I'd always rather have a RAW image and find a package that does a good job.

Digital cameras have been in wide-spread use for about 20 years now. Software has improved. Files from, for example, a Nikon D1 can be processed with newer software to produce JPEGs far superior to those from the camera. Up-Res software, noise reduction improvements, etc. If you only shot JPEG- you are pretty much stuck with what you have.
 
Considering that most folks look at pictures on their phone, with their tiny screens, Jpegs work just fine.

Jim B.
 
Some will be fine with jpeg's, just like my mom and dad took all our family pictures with Polaroids and Kodak Instamatics instead of owning a Nikon F or Olympus OM1 45-50 years ago.

I don't even like working with scanned 35mm negatives unless they're scanned to DNG.
 
Sonnar Brian said:
The Fuji- if it is a model using the X-Trans Sensor, I can see the in-camera firmware having algorithms optimized for the very special layout of the pixels. Other cameras that use lossy-compression on Raw images, the same- the JPEGs are produced from a true RAW image in the camera, that is decimated when stored to the memory card.

BUT- if a true Raw image is stored, with adequate meta-data such as lighting conditions, AND the post-processing software is doing a good job- I'd always rather have a RAW image and find a package that does a good job.

Digital cameras have been in wide-spread use for about 20 years now. Software has improved. Files from, for example, a Nikon D1 can be processed with newer software to produce JPEGs far superior to those from the camera. Up-Res software, noise reduction improvements, etc. If you only shot JPEG- you are pretty much stuck with what you have.
Click to expand...

Brian - Agreed raw files have far more potential for interpretation and a lot of the common hallmarks of image quality. What amazes me is the jpg’s quality when the image is close to what you want without a lot of “interpretation.” That said, I find the standard sharpening in most out of the camera jpgs clearly shows that high contrast line between two adjacent areas of light and dark tone if you make a big print. I reduce the in camera sharpening and also set the jpg contrast to a lower level, setting those values in the image processing program. With a few other adjustments I often can make a good “straight” print. I am speaking of the Fuji files, both the cameras with the X-Trans raw files and the Bayer files in their medium format cameras. No question they have put a lot of effort into jpgs with a variety of “looks.” I just wondered what success people with other camera brands were having because the other cameras I use do not do as good a job with jpgs as the Fujis do. I was hoping to hear that some other cameras did an excellent job.
 
I had no problem making 8x10 prints from JPEGs shot with my old Dimage 7i as long as I set the processing options correctly in the camera. As I've noted elsewhere on the forum, I'm experimenting with a JPEG-only workflow with my Canon EOS M50. The camera can do everything I would do to a RAW photo and do it faster than I can on my computer in DPP4, so why not let it do the work? I spend enough time in front of the computer as it is for my day job and I'm tired of it. If I can get the results I want, I'll stick with it; we'll see how it goes.
 
I have JPEG1s on something like 56 inches monitor. The bigger monitor is, the greater distance is needed from it to see the entire picture. So?...

"Good print"... Maybe for Americans good also means big...

I'm not an American. I don't need good print to be big.

For big prints it is not about image format, but dpi and MPs.

If camera, lens and you are capable, JPEG1 SOOC is good.

I had Canon 5C with 50L. It was so good, I switched to JPEG1.
Looks like Fuji X cameras have great in-camera JPEG1.
Scans from original LC-A and Kodak Gold are all good. Doesn't matter which format they are. As long as you have taste for true lomography.

But if "good" is typical grossly over-processed image from typical photo magazine, tops images on dumpsters like 500pix then RAW is your friend. Because on the road to kill natural presentation you need less destructive image format.
 
I went through a phase of shooting a lot of jpegs 10 years ago - in one particular instance on an overseas trip. The jpegs I shot look awful in comparison to the raw files I shot with the same camera today - the progress in raw conversion quality has meant the raw files have improved substantially while the jpegs sit as-is. Stings every time I open up my archive and see those 5d and m4/3 jpegs with their crap rendering and mushy weird high iso noise.

With adobe and capture1 able to perfectly emulate in camera colour profiles in raw conversions, I personally don't see any reason whatsoever to shoot jpegs unless one specifically enjoys writing off future proofing of their files.
 
Caro Bill,

Did you ever have this debate when you shot Kodachrome? Or any transparency stock? I wonder.

The beauty of JPEG is in treating it like Kodachrome. The edit becomes binary, no? "No, no, no, no, maybe, no, no, YES! no, no, no...." and so on. If you shooting black and white and you used to shot film then sure, you will think of the enlarger and the easel. Filters, different contrast in paper, dodging, burning...we go on.

I spend most of my working life trying to shoot Kodachrome as well as Mr. Allard. Or my master, Jay Maisel. There was only yes or no in the edit. The limitation of the medium made me a prisoner to the form. And then I am bending it to my desire. Like Kodachrome. Sometimes.

JPEG for me, darling.
 
past few years I was tired of doing raw editing. computer altogether ​felt like unnecessary step, when cameras can talk directly to mobile devices. so did just minor edits on cloud software and then use. (prints havent yet arrived to my orbit :p )

but always shot with raw also and now am happy about that. thanks to advancements in latest softwares am gradually building new interest in editing, and considering corner to my place with good monitor and computer, comfy office chair and desk
 
On my Fuji X-Pro1 and Pentax K10D the jpgs are more than good enough, so that’s all I use.

On my D700, I use RAW+JPG for each photo, but keep the RAW only on the card for the one in a billionth chance I’ll ever need to prove a photo is mine. On the PC, I keep only the jpg and that’s what I print from. They’re good enough.

I just don’t want to be bothered editing photos on a PC, although by experience years ago and for different purposes, I was extremely good at it.
 
Bill Pierce said:
<snip>???? The problem is the in camera jpgs are created using image adjustments not easily made in the commercial processing programs (or so I’m told), and they can often be more pleasing to me than what I can quickly produce from the raw files. As a matter of fact, sometimes they are better than what I have produced with rather elaborate adjustments on a raw file..........

How about other camera brands? I don’t know. Do you think your camera produces jpgs, although they are limited in how they can be altered compared to raw files, that, on a good day, with a few simple adjustments can produce an image of “exhibition” quality?<snip>
Click to expand...

Bill, if I am reading you right, you are not asking about the advisability of just shooting jpgs, generally, but are asking what cameras besides the Fujis have worked out the in camera processing to the point that, because of their advantage in controlling the processor and knowing exactly what is coming off their sensor, they can do the RAW processing for you. And spit out a perfect jpg. For a given style, every tone curve has already been worked out and applied, already been color graded to achieve that given style, etc, exactly as you might do it at the computer, provided the in camera styles, at least one or two of them, match what your vision is. I do think some manufacturers are at this point now, Fuji, as you noted. I think the newer Nikons do this as well, and it is a capability that is probably overlooked by most users. What you can do is not limited to the jpg styles that are presets which come in the camera, under “Picture Controls”. Those can all, each, be adjusted for contrast, sharpening, clarity, hue, etc, but the camera capabilities to use in body processing to generate almost any look you want, color or monochrome, go way beyond those if you create your own picture controls, or acquire them from others, and load them into the camera. Nikon has software to do this, Picture Control Utility, which is more complicated to explain than I will go into here, but it takes advantage of everything found in Nikon’s proprietary RAW developing software. https://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-a...iques/the-importance-of-picture-controls.html

The above probably isn’t instantly comprehensible, but my point is that yes, there are some things that can now be done in camera to process the RAW files, essentially using RAW processing software in camera, which can be just as good as anything you would do yourself with 30 minutes at the computer...(there is no reason it wouldn’t be)......provided you like the custom “looks” available. And at this point, at least for Nikon, you can load the camera with custom picture controls of your own devising, so you are not limited to those that come in the camera. I’ve got jpg outputs for Provia and Velvia and Tri-x and TMAX 400 in my Z7, for example. Maybe Fuji can do that as well.
You can still print “big”, because the jpg file sizes are huge if you choose them to be.
Personally, I’d say if you were going that route, shooting and outputting jpgs, either be fully in or fully out. The advantage is that it’s quick, and you get what you want out of the camera. If you are still going to take it to Photoshop and futz with it, just shoot RAW, because you just squandered your advantage. More or less.

These days, in camera processing is a great alternative, and not “inferior”, if you always distill down to jpgs at the end of Photoshop anyway.
Downside, as has already been noted, is that if you are scrolling through LR in a couple of years and see a file that you realize you can do something better with, you have just killed your chances to do a nice job with that, because there is no RAW file to be had.
 
Bill Pierce said:
Are jpgs worth it? .... Do you think your camera produces jpgs, although they are limited in how they can be altered compared to raw files, that, on a good day, with a few simple adjustments can produce an image of “exhibition” quality?
Click to expand...


Yes, it really depends, Bill. Not on the camera you use, though. It depends on what you call "exhibition" quality. There's no such thing as that. I've seen marvelous photo exhibitions where the largest image was postcard size, others where images where printed on anything but photo paper. I think photography is much more than sharpness at any printsize, tonal range or highlights and shadows that retain detail. So, yes, in MY understanding of what exhibition quality is, JPGs are totally fine. But I perfectly understand if Salgado doesn't feel the same...
 
It doesn't really matter, does it? If we are artists in the medium of photography it’s an individual's choice. Would a painter look down (or up) at an artist that prefers water colors over oil or acrylic paints? Clay or paper mache? Wood, bronze, glass, concrete, bricks, sticks or stones?

An artist expresses in whatever format or style they prefer… it’s either compelling and/or pleasing or it’s not. Print large, print small, print not at all; It doesn't really matter, does it?

All the best,
Mike
 
Here my $0.02:
jpgs are convienient and for sure sufficient for 95+% of all purposes.
If you want to squeeze out the last drop of possible image quality yourself and don't want to trust the all knowing algorithm, then you have to put in the effort yourself.
Why do 95+% of digital images look so similar?
 
I think In good lighting jpgs can be ok. When the lighting becomes complex I think the in camera processor struggles and can’t know where to adjust for contrast correction as well as the human eye processing a RAW. It just doesn’t know where to bring down highlights or where to lift shadows effectively. Also, I think there are a lot of people that show AWB and as good as AWB can be, it becomes frustrating when there’s no cohesion in a series of JPG even in the same location. I tend to just set my camera to daylight or 5200 kelvin for most of my outdoor stuff as this even makes RAW editing much simpler, but is imperative to have a set of photos with the same color in jpg.
 
I will agree with Mme Oscuro, if you treat it like Kodachrome then jpeg can offer a very different experience much closer to shooting film. But for most work, RAW flexibility makes it a necessity really.

And I agree Bill, only Fuji has my trust in their jpegs. But that is mostly with their more recent cameras. With my X-Pro1 I shoot RAW only because that gives me access to film simulations such as Classic Negative that I otherwise wouldn't be able to use.

But I am picky (as I guess most of us here are). The majority of people would be fine with the jpeg engines of most cameras.

What I can't really figure out is why Companies don't give us more in-camera flexibility for jpegs. For example, if they would allow us to use custom 3D LUTs, then it would be possible to create any film stock / film simulation we like. It is trivial to implement this.

Zeiss zx1 and Pixii supposedly have something like that but I haven't seen any examples.
 
Ah, the much maligned and unappreciated JPEG. What a puny specimen of artistic expression it is considered to be. I had the same attitude myself from the first time I began to shoot with a digital camera. The attitude came with the free and abundant advice offered on internet forums at the time. Like most advice from experts on the web, it was total BS.

Up until about a year ago now I was a dedicated Raw guy. I could always make a Raw file look good with post processing unless I had really mucked it up when shooting so why would I want a camera processed image. Raw only for me. Then I looked at all these cameras I owned with more megapixels than the stars in the virtual heavens and the thought came to me that's an awful lot of information in those files. With improved technology in sensors and processors and all the other magic the wizards of ones and zeros have come up with to improve resolution, ISO and dynamic range why I betcha these's been improvements in the JPEG engine quality as well.

So I tried shooting JPEG only in my 36mp cameras. Since I'm a B&W guy I figured it was simple, not having the camera deal with the range of colors. Gee, everything looked pretty good. So I continued by turning off all the in-camera processing I could, basically leaving the camera to use it's programs to fix lens aberrations and letting me adjust the contrast, colors, tonality, sharpness and noise reduction in my normal Lightroom process. I was treating the JPEG like a Raw. And it worked. It worked like...well, great. I could deal with smaller files and get the same look I had already developed working in Raw.

From there I tried it in lower megapixel full frame cameras. And in APS-C cameras. And each time, the results were indistinguishable from my Raw files. At least to my eyes and, after all, that's all I care about anyway. I've done this with Canon, Fuji, Nikon, Olympus and Ricoh files so far and they're fine for my uses. Admittedly, I don't print larger than 12x18 images and mostly 6x9. Eagle-eyed pixel peepers can easily point out losses in quality by sticking their noses and a magnifier up against the prints. So what.

One thing I will disagree with is that I cannot accept a SOOC JPEG. I don't like a file that's been fully cooked by the camera. And I know many love Fuji JPEGs and film simulations but I do not. I love working with Fuji cameras but not their color film simulations. And I detest Acros.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top