«

It could be time for sites to standardize on a RAW conversion for
image samples because the inevitable JPEGs put up on sites are highly
subjective, unless you only shoot JPEGs. Some camera companies just
can't do good JPEGs. Even a company relatively good at processing
them in-camera (like Olympus) can't always do justice to the imagery
the camera is capable of.
I've seen 200 ISO shots with noticeable noise reduction being applied
(usually, some ill-chosen default setting in the camera) so perhaps it
is time to pick a RAW converter than handles any RAW file and use it
for all camera shots. Inevitably, you'll get people saying you can't
do it, that RAW converters work differently with different cameras,
which is true, but IMO, it would provide a better snapshot of what a
camera can do, and thus would be useful, compared to using JPEG
outputs.

On 23/02/2013 9:22 p.m., Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 21:03:14 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
> wrote:
>
>> It could be time for sites to standardize on a RAW conversion for
>> image samples because the inevitable JPEGs put up on sites are highly
>> subjective, unless you only shoot JPEGs. Some camera companies just
>> can't do good JPEGs. Even a company relatively good at processing
>> them in-camera (like Olympus) can't always do justice to the imagery
>> the camera is capable of.
>> I've seen 200 ISO shots with noticeable noise reduction being applied
>> (usually, some ill-chosen default setting in the camera) so perhaps it
>> is time to pick a RAW converter than handles any RAW file and use it
>> for all camera shots. Inevitably, you'll get people saying you can't
>> do it, that RAW converters work differently with different cameras,
>> which is true, but IMO, it would provide a better snapshot of what a
>> camera can do, and thus would be useful, compared to using JPEG
>> outputs.
>
> Can any JPG do justice to the output of a modern high resolution
> camera?
>
If you shoot jpeg as many people do, then it /is/ the output of a modern
high res camera.

On 23/02/2013 7:22 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 21:03:14 -0800 (PST), RichA<>
> wrote:
>
>> It could be time for sites to standardize on a RAW conversion for
>> image samples because the inevitable JPEGs put up on sites are highly
>> subjective, unless you only shoot JPEGs. Some camera companies just
>> can't do good JPEGs. Even a company relatively good at processing
>> them in-camera (like Olympus) can't always do justice to the imagery
>> the camera is capable of.
>> I've seen 200 ISO shots with noticeable noise reduction being applied
>> (usually, some ill-chosen default setting in the camera) so perhaps it
>> is time to pick a RAW converter than handles any RAW file and use it
>> for all camera shots. Inevitably, you'll get people saying you can't
>> do it, that RAW converters work differently with different cameras,
>> which is true, but IMO, it would provide a better snapshot of what a
>> camera can do, and thus would be useful, compared to using JPEG
>> outputs.
>
> Can any JPG do justice to the output of a modern high resolution
> camera?

I can't trust what others do to there JPG images, just to gloss over how
a camera performs.

Using JPGs depends on the final output of the image. I can see no
problem in using my JPG's for printing to a large format image.

Comparing printed images taken in RAW and JPG, processed through PShop I
can see negligible difference. Yes you can tweak a raw more, but its
what's acceptable to the client that matters, not what you put yourself
through because you can see fault.

On 23/02/2013 08:22, Eric Stevens wrote:
[]
> Can any JPG do justice to the output of a modern high resolution
> camera?

Yes, as there exists 12-bit, lossless JPEG. But if you mean 8-bit JPEG,
then the answer depends to a a degree on the viewing conditions and
whether there is any post-processing involved. Dynamic range is more
likely to be the problem than spatial resolution.

I use JPEG, and it's fine /most/ of the time.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 23/02/2013 6:03 p.m., RichA wrote:

> Even a company relatively good at processing
> them in-camera (like Olympus) can't always do justice to the imagery
> the camera is capable of.

Olympus are con-artists and liars. The stated ISO settings on the
OMD-EM5 are off by more than a stop - ie so-called "ISO 1600" is
actually ISO 782.

So what are you going to compare an "ISO 1600" OMD E raw file with?

Corrected for ISO, a 6 year old and two generations out of date D90
sensor outperforms the OMD (the OMD has slightly higher QE, but more
than offset by a smaller sensor).

On 2/23/2013 2:14 AM, David Taylor wrote:
> On 23/02/2013 08:22, Eric Stevens wrote:
> []
>> Can any JPG do justice to the output of a modern high resolution
>> camera?
>
> Yes, as there exists 12-bit, lossless JPEG. But if you mean 8-bit JPEG,
> then the answer depends to a a degree on the viewing conditions and
> whether there is any post-processing involved. Dynamic range is more
> likely to be the problem than spatial resolution.
>
> I use JPEG, and it's fine /most/ of the time.

Ditto for me too.

I used to shoot Raw all the time, expecting the best of what I
photographed; slowly moving to Raw+JPEG, following the advice of
photo-geeks like me. I would process my shots in Lightroom then finish
off in Photoshop. Lots of sometimes tedious work. Then one day I
realized people viewing my prints didn't give a damn what I was saving
the photos with or how I was processing them, they either liked the
scenes/ prints or they didn't. But no one, not ever, (with exception of
the salesmen at the camera store) who liked my scenes/shots asked me if
I was shooting Raw or JPEG. So ... from that time on I wised up and
started using JPEG most of the time.

Facing the issue straight on, when about 98% of those who ask me for
prints (such as friends and family) want their prints made 6x4 size, how
technically accurate does a photo shot have to be. Just get the flesh
colors right and make people look like a movie star and satisfaction
will soon follow. A worked-over scene is either appealing or it's not.
Emotion rules, while in general practice, technology comes in second
place. Have to say, being an armature ofttimes has its good points.

On Feb 23, 6:28*pm, Me <m...@anywherebuthere.com> wrote:
> On 23/02/2013 6:03 p.m., RichA wrote:
>
> > Even a company relatively good at processing
> > them in-camera (like Olympus) can't always do justice to the imagery
> > the camera is capable of.
>
> Olympus are con-artists and liars. *The stated ISO settings on the
> OMD-EM5 are off by more than a stop - ie so-called "ISO 1600" is
> actually ISO 782.
>
> So what are you going to compare an "ISO 1600" OMD E raw file with?
>
> Corrected for ISO, a 6 year old and two generations out of date D90
> sensor outperforms the OMD (the OMD has slightly higher QE, but more
> than offset by a smaller sensor).

I tried to point out mis-statements about ISO with Pentax a few years
back and got attacked for it. Olympus ISO's used be underrated, which
worked in their favour, being the cost of an f/2.8 lens is always 2x
the cost of an f/4.0 lens. Obviously, true ISOs would need to be
determined before doing such a test, otherwise you end up like
Dpreview, trimming up exposures in post-processing to make each scene
look the same, but killing any ability to really compare.

On 2/23/2013 8:52 PM, nick c wrote:
> On 2/23/2013 2:14 AM, David Taylor wrote:
>> On 23/02/2013 08:22, Eric Stevens wrote:
>> []
>>> Can any JPG do justice to the output of a modern high resolution
>>> camera?
>>
>> Yes, as there exists 12-bit, lossless JPEG. But if you mean 8-bit JPEG,
>> then the answer depends to a a degree on the viewing conditions and
>> whether there is any post-processing involved. Dynamic range is more
>> likely to be the problem than spatial resolution.
>>
>> I use JPEG, and it's fine /most/ of the time.
>
> Ditto for me too.
>
> I used to shoot Raw all the time, expecting the best of what I
> photographed; slowly moving to Raw+JPEG, following the advice of
> photo-geeks like me. I would process my shots in Lightroom then finish
> off in Photoshop. Lots of sometimes tedious work. Then one day I
> realized people viewing my prints didn't give a damn what I was saving
> the photos with or how I was processing them, they either liked the
> scenes/ prints or they didn't. But no one, not ever, (with exception of
> the salesmen at the camera store) who liked my scenes/shots asked me if
> I was shooting Raw or JPEG. So ... from that time on I wised up and
> started using JPEG most of the time.
>
> Facing the issue straight on, when about 98% of those who ask me for
> prints (such as friends and family) want their prints made 6x4 size, how
> technically accurate does a photo shot have to be. Just get the flesh
> colors right and make people look like a movie star and satisfaction
> will soon follow. A worked-over scene is either appealing or it's not.
> Emotion rules, while in general practice, technology comes in second
> place. Have to say, being an armature ofttimes has its good points.


Being an "armature"...don't you become far too dizzy, to take steady
pictures?

John

On 2/24/2013 7:09 PM, John Turco wrote:
> On 2/23/2013 8:52 PM, nick c wrote:
>> On 2/23/2013 2:14 AM, David Taylor wrote:
>>> On 23/02/2013 08:22, Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> []
>>>> Can any JPG do justice to the output of a modern high resolution
>>>> camera?
>>>
>>> Yes, as there exists 12-bit, lossless JPEG. But if you mean 8-bit JPEG,
>>> then the answer depends to a a degree on the viewing conditions and
>>> whether there is any post-processing involved. Dynamic range is more
>>> likely to be the problem than spatial resolution.
>>>
>>> I use JPEG, and it's fine /most/ of the time.
>>
>> Ditto for me too.
>>
>> I used to shoot Raw all the time, expecting the best of what I
>> photographed; slowly moving to Raw+JPEG, following the advice of
>> photo-geeks like me. I would process my shots in Lightroom then finish
>> off in Photoshop. Lots of sometimes tedious work. Then one day I
>> realized people viewing my prints didn't give a damn what I was saving
>> the photos with or how I was processing them, they either liked the
>> scenes/ prints or they didn't. But no one, not ever, (with exception of
>> the salesmen at the camera store) who liked my scenes/shots asked me if
>> I was shooting Raw or JPEG. So ... from that time on I wised up and
>> started using JPEG most of the time.
>>
>> Facing the issue straight on, when about 98% of those who ask me for
>> prints (such as friends and family) want their prints made 6x4 size, how
>> technically accurate does a photo shot have to be. Just get the flesh
>> colors right and make people look like a movie star and satisfaction
>> will soon follow. A worked-over scene is either appealing or it's not.
>> Emotion rules, while in general practice, technology comes in second
>> place. Have to say, being an armature ofttimes has its good points.
>
>
> Being an "armature"...don't you become far too dizzy, to take steady
> pictures?
>
> John

LOL ......

There may be an old Chinese proverb that goes something like this:

Without eyeglasses, haste and negligence are companions to one who
enters the land of the fuzzy, ofttimes wearing the crown of laughter.

Bless you, John

On 23/02/2013 08:22, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 21:03:14 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
> wrote:
>
>> It could be time for sites to standardize on a RAW conversion for
>> image samples because the inevitable JPEGs put up on sites are highly
>> subjective, unless you only shoot JPEGs. Some camera companies just
>> can't do good JPEGs. Even a company relatively good at processing
>> them in-camera (like Olympus) can't always do justice to the imagery
>> the camera is capable of.
>> I've seen 200 ISO shots with noticeable noise reduction being applied
>> (usually, some ill-chosen default setting in the camera) so perhaps it
>> is time to pick a RAW converter than handles any RAW file and use it
>> for all camera shots. Inevitably, you'll get people saying you can't
>> do it, that RAW converters work differently with different cameras,
>> which is true, but IMO, it would provide a better snapshot of what a
>> camera can do, and thus would be useful, compared to using JPEG
>> outputs.
>
> Can any JPG do justice to the output of a modern high resolution
> camera?

It isn't the size of the image sensor that limits JPEG performance. It
is the choice of quantisation tables used for compression and a few
minor defects in the usual decoders reconstruction algorithms.

Faults blamed on JPEG are almost always somewhere else in the processing
chain - usually in the demosaic, denoise and sharpen.

The only place where a JPEG really fails against RAW is in images with
huge dynamic range where the shadow detail and highlights are both
important - most obviously in wedding photography. The extra dynamic
range in the RAW data is very useful in those circumstances.

Most camera manufacturers can manage to encode perfectly decent high
quality JPEGs and have done so ever since the first generation of
cameras. Most people would not be able to tell the difference between a
JPEG encoded photographic image and the original reference data.

Such differences as there may be are down to other gratuitous in camera
tweaks like oversharpening and noise reduction tricks. Manufacturers
know that ever increasing numbers of megapixels and sharp edges with
over exaggerated colours sells cameras so that is what they make for the
consumer end of the market. Images taken on pro cameras look slightly
soft by comparison but their resolution is all real.

The main advantage of a JPEG is that it is much smaller for a given
level of image fidelity. You would have to use a *very* much larger
lossless RAW file format for no perceptible difference.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown