Are jpgs worth it?

agentlossing said:
Gotcha. I am having trouble finding a good explanation of what's going on when you tell a RAW file to print - there's a definite conversion going on there, but what I am seeing is that it might not necessarily be to a JPEG, since JPEGs themselves have to go through a conversion to a printer's software in order to print through it. But I guess the point is that you aren't going to squeeze any more data through a printer's "pipes" with a RAW or TIFF than a JPEG typically, since printers usually further compress the data that is going through them.
Click to expand...

The general rule of thumb is you want to send your printer TIFF files ideally in 16 bit. Even if you're working with an 8 bit only printer and driver, 16 bit can be more optimal by letting the driver decide how to degrade the image. Aside from file sizes I see no point in bringing a JPEG to the printer. I've definitely seen printers on several occasions get very mad when people show up with JPEGs - I actually knew a printer that would literally kick people out if they tried to print using JPEGs.

JPEG is quickly on the way out anyway. Already files like HEIC/HEIF etc. have been replacing JPEGs because of smartphones, and Canon at least is offering HEIF files SOOC. HEIF has smaller file sizes than JPEG and offers 10 bit - it's a free lunch, but still not the best option for the printer.
 
Larry Cloetta said:
“Full 3D LUT support” that’s a big ask, and I doubt it, if I grasp what you mean by “full”. Lot going on with “full”. But, for practical purposes, I think you can get what you want if you just wanted to create a specific color balance for an in camera preset, that you might have created with 3D LUT Creator. It can certainly do that, but if you wanted a different color grading you’d have to create a different preset, by hand, to match that, using the Picture Control Utility, and load that one into the camera as well. You want “Sony Colors”, done. You want “Canon Colors”, done. I am likely not explaining this well, but you can create a RAW file using as the basis for that an example of whatever color graded photo you made using the LUT you made elsewhere, load that RAW file into Picture Control Utility, and either leave it alone and import that way of processing into the camera as a preset generated by PCU2, or tweak hue, chroma, saturation, tint, tone curve, sharpening, etc of your LUT compliant RAW file in PCU2, and load that into your camera as a preset.
So, maybe it more or less gets you there.

It does way more than provide a way to alter luminosity and tone curve, in other words. You can start with a RAW file loaded into PCU2, a RAW with the characteristics you want, that’s the starting point you will bake into the preset, and alter that to taste if desired, something you have already color graded, orange and teal example, anything.
The Nikon “manuals” on the web for the software don’t begin to describe the possibilities, nor do they have instructional videos to make it clear either, which is what I meant by saying Nikon is hopeless at marketing. The link you provided is a perfect example. It sounds like a lame program, which can’t do much at all. It’s why I mentioned earlier that one would really need to use the program, for a while, with a camera, to see the capabilities. And, to make things worse, the program, though competent, isn’t instantly intuitive.
So, to answer your question, it’s not a 3D LUT creator per se, but is pretty advanced regardless, and hardly anyone is aware it’s out there.
Click to expand...

I can't believe this was available for so many years that I shot with Nikon cameras and I had no idea. As you say, Nikon is hopeless at marketing.

Still not 3D LUT but close to Fuji which is pretty good. I downloaded the program and while clearly you can see colors change, I can't figure out how to change them to taste. For example would it be possible to change the hue/saturation of just one color?
 
Bill Blackwell said:
My work-flow begins with creating TIF files from DNG/RAW files and process those for printing, then I make [reduced to < 3mb] JPG files for posting on-line (that's all JPGs are good for, IMHO).

I never print from JPG files.
Click to expand...
If your final goal for a given shot is a print, raw is best. If the final goal is a photo on Craigslist...
 
I printed a photobook through Adorama a few years ago because I had a coupon for a free one. They wanted JPEGs as the upload format. The results were fantastic, by the way.
 
I used WHCC for lab work when I was in business.

They wanted jpegs saved at 10 in Photoshop with sRGB color space. They made fine prints for my clients. I sold a few large prints. Made panos that WHCC printed for wedding albums that PictoBooks put together.

Here is the PictoBooks site:

https://www.pictobooks.com/html2/index.php


Smiles.
 
If you are working with a very high-end lab, sitting next to the print maker and making test prints until things are perfect, then sure you can argue for 16-bit TIFF files and whatever color space you feel like works for you. But for mail-order prints from decent labs, a JPEG edited on a good monitor in sRGB is what you want to be using.

Of course if you are printing yourself at home, do whatever you want. However a small anecdote - years ago I audited a college course in Advanced Color Photography mostly to use the inkket printers on campus, preparing for a large exhibition. We were using Epson printers. The students had an absolutely agonizing time printing from TIFF images in AdobeRGB with sub-standard monitors (public school). Meanwhile I came in from home using a fairly midrange monitor, shooting in sRGB and editing in PS in same, and simply pushed "print" and I was 95% there. I might've tweaked the color/shadows occasionally, but otherwise my prints were ready for show. So IMO most of the hand-wringing over TIFF or JPEG, 8 or 16 bit, or custom profiling is all just too much for most use cases. KISS!

RAW or JPEG? Simple answer - shoot RAW+JPEG in camera and decide what you need later. You can shoot zillions of images per year and not run out of space quickly in a $150 8TB portable hard drive. It's just not something worth worrying over. I've never deleted a single digital image in 12 years, most shot RAW+JPEG because I like to have a preview file and a RAW file for editing. It just makes no sense to me to not do this, especially when I have a 12TB server sitting here to store images, videos, and sound recordings.
 
Corran said:
If you are working with a very high-end lab, sitting next to the print maker and making test prints until things are perfect, then sure you can argue for 16-bit TIFF files and whatever color space you feel like works for you. But for mail-order prints from decent labs, a JPEG edited on a good monitor in sRGB is what you want to be using.

Of course if you are printing yourself at home, do whatever you want. However a small anecdote - years ago I audited a college course in Advanced Color Photography mostly to use the inkket printers on campus, preparing for a large exhibition. We were using Epson printers. The students had an absolutely agonizing time printing from TIFF images in AdobeRGB with sub-standard monitors (public school). Meanwhile I came in from home using a fairly midrange monitor, shooting in sRGB and editing in PS in same, and simply pushed "print" and I was 95% there. I might've tweaked the color/shadows occasionally, but otherwise my prints were ready for show. So IMO most of the hand-wringing over TIFF or JPEG, 8 or 16 bit, or custom profiling is all just too much for most use cases. KISS!
Click to expand...

There are cases were high bit depth might be beneficial but in most cases 8 bits should be indeed enough. The colorspace plays a bigger role which can indeed lead to some artifacts in printing:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLlr7wpAZKs&t=1463s
Now again these are punishing prints and in many cases these wouldn't be visible even with side to side comparisons of the final prints.
But final output is one thing and capture is another. If anything more than small changes need to be made to a file, then differences between bit-depths and compression algorithms can be much more prevalent.

Corran said:
RAW or JPEG? Simple answer - shoot RAW+JPEG in camera and decide what you need later. You can shoot zillions of images per year and not run out of space quickly in a $150 8TB portable hard drive. It's just not something worth worrying over. I've never deleted a single digital image in 12 years, most shot RAW+JPEG because I like to have a preview file and a RAW file for editing. It just makes no sense to me to not do this, especially when I have a 12TB server sitting here to store images, videos, and sound recordings.
Click to expand...

Yep, totally agree. I stopped worrying about drive space about a decade ago. I only use jpeg for cloud backup of all of my photos.
 
Like most creative pursuits, there are many paths to take. No one is wrong if the results are what they want.

As I've said many times, I'm a muddler. Eventually I get what I want by muddling through, making mistakes and trying lots of things. What works for me is only what works for me.
 
In-camera JPEGs are similar to transparency film (slides) in the golden days of 35mm film.

JPEGs are convenient at the expense of flexibility. This sort of trade-off means the choice is subjective.

However, there is a foundational difference between transparency film and in-camera JPEGs. The former retains all the information recorded when the shutter was open. The latter assumes the exposure (not brightness) and color-temperature rendering parameters are perfect. This assumption justifies the irreversible destruction of information recorded when the shutter was open. The discarded information is redundant to image perception when the exposure and color-temperature rendering parameters are perfect. When the exposure and/or the color-temperature rendering parameters are not optimal, access to all the information will produce a superior image.

Recording in-camera JPEGs and raw files simultaneously eliminates the disadvantages associated with in-camera JPEGs. These days in-camera storage space is relatively cheap. Except for demanding action photography, camera-data buffer size and write times are not limiting. If needed, access to raw file data is possible. When post-production image selection and image staging are complete, redundant raw-files can be deleted.

I choose to just use raw files. Because data storage costs are low, I save and back up all my raw files. This is similar to what I did with physical film media except I don't need negative sieves or physical storage space. Of course I never made back up copies of physical media.

I even use raw for a small subset of my iPhone photographs. I save flat DNGs using either the 645Pro or Lightroom apps. Post-production work flow is identical to what I use with my cameras.
 
Darlings,

One should be using what one likes to use. To answer Bill's question, yes, jpg files from my cameras (Nikon, Fuji, Ricoh) are fine. I have made changes to the settings based on what I like but that is done before shooting. I am not making post production. But some people do and that is fine!

Nobody can tell if a print was made from jpg or from raw file. You may see difference if you compare the same photo printed from jpg and raw-and-worked-on, but even so, in "blind" test many people pick the wrong one saying "oh, this must be the raw file printed..." There is not a thing on the print saying "printed from raw" or "printed from jpg."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top