How fine are those Fine jpegs?

[Ed Rooney]

I've been shooting RAW since moving from film to digital.  I assume most of you shoot RAW. But maybe I'm wrong. For Live News, I would shoot Fine jpegs and do no PP at all. But I don't shoot Live news. I've been going from RAW to tiff to jpeg, from LR to PS but maybe on many of my snaps I don't really need to do that. 

 

Who among you are happy shooting Fine jpegs? I plan to do that in this next week as an experiment. 

 

Edo

[Steve F]

Hi Ed,

I don't see the need to ever go to Photoshop unless you need to make a major correction to a photo - I do so very very rarely for Alamy. And my thinking is, if a photo needs PS changes, then it's not worth my time - it already takes long enough with processing and keywording etc. without using Photoshop, so I just ditch the photo. I use raw files in Lightroom and convert directly to the highest quality jpeg on export.

 

I still prefer to use raw files for Alamy though, although I guess you could get away with using fine jpegs directly from a decent camera.

Steve

Edited October 3, 2019 by Steve F

[Joseph Clemson]

I couldn't manage without shooting RAW. It gives enough flexibiity in processing to deal with moderate under or overexposure without degrading the image or being stuck with sub-standard out-of-camera images in the way might happen with JPEG. And there is one very good reason for using RAW when shooting  in the UK, we frequently have grey skies which get over-exposed easily when shooting outdoors. Using RAW I can easily use the Lightroom graduated filter to drop the sky by 1 or even 2 stops to match exposure on the subject. 

 

To some extent I'm using RAW to avoid having to check the histogram of each and every shot in camera, reshooting if needed. 

 

If I was trying to shoot and upoad large quantities of images or if I need to submit them very quickly, I woudl shoot fine JPEG. I'm not, so I don't.

[spacecadet]

I used jpeg for some years until a few borderline images bit me where it hurts so I switched. But looking at the sort of images you're submitting now, I think you'd be fine with jpegs for most images.

The key word is "most". It's the odd low-light or high ISO images that let you down. I probably won't go back to jpeg, but I can see why you might.

The only downsidefrom RAW is that import and export of RAWs take a bit longer, and I have to move catalogues over to external drives every few years.

Joseph's point about skies is right- there's a lot more leeway in a RAW. In fact I usually just pull down the highlights- my use of grads dropped nearly to nothing when I went to RAW.

Edited October 3, 2019 by spacecadet

[NYCat]

On my RX100 I shoot RAW plus JPEG because I remember David Kilpatrick telling us how good the JPEGs were. In the end, I usually wind up working on the RAW but there are certainly times I could just as easily submit the JPEG and save myself that time.

 

Paulette

[Matt Ashmore]

21 minutes ago, NYCat said:

On my RX100 I shoot RAW plus JPEG because I remember David Kilpatrick telling us how good the JPEGs were. In the end, I usually wind up working on the RAW but there are certainly times I could just as easily submit the JPEG and save myself that time.

 

Paulette

 

Before I lost the ability to upload Live News, my RX100 was permanently in Raw + JPEG in case I shot something newsworthy which I would quickly transfer to my phone and then upload. But since losing access to Live News, I have reverted to RAW only. With my RX100, 40% of the time I find something that I need to do to an image be it removing CA, removing noise (particularly if I raise ISO above 200) or simply correcting verticals.

[spacecadet]

25 minutes ago, Matt Ashmore said:

 

Before I lost the ability to upload Live News, my RX100 was permanently in Raw + JPEG in case I shot something newsworthy which I would quickly transfer to my phone and then upload. But since losing access to Live News, I have reverted to RAW only. With my RX100, 40% of the time I find something that I need to do to an image be it removing CA, removing noise (particularly if I raise ISO above 200) or simply correcting verticals.

I forgot that. Automatic CA removal and distortion correction only works on RAWs.

[meanderingemu]

i shoot RAW, however on some simple images (sign, simple geometry, image i wanted to hit the about 5pm QC 😉) i have a few time done my RAW conversion to JPEG in camera and uploaded from card to Alamy .  Note I use a Fuji, so i get Fuji pseudo film treatment in Camera,

Edited October 3, 2019 by meanderingemu

[dustydingo]

I never shoot jpgs, even though the new machine's RAW (NEF) files are huuuge . .. oh how I love XQD cards

 

For stock, it's not because the D850 doesn't mostly produce brilliant jpgs, it's because it occasionally doesn't, especially in hugely complicated (or almost non-existing) light . . . and if that "occasionally" is an otherwise high-value money shot that just needs a bit of remedial work in PS, within the vast latitude RAW permits . . . well, it's a no-brainer for me.

 

I might venture to RAW + JPG if shooting news . . . but would still have that wonderfully flexible RAW file there, just in case

 

DD

 

 

[Mr Standfast]

Hello Edo,

 

A fine question!

 

In difficult light I shoot RAW, in good light, I usually shoot RAW out of habit or because thats what people say they do. I'm not convinced it's always needed. I use the Fujifilm Presets in LR.

 

In normal light I've shot Fine JPEG at carnivals and events for LIVE News , with good results. I've probably saved some time, but I don't shoot enough pictures to see the benefit. Any time saved is lost trying to get some WIFI, 4G or somewhere I can see the screen of the laptop...

 

As Paulette says David Kilpatrick was of the opinion that JPEG was OK, he also said that to make sure sharpening was OFF.  If they saw it, this would fail QC

 

With Adobe prices going up, in a low inflation economy with low consumer confidence driving picture prices;  shooting JPEG has financial benefits.

 

Cheers.

 

 

 

 

[Phil]

I shoot RAW only and process the RAW mages in LR after using Photo Mechanic to select/ingest keepers from memory card.  No need for PS for most images as my stock workflow doesn't need layers.  Maybe for stitching the rare panoramic.  Export processed RAW files out of LR as JPG. 

 

I've tried shooting RAW+FINE JPG on occasion in an effort to simplify workflow.   But I can't find any advantage to using FINE JPG if I process images in LR.  If an image file is processed in LR it's as easy to process a RAW camera file as it is a FINE JPG.  So It's RAW only.  No PS or TIFF's.

Edited October 3, 2019 by Phil

[geogphotos]

I only shoot RAW and have a set minimum process for every image then evaluate and see what else needs to be done in ACR before finishing off in Photoshop.

 

 

[Ed Rooney]

Good answers and thoughts. Thanks, all. 

 

I have my three Sonys (RX-10, a6000, and RX100-6) set for RAW plus Fine jpeg now. I'll pop back here in a week or so and let you know how it went. 

 

I'm happy with my RAW workflow as it stands. I begin in CC LR Classic and export the RAW file as a tiff. I work on the tiff in PS and in PS I have the Nik Collection. I work fast and  never look at the histogram. Maybe half of my images get some polishing with Nik Viveza 2. After this test, I expect I'll go back to shooting and editing RAW images. 

 

Edo

 

 

 

 

[MDM]

I am with the dustydingo and others on this - the dingo because the D850 is such a truly amazing camera so why would I want to produce inferior images even if that was only occasionally. Why would I want to lock in a lower dynamic range, noise reduction and white balance when I don’t have to. 

 

In any case it is not difficult to set up defaults in Lightroom to achieve the same look as any camera jpeg preset. The new emphasis on camera profiles in Lightroom make this even easier. The difference in import times for raw versus JPEGs is not very much and unless one is in a huge hurry it is largely irrelevant. 

 

I have my RX100 set up to shoot both for a while now and there are definite differences, more evident in some images than other. It is easier to see the differences on a big monitor - not as easy on my 13 inch retina which I know Edo also has. 

Edited October 3, 2019 by MDM

[spacecadet]

If you're used to carrying more than one camera, maybe reserve RAW for tricky images.

[Ed Rooney]

Every so often, I stop in at the Apple Store in Liverpool ONE and check my port on a large screen. I'm happy with the quality I'm getting. I'll look at the jpegs on a large screen at some point. As the day get shorter, I'll be out at night with a tripod. Shooting in museums does not look promising -- too dark. 

[Chuck Nacke]

On setting to shoot JPEG's.  Did that years ago with the early NIKON 6MP DSLR's and quickly learned to just shoot NEF or RAW.  There are just too many times, as software progresses that it is an advantage to go back and re-process files.  Now I have a work flow for NEF via LR to 16bit aRGB TIFF.  First I save all images as NEF, then select and convert to 16bit TIFF and finish and caption then drop select files to 8bit JPEG's for upload.  I know it is a bit slower, but it is worth the extra time and effort to have all versions.  When working with NIKON D800's each 16bit TIFF file is over 200MB.  I have a lot of external drives.  On Live News, if a couple of minutes would matter, it was not a great image to start with....

 

Chuck

[Ed Rooney]

Chuck, that sounds more or less like my workflow, but I'm using the smaller Sony mirrorless cameras now. And since I am living out of a suitcase, I no longer hope for careful saving and backups.

 

Isn't a NEF file a Nikon RAW file? 

[JaniMarkus Hasa]

I shoot JPEGs. Haven't even tried shooting RAW. Had no problems with QC. I realize I may lose some opportunities in difficult conditions, but stockwise I've got some 10 000 reasonable images to upload, so I'm not too worried. Hard to say if this affects my sales. I've been active in Alamy from May, uploaded 1000+ images and had 3 sales. Good or bad? I don't know. What I do know is, that 2 out of those 3 sold images were no good at all. It seems to me that standards for editorial images have gone down. 

 

I'm an amateur and not even a good one.

[Phil Robinson]

I used to shoot RAW backed up with JPEGs on the second memory card. When doing live news I used the JPEGs but now I just do RAW for everything, news included. It's an extra 2 seconds to get the file open and if I need a bit of exposure or contrast adjustment I do that in RAW first before converting.

I know time is of the essence in filing live news, but I'd rather have better quality images going through two minutes later.

Most of my 'news' sales come later as stock anyway rather than next day newsprint and I like to spend more time getting better quality stock to replace the ones I did in a hurry on a laptop in a cafe in Westminster.

Edited October 4, 2019 by Phil Robinson

[Matt Ashmore]

4 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

Chuck, that sounds more or less like my workflow, but I'm using the smaller Sony mirrorless cameras now. And since I am living out of a suitcase, I no longer hope for careful saving and backups.

 

Isn't a NEF file a Nikon RAW file? 

 

I thought so.. two ways of saying the same thing!

[Ed Rooney]

1 hour ago, JaniMarkus Hasa said:

I shoot JPEGs. Haven't even tried shooting RAW. Had no problems with QC. I realize I may lose some opportunities in difficult conditions, but stockwise I've got some 10 000 reasonable images to upload, so I'm not too worried. Hard to say if this affects my sales. I've been active in Alamy from May, uploaded 1000+ images and had 3 sales. Good or bad? I don't know. What I do know is, that 2 out of those 3 sold images were no good at all. It seems to me that standards for editorial images have gone down. 

 

I'm an amateur and not even a good one.

 

I think you have a good eye, Jani. You could lighten your images a bit.

 

Don't wait for sales. This is a slow moving business. Keep uploading if you can. It took me years before I began seeing regular sales. Good luck to you. 

 

Right, Phil -- I don't see me failing QC because of shooting jpegs. And I will be going back to RAW when I view the test. This is just curiosity on my part. I'm not interested in saving time. 

 

Edo

[Chuck Nacke]

11 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

Chuck, that sounds more or less like my workflow, but I'm using the smaller Sony mirrorless cameras now. And since I am living out of a suitcase, I no longer hope for careful saving and backups.

 

Isn't a NEF file a Nikon RAW file? 

EDO, Yes NIKON calls their RAW format "NEF" or Nikon Electronic Format.

External storage drives are now small and very very cheap.  I use 1TB Western

Digitals that I can buy in Boston for $50.00 each.  In 1999 I paid $325.00 for a

1TB external and it was a good deal....

 

I shoot NEF (RAW) because I often have to work in bad light, bad color balance and at very high ISO's, which is why I kept my D700.  With a RAW file I can clean up

the image better and I have gone back to images from the early days of digital when I was working with KODAK / NIKON DCS units and I can do a lot more with a

RAW file then a JPEG in the current Lightroom then could have been done in Photoshop 3.  With a RAW file you have more to work with.

 

Guess I am using "I" often....LOL

 

Chuck

Edited October 4, 2019 by Chuck Nacke
more information

[Ed Rooney]

I have 2 Western Digital storage drives with me, along with six pairs of socks and a fisherman's raincoat. One drive is 3 TB. I had a D700 too. Almost sold it to you but the timing was wrong. Try living out of a suitcase (2) . . . for a year and a half. There is just one wal plug I can use at this hotel.

 

"I" is fine. Just don't start using "we" for yourself. 

Edited October 4, 2019 by Ed Rooney

[Michael Ventura]

I shoot RAW + JPEGS on all my cameras.  Love having the jpegs for quick editing (and they are often great right out of the camera) but mostly work, in the long run, with the RAWs.  Just so much more you can do with them.