Jump to content
Stedalle

New Portfolio

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Cal said:

 

I've never had a problem with in camera JPEGS with my current gear. Tended to shy away from them with my old A35 as they appeared slightly over sharpened. Something that bugs me about Sony kit is that the JPEGS and the raws have slightly different appearance. For one the JPEGS seem to have a slightly higher DR, but that might be because I use the DRO setting. They also have slightly different colour cast, and typically, when I have a dilemma it is that the JPEG looks better but that I need to edit it be it remove noise or whatever, and so I need to use the raw anyway. Of course the shadows and highlights can be recovered better on raws but the fact the JPEG is better SOOC leads me to just use that if I can.

 

Hey Cal, slightly confused by your response. The raw file is unedited straight from the camera. The JPEG file is created and edited using the in camera software and is compressed (so loses information). The JPEG only uses about a quarter of the data captured by the camera and has less colour information and tends to have less detail in the shadows and highlights than the raw file. However, the JPEG will always look 'better' than an unedited raw file because it's already edited, and I wouldn't expect them to look the same in terms of dynamic range and colour cast etc.

 

You can use JPEGs straight from the camera, but then you're hoping you don't have dust spots, horizon is horizontal, buildings don't have obvious converging verticals, saturation is correct (not over /under saturated), shadow areas have detail, correct amount of contrast, camera has picked correct white balance etc. etc.

Edited by Steve F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes absolutely, in every event that I follow I am accredited to be able to photograph and sign the release form for the use of the material, otherwise I could not publish, and some artists specify that photos cannot be used in some sectors.

On 01/08/2020 at 16:01, Pawel Piotr said:

Hi, I am very new myself here and I have a question to you. I see in your portfolio many faces and crowds of people. Do we need to have any releases to upload images like this or imagery from public events can be uploaded without releases? 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/08/2020 at 15:01, Pawel Piotr said:

Hi, I am very new myself here and I have a question to you. I see in your portfolio many faces and crowds of people. Do we need to have any releases to upload images like this or imagery from public events can be uploaded without releases? 

 

Hi Pawel,

You don't have to have releases to upload images with people or property in. If you mark an image as having property or people in, but without having the corresponding releases, then the photo is automatically set as rights managed in the license type on Alamy Image manager. My understanding is that there is then no particular need to mark an image as editorial use only (not for commercial use) as this should be taken as a given by the purchaser. You can mark an image as editorial use only if you think it might be ambiguous. I've personally never done it. This might help:

https://www.alamy.com/blog/understanding-editorial-and-commercial-usage

 

It should also be noted that it is no longer possible to upload new releases to Alamy as they no longer wish to store them due to privacy reasons. If you mark an image as having releases, a client can request them from you if they need to, via Alamy. See thread below:

https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/11078-model-release/?tab=comments#comment-201200

 

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Steve F said:

Hey Cal, slightly confused by your response. The raw file is unedited straight from the camera. The JPEG file is created and edited using the in camera software and is compressed (so loses information). The JPEG only uses about a quarter of the data captured by the camera and has less colour information and tends to have less detail in the shadows and highlights than the raw file. However, the JPEG will always look 'better' than an unedited raw file because it's already edited, and I wouldn't expect them to look the same in terms of dynamic range and colour cast etc.

 

You can use JPEGs straight from the camera, but then you're hoping you don't have dust spots, horizon is horizontal, buildings don't have obvious converging verticals, saturation is correct (not over /under saturated), shadow areas have detail, correct amount of contrast, camera has picked correct white balance etc. etc.

 

thanks. I am aware of the differences between a raw and a jpeg from the camera. Perhaps I didn't make myself entirely clear. I shoot raw+jpeg. Quite often, if I compare the raw and jpeg side by side the jpeg has several advantages. The colour cast is more true to life and the DR in the image is better. Slightly more shadow detail and more in the highlights than the raw. Then not to mention the in camera noise reduction which at lower ISO is silky smooth with no perceptible loss in detail. I've read numerous reviews of various Sony Alpha systems where they've all concluded the same, and that if possible using the in camera jpeg is the way to go. Perhaps this has been improved or "fixed" in newer E-mount models. Of course the raw has far better editing capability and I only end up using the in camera jpeg about 10% of the time but I'm starting to increase that as I am conscious of how much time I spend in front of a computer (the day job).

 

Your second paragraph is a valid point but if none of those are an issue (and many needn't be) there is no problem at all with using the in camera jpeg.. and given what I've mentioned above if the image is good straight out of camera it makes little sense to not use the jpeg.

Edited by Cal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cal said:

 

thanks. I am aware of the differences between a raw and a jpeg from the camera. Perhaps I didn't make myself entirely clear. I shoot raw+jpeg. Quite often, if I compare the raw and jpeg side by side the jpeg has several advantages. The colour cast is more true to life and the DR in the image is better. Slightly more shadow detail and more in the highlights than the raw. Then not to mention the in camera noise reduction which at lower ISO is silky smooth with no perceptible loss in detail. I've read numerous reviews of various Sony Alpha systems where they've all concluded the same, and that if possible using the in camera jpeg is the way to go. Perhaps this has been improved or "fixed" in newer E-mount models. Of course the raw has far better editing capability and I only end up using the in camera jpeg about 10% of the time but I'm starting to increase that as I am conscious of how much time I spend in front of a computer (the day job).

 

Your second paragraph is a valid point but if none of those are an issue (and many needn't be) there is no problem at all with using the in camera jpeg.. and given what I've mentioned above if the image is good straight out of camera it makes little sense to not use the jpeg.

Ok, understood. Maybe I should start viewing my in camera JPEGs too to see if I can use them, I never even look at them!! Just got into a raw editing workflow habit.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always shoot RAW + Jpeg but I sometimes use the Jpegs right out of the camera.  The lose is minimal with the compression.  Having said that, I more often process the RAW to get more out the photo when I need to control highlights and shadows more...as well as correcting lines and any lens distortion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I've recently started to shoot Raw+jpeg on my Fujis simply to compare the in-camera processing of foliage etc. where Lightroom was always said to have a problem (the worm effect). Currently (in LR 6.14 perpetual) I set Lightroom not to "Treat jpeg files next to RAW files as separate files" for the first import so that only the RAW files come in (the jpegs are imported into the folders but not into the LR catalogue). I then delete what I can and if the subject matter is appropriate I can bring in the jpegs to compare by pointing to the folder but this time with "Treat jpeg files next to RAW files as separate files" checked. So far the jury is out, I think they did make improvements before 6.14 in fact. I use the Metadata filter for file type to switch between RAW & jpeg as necessary. Finally, if I remember, I delete the jpegs. I started off by shooting 'Velvia' jpegs but actually, much as I liked the film, I find that too strong so I just make a few adjustments to the Provia look. Inevitably I'll do some retouching/spotting so it seems a waste of time not to do that on the RAW files in LR and then export the jpegs from there.

Edited by Harry Harrison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cal said:

 

thanks. I am aware of the differences between a raw and a jpeg from the camera. Perhaps I didn't make myself entirely clear. I shoot raw+jpeg. Quite often, if I compare the raw and jpeg side by side the jpeg has several advantages. The colour cast is more true to life and the DR in the image is better. Slightly more shadow detail and more in the highlights than the raw. Then not to mention the in camera noise reduction which at lower ISO is silky smooth with no perceptible loss in detail. I've read numerous reviews of various Sony Alpha systems where they've all concluded the same, and that if possible using the in camera jpeg is the way to go. Perhaps this has been improved or "fixed" in newer E-mount models. Of course the raw has far better editing capability and I only end up using the in camera jpeg about 10% of the time but I'm starting to increase that as I am conscious of how much time I spend in front of a computer (the day job).

 

Your second paragraph is a valid point but if none of those are an issue (and many needn't be) there is no problem at all with using the in camera jpeg.. and given what I've mentioned above if the image is good straight out of camera it makes little sense to not use the jpeg.

You can come unstuck with that "silky smooth" effect, especially at high ISO. I did and it's why I finally switched to RAW. It's a simple fact that RAWs are sharper than jpegs. The difference may not be all that noticeable in many cases, bbut it's true. Try it on some fine detail sometime.

As to jpegs having a better DR, they just don't. I wonder if you are actually comparing jpegs with unprocessed RAWs. It's a false comparison. There is so much you can get out of a RAW that's just discarded in a jpeg. Skies are immeasurably improved for a start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

You can come unstuck with that "silky smooth" effect, especially at high ISO. I did and it's why I finally switched to RAW. It's a simple fact that RAWs are sharper than jpegs. The difference may not be all that noticeable in many cases, bbut it's true. Try it on some fine detail sometime.

As to jpegs having a better DR, they just don't. I wonder if you are actually comparing jpegs with unprocessed RAWs. It's a false comparison. There is so much you can get out of a RAW that's just discarded in a jpeg. Skies are immeasurably improved for a start.

 

I think I might need to re-evaluate my contributions to this forum as it seems I struggle to get across my point in a language that people understand.

 

You are right about the "silky smooth" effect but I *did not* talk about high ISO. I specifically said "at lower ISO" and it is indeed true that at 100% even some very fine grain starts to become noticeable at ISO 400 (or even 200 in some situations) on the raw file that simply doesn't exist on the JPEG, particularly on smooth surfaces. This is alluded to in many credible reviews of Sony Alpha gear too. It is a fact that Sony's in-camera processing is in many ways very, very good. This is one of them. I am totally aware that at high ISO the JPEGs become unusable, and often particularly mushy when really pushing on, but I wasn't talking about high ISO.

 

Your second bit starting with "as to JPEGS having better DR", again appears to have been taken somewhat out of context. When I clarified my post above I stated "Slightly more shadow detail and more in the highlights than the raw" referring to the JPEG image vs the raw SOOC and this is demonstrably true. It is a fact. You will also notice that I went on to say "Of course the raw has far better editing capability and I only end up using the in camera jpeg about 10% of the time". However, in situations where the shot was bang-on in the first place and there is no need to tweak the exposure, the in-camera JPEG produces slightly better DR than the as-is raw. Yes, you can pull and push the raw to within an inch of its life, but when there is no need to do this the JPEG can offer slightly improved DR in the image. This is likely due to the DRO setting that some Sonys use. 

 

Please don't take what I say deliberately out of context; I don't appreciate it.

Edited by Cal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Cal said:

However, in situations where the shot was bang-on in the first place and there is no need to tweak the exposure, the in-camera JPEG produces slightly better DR than the as-is raw.

It's interesting that you say this, just for completeness though it would be good to know what RAW processor you are comparing it with, would this be Lightroom or Photoshop for example? I'm taking it that when you open the RAW file in this program the highlights and/or shadows need to be opened out to match your in-camera jpegs?

 

If you wanted to would you be able to produce a jpeg of equal quality from your RAW file your chosen RAW processor or is the Sony in-camera RAW processing so good that this wouldn't be possible? I'm only asking because there seems to be a similar situation with Fuji files and their capture of fine detail but of course they have the extra complexity of the X-Trans sensor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

It's interesting that you say this, just for completeness though it would be good to know what RAW processor you are comparing it with, would this be Lightroom or Photoshop for example? I'm taking it that when you open the RAW file in this program the highlights and/or shadows need to be opened out to match your in-camera jpegs?

 

If you wanted to would you be able to produce a jpeg of equal quality from your RAW file your chosen RAW processor or is the Sony in-camera RAW processing so good that this wouldn't be possible? I'm only asking because there seems to be a similar situation with Fuji files and their capture of fine detail but of course they have the extra complexity of the X-Trans sensor.

 

I use Lightroom. Yes, in essence, I would have to pull the shadows AND the highlights just a touch, in most situations, to match what the in-camera JPEG gives. 

 

The difference is small, and I'm not trying to give the impression that all my raw images are completely lacking depth and that constantly need pulling and pushing, just that Sony's in-camera processing is very good and makes using the SOOC JPEGS worth it, where you can. As I said there are several reviews I've read which also state this and I imagine it's similar with other cam manufacturers.

 

This has been the case with the three Sony SLTs I have owned now; the A35, the A77ii and the A99. The latter two actually produce such gorgeous SOOC JPEGS that I'm starting to enjoy using them more; the exceptions being if I stopped down further than f/5.6 there will be dust spots to clear or if I've fudged the exposure. Even then, there are a few images on my port where I've STILL chosen to use the JPEG because it just "felt" better than the raw. If you're at all interested, the most recent images where I did this were the "orange hawkweed" ones on my port, probably just sunk onto the 2nd page now. The in-camera JPEG at ISO 1600 had far far superior NR to what even Lightroom could do while not smushing the sharpness down. So to answer your second point, yes, sometimes the in-camera JPEG takes the trophy. 

Edited by Cal
  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, Cal said:

I use Lightroom.

Thanks, makes me wonder how LR arrives at the default dynamic range to display. I know, or at least I've read, that with sharpening it strives to produce a similar level of sharpening for each and every different camera, and that's independent of the move from the default of 25% to 40% which I believe was to bring it in line with Capture One where users' impression was that C1 produced sharper files. I must admit I use a custom preset to expand the highlights & shadows as a matter of course for my RAW files.

Edited by Harry Harrison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You are under a number of misapprehensions but since this was the reaction I got when I was trying to be helpful

1 hour ago, Cal said:

Please don't take what I say deliberately out of context; I don't appreciate it.

 you'll hear no more from me.

 

Edited by spacecadet
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Thanks, makes me wonder how LR arrives at the default dynamic range to display. I know, or at least I've read, that with sharpening it strives to produce a similar level of sharpening for each and every different camera, and that's independent of the move from the default of 25% to 40% which I believe was to bring it in line with Capture One where users' impression was that C1 produced sharper files. I must admit I use a custom preset to expand the highlights & shadows as a matter of course for my RAW files.

 

Yes, I need to experiment with presets more in order to speed up my workflow, but I worry that it will lead me to being sloppy and not checking each file closely enough before exporting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Cal said:

I worry that it will lead me to being sloppy and not checking each file closely enough before exporting.

Yes, I was reluctant to 'go public' on it for the same reason. Lightroom presets are just great though.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone that believes that Shooting JPEG's is better than Working with RAW needs to learn how to process RAW, NEF, or whatever system you are using produces as RAW.

For instance Cal's image of the Black Cat 2C9CGRP should not have passed QC, in my opinion.  The image has no shadow detail?

I have not shot JPEG's in camera since the D100 ( My first DSLR was a KODAK / NIKON DCS 200 or in other words I go back a long way with Digital)

and once I figured things out I made the switch to NEF or RAW.  Now with LR I work mostly with NIKON D800's in NEF or RAW and save from LR as

16bit in aRGB or sRGB as needed to TIFF's and only a my very last step go to JPEG.

 

On commercial work most clients or Art Directors want the 16bit TIFF files in aRGB color.

 

Chuck

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Anyone that believes that Shooting JPEG's is better than Working with RAW needs to learn how to process RAW, NEF, or whatever system you are using produces as RAW.

For instance Cal's image of the Black Cat 2C9CGRP should not have passed QC, in my opinion.  The image has no shadow detail?

I have not shot JPEG's in camera since the D100 ( My first DSLR was a KODAK / NIKON DCS 200 or in other words I go back a long way with Digital)

and once I figured things out I made the switch to NEF or RAW.  Now with LR I work mostly with NIKON D800's in NEF or RAW and save from LR as

16bit in aRGB or sRGB as needed to TIFF's and only a my very last step go to JPEG.

 

On commercial work most clients or Art Directors want the 16bit TIFF files in aRGB color.

 

Chuck

Just so. I learned the hard way a few years ago and maybe OOC jpegs are better now, but I'm not going back and I only use them for speed, not for Alamy.

I couldn't get through so I hope it'll carry more weight with the OP coming from you, but you know what they say about a Harvard man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Anyone that believes that Shooting JPEG's is better than Working with RAW needs to learn how to process RAW, NEF, or whatever system you are using produces as RAW.

For instance Cal's image of the Black Cat 2C9CGRP should not have passed QC, in my opinion.  The image has no shadow detail?

I have not shot JPEG's in camera since the D100 ( My first DSLR was a KODAK / NIKON DCS 200 or in other words I go back a long way with Digital)

and once I figured things out I made the switch to NEF or RAW.  Now with LR I work mostly with NIKON D800's in NEF or RAW and save from LR as

16bit in aRGB or sRGB as needed to TIFF's and only a my very last step go to JPEG.

 

On commercial work most clients or Art Directors want the 16bit TIFF files in aRGB color.

 

Chuck

 

Ah I see, starting to get personal because you don't agree with something I said, nice one Chuck. You must be another person who likes to take what someone says and spin it into oblivion. It's not enough for one poster to take what I specifically said about LOW ISO and claim I'm talking about HIGH ISO, but my specific remark that I only use around 10% of in camera JPEGS gets ignored as well as the part where I say NUMEROUS TIMES that in post the raw clearly has more editing headroom.

 

As for the image of the black cat, it's a film scan. Ain't an in-camera JPEG. So your point there doesn't even apply. If you'd actually bothered to look at the caption/more info properly, instead of just blindly picking the first image you could find on my port to somehow sling mud at me, when no-one asked, you'd have realised that. No shadow detail? Could that be because it was taken with a fast 50 at full bore where most of the shadow is oh I dunno, out of focus? The focus band barely covers the first eye, and most of what's in shadow is actually well out of focus, namely areas around and behind the neck.

 

Seriously Chuck, you're going to have to do better. I did not ask you to comment on my portfolio and since I'm a mature adult I'm not going to bother returning the favour, despite the fact that I can pick out at least 5 images in yours that have no shadow detail at all in some areas. This kind of ad hominem simply because you don't agree with what someone is saying is not on. 

Edited by Cal
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

deleted

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Cal said:

to take what I specifically said about LOW ISO and claim I'm talking about HIGH ISO, but my specific remark that I only use around 10% of in camera JPEGS gets ignored as well as the part where I say NUMEROUS TIMES that in post the raw clearly has more editing headroom.

 

Oh dear, I think everyone needs to take a step back and BREATHE :)

 

I'm sorry if I sounded patronising, I wasn't trying to teach you to suck eggs. I still think you may not have grasped my point - a JPEG from in camera will always look better than a raw file straight from the camera - it's not a fair comparison. You should be comparing the JPEG produced from the edited raw file with your camera's JPEG version.

 

I don't think spacecadet was trying to misquote you - he was simply saying that you can lose sharpness with in-camera noise processing of JPEGs, particularly at high ISOs - he didn't say that you referred to high ISOs.

 

Chuck was not invited to comment on your images, but he does have a point about raw files being better - which you have also agreed with. Yes, you use raw files 90% of the time, some people might say you 'get away' with using JPEGs direct from the camera - that is an opinion I agree with, but not necessarily everyone will and I understand that.

 

Steve

Edited by Steve F
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steve F said:

 

Oh dear, I think everyone needs to take a step back and BREATHE :)

 

I'm sorry if I sounded patronising, I wasn't trying to teach you to suck eggs. I still think you may not have grasped my point - a JPEG from in camera will always look better than a raw file straight from the camera - it's not a fair comparison. You should be comparing the JPEG produced from the edited raw file with your camera's JPEG version.

 

I don't think spacecadet was trying to misquote you - he was simply saying that you can lose sharpness with in-camera noise processing of JPEGs, particularly at high ISOs - he didn't say that you referred to high ISOs.

 

Chuck was not invited to comment on your images, but he does have a point about raw files being better - which you have also agreed with. Yes, you use raw files 90% of the time, some people might say you 'get away' with using JPEGs direct from the camera - that is an opinion I agree with, but not necessarily everyone will and I understand that.

 

Steve

 

A pragmatic and respectable reply, Steve.

 

I wasn't referring to any of your comments in my posts. As a fellow forumite I find you amicable and easy to get along with. I try not to take a specific "bugbear" with anyone online but people who seem to consistently chop bits of what I say to raise some kind of point of contention where none really exist do have a habit of getting on my wick. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cal said:

 

Ah I see, starting to get personal because you don't agree with something I said, nice one Chuck. You must be another person who likes to take what someone says and spin it into oblivion. It's not enough for one poster to take what I specifically said about LOW ISO and claim I'm talking about HIGH ISO, but my specific remark that I only use around 10% of in camera JPEGS gets ignored as well as the part where I say NUMEROUS TIMES that in post the raw clearly has more editing headroom.

 

As for the image of the black cat, it's a film scan. Ain't an in-camera JPEG. So your point there doesn't even apply. If you'd actually bothered to look at the caption/more info properly, instead of just blindly picking the first image you could find on my port to somehow sling mud at me, when no-one asked, you'd have realised that. No shadow detail? Could that be because it was taken with a fast 50 at full bore where most of the shadow is oh I dunno, out of focus? The focus band barely covers the first eye, and most of what's in shadow is actually well out of focus, namely areas around and behind the neck.

 

Seriously Chuck, you're going to have to do better. I did not ask you to comment on my portfolio and since I'm a mature adult I'm not going to bother returning the favour, despite the fact that I can pick out at least 5 images in yours that have no shadow detail at all in some areas. This kind of ad hominem simply because you don't agree with what someone is saying is not on. 

Cal,

 

I was and am being polite, I do not "sling mud."  As per JPEG's versus working from RAW images there is no question which is better.

 

Since it was you that wrote about being "A Mature Adult" I would suggest that you act like one.

 

Chuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.