Jump to content

Mirrorless Monday, September 11, 2017


Sanford

Recommended Posts

Camera JPEG. I'm a bit annoyed that I overexposed this. My kingdom for 1/3 of a stop less? ;-) Still, shooting JPEGs is liberating, for b&w anyway. You just edit and publish. Just like with slides. Of course it helps to get your exposure correct!

 

 

Nice shot, but don't understand what's liberating about in-camera JPEG. With RAW, you just "edit and publish" also. Also, if you're shooting digital, you not getting near as much data as possible for the file, because you're shooting for final exposure. If you expose to the right, you'll gain more data and dynamic range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice shot, but don't understand what's liberating about in-camera JPEG. With RAW, you just "edit and publish" also. Also, if you're shooting digital, you not getting near as much data as possible for the file, because you're shooting for final exposure. If you expose to the right, you'll gain more data and dynamic range.

True - you also get a cleaner and sharper image with RAW, even at base ISO. However, when shooting JPEG, you don't need the RAW converter. In fact you can just give the recipient the SD card and tell them to pick the frames they like. They don't have to know anything about RAW converters, and you don't have to worry that they're using the wrong one.

 

The camera sometimes adds a texture to the image, mainly in b&w, that is sometimes attractive. I compared the b&w JPEG output of my main camera to desaturated RAW, and I slightly preferred the JPEGs. I do shoot RAWs as back-ups if I think I'll need them.

 

Sports photographers use JPEGs a lot - in fact some shoot JPEGs exclusively. You have to not only get your exposure right, but your WB as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True - you also get a cleaner and sharper image with RAW, even at base ISO. However, when shooting JPEG, you don't need the RAW converter. In fact you can just give the recipient the SD card and tell them to pick the frames they like. They don't have to know anything about RAW converters, and you don't have to worry that they're using the wrong one.

 

The camera sometimes adds a texture to the image, mainly in b&w, that is sometimes attractive. I compared the b&w JPEG output of my main camera to desaturated RAW, and I slightly preferred the JPEGs. I do shoot RAWs as back-ups if I think I'll need them.

 

Sports photographers use JPEGs a lot - in fact some shoot JPEGs exclusively. You have to not only get your exposure right, but your WB as well.

 

The high-speed SD card that I ordered yesterday was around $90! Not giving that away. ;-)

 

Several RAW converters are free, some coming with our cameras. All that I know, allow the photographer to set a default conversion that requires no effort. Files are indeed larger, for sure, leading to the 16-TB hard drive that I installed last night. Also, my RAW files are 40 to 80MB, requiring a more powerful computer processor than many people own. (My recent computer upgrades have been image processing driven).

 

Sports photographers will use in-camera JPEG to achieve the maximum frames-per-second that their cameras may achieve. At some events, they're transmitting live to an editor that's distributing stills while the event continues. Many other sports photographers shoot RAW because they're trying to publish in magazine, hop0ing for a cover image, in full color. Those are two, very different needs.

 

DxO's Filmpack provides an incredible collection of classic B&W film emulations. When it's time for B&W, the responsiveness of the RAW file to filters and emulations is unmatched. Lots of people use plug-ins to LR to get some stunning B&W conversions. With in-camera B&W, you really need to be happy with what the Japanese engineers decided was good for you.

 

Karim, my friend, I'm not trying to convince you to change. I just want others reading this thread to see the counterpoints to your points. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The top of the line Canon and Nikon SLRs are both just under 21mp, more than enough for print or internet use. Looking at the local newspaper's web sites it seem like many photos are coming directly from the event to the websites with NO effort made to edit them in any way.
Link to comment
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...