Which Shooting Format

[Futterwithtrees]

I would value some input on the shooting format my fellow contributors use. I currently shoot everything in RAW format with almost all camera with little or no in camera processing etc. This means I must must edit every image before submission etc and this makes for a very laborious and time consuming process.

I have very recently been looking at samples of a friends portfolio shot with a quality Lumix compact camera in JPEG format and his results are very impressive indeed even without much post shoot processing. This holds good even for images printed  on large canvasses and on display in his home.

I would love to hear some responses and comments on the merits and demerits of JPEG shooting for stock photography purposes. Any constructive criticism or advice will be gratefully received.

Thanks

[John Morrison]

I shoot RAW. Yes, it's a "laborious and time consuming process", to get pix as I want them... but I just see that as an integral part of the job...

[spacecadet]

I don't know about other programs, but I find the automatic functions on Lightroom a great timesaver. Most images still need some adjustment, but as John says that's part of the job.

You don't say whether your friend is a professional, or whether his images would stand scrutiny at 100%, but it's a fact that RAW images are inherently sharper and will save your hide sometimes when a high ISO jpeg would let you down. I also find skies much easier to control in RAW.

The only additional time needed in LR is on import and export, and that's merely a function of larger file size.

[Futterwithtrees]

No He is not a professional but a keen amatuer. He has had many images published (calendars etc) And has many large prints framed and hung about hids home and they all look excellent to me. HE'S a bit of a natural to be honest but he would be impossible to bear with if I told him that. Lol.  BTW I shoot raw but am just asking the question for info and guidance. 

[MDM]

An in-camera JPEG is simply a raw file that has been converted in the camera using the camera manufacturer's software. As a rule it is possible to achieve the same effect easily on a computer using Lightroom (or other software). The simplest way to simulate directly the camera manufacturer's JPEG settings in Lightroom is to apply a specific camera profile and then do a few tweaks. While it has been possible to do this in earlier versions without any problem, in the latest version of Lightroom (7.3) it is very easy indeed to apply camera profiles, as this function has been moved from a relatively obscure position in the Development module to the very top of the Basic panel. 

 

Aside from camera profiles, if you want to really speed things up it's not so much about using the automatic functions in Lightroom (as suggested by spacecadet) as learning how to set your own import defaults, import presets (including application of camera profiles) and development presets to achieve the required effect.

 

It requires a bit of learning but it is not difficult to automate a significant part of the process before making the individual tweaks such as local adjustments that really make a difference and that can't be done in camera (except with clunky grad filters for example). If one was to examine your friend's images in detail, I'm betting there are lots of enhancements that could be made but too late if all he has are the JPEGs. Some of the worst things about in-camera JPEGs is that they lock in the white balance, there is far less potential for highlight and shadow recovery as well as noise reduction capabilities becoming very limited. Resist the temptation to shoot JPEG and learn to post-process beyond the rudiments.\\

 

 

By the way: what does futter mean?

 

 

[spacecadet]

Bear in mind that for a 20MP camera, 100% is nearly 80" long side. Not many prints get that big.

[spacecadet]

4 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

 

Aside from beyond camera profiles, if you want to really speed things up it's not so much about using the automatic functions in Lightroom (as suggested by spacecadet)

 

 

Your mileage may vary but I find that "Auto tone" sets up most images very nicely for me on top of my import presets.

[MDM]

1 minute ago, spacecadet said:

Bear in mind that for a 20MP camera, 100% is nearly 80" long side. Not many prints get that big.

 

 Sorry to contradict but that is way off. A 20MP camera woul be in an around 5500 pixels on the long side. At a conservative 240 pixels per inch (ppi), the minimum for quality photographic printing, that would give about 18 inches on the long side. Not sure how you calculated 80".

[spacecadet]

 

2 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

 Sorry to contradict but that is way off. A 20MP camera woul be in an around 5500 pixels on the long side. At a conservative 240 pixels per inch (ppi), the minimum for quality photographic printing, that would give about 18 inches on the long side. Not sure how you calculated 80".

I'm referring to display at 70 DPI for QC. I checked it with a ruler off the screen once.

[MDM]

1 minute ago, spacecadet said:

Your mileage may vary but I find that "Auto tone" sets up most images very nicely for me on top of my import presets.

 

I think we have very different approaches. I find auto anything in Lightroom (or in-camera for that matter except autofocus) leaves me way out from what I am looking for but each to his own. 

[MDM]

1 minute ago, spacecadet said:

 

I'm referring to display at 70 DPI for QC. I checked it with a ruler off the screen once.

 

You don't print at 70 ppi (dpi is a misnomer). The minimum is 240 ppi, anything lower for lab or inkjet printing and quality suffers severely. 

[spacecadet]

Just now, MDM said:

 

I think we have very different approaches. I find auto anything in Lightroom (or in-camera for that matter except autofocus) leaves me way out from what I am looking for but each to his own. 

Evidently but I'm entitled to suggest it in a post about RAW v. jpeg.

If you can suggest anything with reference to my images I'm happy to learn.

[spacecadet]

2 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

You don't print at 70 ppi (dpi is a misnomer). The minimum is 240 ppi, anything lower for lab or inkjet printing and quality suffers severely. 

I think we are at cross purposes- OP was referring to his friend's enlargements and I was suggesting that judging, say, sharpness from a wall print was not the same as QC checking on a display at 100%. 

[NYCat]

I have tried shooting RAW + JPEG and find that I am not using the JPEGS. You could try shooting both and see if you are satisfied with the JPEGs,

 

Paulette

[MDM]

1 minute ago, spacecadet said:

Evidently but I'm entitled to suggest it in a post about RAW v. jpeg.

If you can suggest anything with reference to my images I'm happy to learn.

 

 

1 minute ago, spacecadet said:

I think we are at cross purposes- OP was referring to his friend's enlargements and I was suggesting that judging, say, sharpness from a wall print was not the same as QC checking on a display at 100%. 

 

No problem, just that I like total control over my processing and anytime I have tried the auto functions in Lightroom I've not been at all impressed. I do think it is worth learning to control Lightroom rather than accept what it throws up. Let's leave the print thing as cross purposes. 

[spacecadet]

Thanks for the thought anyway, I'm prompted to have another look at the controls.

[Futterwithtrees]

51 minutes ago, MDM said:

By the way: what does futter mean?

 

Interesting question. I am a bonsai enthusiast and the word futter is an Ulsterism (Ulster, Northern Ireland otherwise known as "Nor'n  Irn" for messing about, dabbling in or doing something in a clumsy or unskilled way. That just about sums me up.  If someone is struggling with something and is all thumbs and no fingers we would say "he's a bit of a Futter". I am waiving all charges for supplying this vital info 

 

[MDM]

6 minutes ago, Futterwithtrees said:

 

Interesting question. I am a bonsai enthusiast and the word futter is an Ulsterism (Ulster, Northern Ireland otherwise known as "Nor'n  Irn" for messing about, dabbling in or doing something in a clumsy or unskilled way. That just about sums me up.  I am waiving all charges for supplying this vital info 

 

That is what I assumed but it's not in the dictionary (Oxford English at any rate). It's a great word. My mother spent some of her childhood in Belfast and she used to say something like "stop foostering" meaning pretty much the same - stop messing about. 

 

I'm familiar with Norn Irn. I had a short trip there last year in fact - a day in the Mournes and another day driving up the Antrim coast. Still haven't processed all the pics from the trip. As well as the scenery my favourite thing about Norn Irn is Van Morrison. I'm a Dubliner myself although I live in England these days. 

[MDM]

15 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Thanks for the thought anyway, I'm prompted to have another look at the controls.

 

It's worth having a look for sure and the good thing is that any editing is non-destructive. I think the Auto Settings is not too bad although I prefer to set these sliders myself.  However, I find the Auto white balance is often way out as is the As Shot which it gets from the camera. Nikon cameras are way too far on the blue side I find.

[spacecadet]

10 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

It's worth having a look for sure and the good thing is that any editing is non-destructive. I think the Auto Settings is not too bad although I prefer to set these sliders myself.  However, I find the Auto white balance is often way out as is the As Shot which it gets from the camera. Nikon cameras are way too far on the blue side I find.

Perhaps it's partly down to the camera, then- I've always used Sonys and the AWB is (or possibly merely "seems to me") very good.

[Betty LaRue]

3 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Perhaps it's partly down to the camera, then- I've always used Sonys and the AWB is (or possibly merely "seems to me") very good.

That’s how I feel about Fuji.  I find the WB much better than the Nikons, as MDM said. If the Fuji WB is off, somehow it usually still makes the image look good. Often when I “correct” the WB, I go back to “as shot”. Not always, though. Depending on the subject, sometimes I warm it up.

Betty

[Marianne]

I find the auto WB with both my Olympus and my new Sony to be mostly on target. I usually play around and then almost always go back to "as shot."  But I always shoot RAW - I now shoot small jpegs with the Sony because it's the only way to check pix on the back in expanded mode without having to wait several seconds for the camera to build the previews from the 42 MP RAWs, but I delete them once I pull the RAW files into LR. I'm still using LR for organizing my images, although I'm liking Capture One for initial RAW processing. More work but the end result is worth it.

 

The only time I shoot full sized jpegs and use them is if it's an editorial situation and I need to upload fast - even then I'll be sure to shoot RAW as well. I'd never shoot just jpegs. 

[Chuck Nacke]

I shoot everything, including NEWS in RAW on NIKON D800's, each RAW file

is over 14MB's and covert in Lightroom to 8bit TIFF's or 100MB's each file.

I have a desk full of external drives, currently over 30, but I have every RAW

file I have ever done.  I do a lot of corporate photography and a few of my

clients really appreciate the large files, "few who know what they are doing"

[Colblimp]

I only ever shoot in RAW, including news.  Both my card slots are assigned RAW.  I don't want to compromise quality or my processing by shooting JPEG. 

[MDM]

20 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Perhaps it's partly down to the camera, then- I've always used Sonys and the AWB is (or possibly merely "seems to me") very good.

 

16 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

That’s how I feel about Fuji.  I find the WB much better than the Nikons, as MDM said. If the Fuji WB is off, somehow it usually still makes the image look good. Often when I “correct” the WB, I go back to “as shot”. Not always, though. Depending on the subject, sometimes I warm it up.

Betty

 

Judging accurate white balance on a computer is actually very difficult. Firstly it depends on having a properly calibrated monitor. Then it is amazing what the eye will accept as normal or acceptable - remember spacecadet's jaundiced bride and a whole series of images he had taken over a number of weeks after he had a badfinger moment with his white balance button. But that is an extreme example. It is, however, very important to get things right if shooting colour portraits as skin tone are always the most difficult to get right - on screen or in print.

 

The only way to really be sure of accurate white balance is to shoot a grey card or similar (color checker passport) in the same light as the scene and then use the eyedropper tool in Lightroom/ACR (or the equivalent in other software) to get correct white balance. I try to remember to do this and then sync across all images taken in the same light. Or of course you can set a custom white balance in camera after shooting a grey card but this is unnecessary if shooting raw.