Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Re: Camera JPEG engines (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t954621-re-camera-jpeg-engines.html)

Martin Brown 11-19-2012 08:16 AM

Re: Camera JPEG engines
 
On 18/11/2012 23:33, Alfred Molon wrote:
> I'd be curious about your opinion/experience with the JPEG output of
> today's cameras. Do you only shoot RAW and postprocess everything, or
> RAW+JPEG and only postprocess selectively, or do you only shoot JPEG?


There is not enough time in the day to shoot everything in RAW and post
process. Highest quality JPEG is generally very good on most decent
cameras and has been for ages. Some are actually faithfully digitising
the thermal noise as well as the image - wasting space on the card.

The days when JPEGs quality names were inflated so that "Good" = "Bad",
"Very Good" = "Good" and "Excellent" = "Very Good" are long gone!
>
> My personal experience is that the JPEG output of modern cameras is not
> bad, sometimes surprisingly good, and -if the camera is set up properly-
> only a certain percentage of images need RAW processing.
>

Mostly those including insane dynamic range where shadow detail and
highlights are both simultaneously important. Weddings being an obvious
situation where you will need to use post processing or risk disaster.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

David Dyer-Bennet 11-19-2012 11:09 PM

Re: Camera JPEG engines
 
Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes:

> On 18/11/2012 23:33, Alfred Molon wrote:
>> I'd be curious about your opinion/experience with the JPEG output of
>> today's cameras. Do you only shoot RAW and postprocess everything, or
>> RAW+JPEG and only postprocess selectively, or do you only shoot JPEG?

>
> There is not enough time in the day to shoot everything in RAW and
> post process. Highest quality JPEG is generally very good on most
> decent cameras and has been for ages. Some are actually faithfully
> digitising the thermal noise as well as the image - wasting space on
> the card.


Ah; now THAT is why I converted to Bibble Pro, these many years ago.
Makes processing 1500 raw files much more palatable -- I can adjust
groups rather than individual files, and get the equivalent of pro-lab
video-analyzed prints in similar amounts of operator time, or less.

--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Chris Malcolm 11-29-2012 06:08 PM

Re: Camera JPEG engines
 
David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
> Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> On 18/11/2012 23:33, Alfred Molon wrote:


>>> I'd be curious about your opinion/experience with the JPEG output of
>>> today's cameras. Do you only shoot RAW and postprocess everything, or
>>> RAW+JPEG and only postprocess selectively, or do you only shoot JPEG?

>>
>> There is not enough time in the day to shoot everything in RAW and
>> post process. Highest quality JPEG is generally very good on most
>> decent cameras and has been for ages. Some are actually faithfully
>> digitising the thermal noise as well as the image - wasting space on
>> the card.


> Ah; now THAT is why I converted to Bibble Pro, these many years ago.
> Makes processing 1500 raw files much more palatable -- I can adjust
> groups rather than individual files, and get the equivalent of pro-lab
> video-analyzed prints in similar amounts of operator time, or less.


Did you convert to Aftershot Pro when Corel bought Bibble?

--
Chris Malcolm


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.