another question about XSi

I notice a lot of people here shoot in RAW. I really don't want to spend all the time and effort to learn how to post process RAW files, so I

am just wondering if the in camera JPEGs are acceptable?

[wgpinc]

Absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be more than acceptable. I have an XSi and it is a very good DSLR. I shoot raw for my own reasons but I'm sure that the jpegs out of it would be excellent. One thing about jpegs is that you want to learn to get your exposures accurate because you don't have as much latitude to post process. Learn to use exposure compensation + and minus when you need it. Article that might be helpful:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm Good luck.

[cabbiinc]

Shoot in Jpeg all you want. If you find that in post processing you could use an extra little oompf then you may consider shooting in RAW. But if Jpeg works for you then theres nothing wrong with it.

[phule]

As your only options are RAW and JPG and you're not going to be using RAW, can you explain the point of asking this question?

[rainer_t]

The question is if the results are acceptable to YOU. Only you can answer this. If you are satisfied, everything is fine. If you aren't, start to work with the various in-camera processing parameters (sharpness, saturisation,etc) as well as picture styles. If that doesn't help ... you might eventually want to rethink your decision against raw.

[paul_russell1]

Easy Rob.

 

The bloke obviously doesn't know the difference and that appears why he is asking. We've all been there.

 

The question in my mind Rob is, "If you didn't want to help then why answer at all?"

 

Anthony, JPEGS got a bad rep when taken with the supplied lens. The only way you can know if they are appropriate for your use is to take some and if they do the job then fine.

 

I would urge you to get to grips with the RAW file though becuase it can be a life saver. My experience with the previous model the XTi, is that the meter sometimes errs on the side of caution and under-exposes slightly. In RAW mode you have the facility to pull back exposure quite easily. You can adjust things like sharpness if required. If you shoot with the wrong white balance you can fix it in RAW mode very easily.

 

Basically in JPEG mode the camera does the image processing, in RAW mode you do it at the PC.

 

For critical use RAW mode is probably better, the end result will have more colour as well, so better prints.

That said for most applications JPEG would probably suffice.

 

If there are any mistakes RAW makes it easier to undo them up to a point, with JPEGS you have less options.

 

The sharpness of the standard 18-55 lens isn't highly rated, so RAW mode might be a good idea if you are using this particular lens, as you can adjust the sharpness when converting from RAW.

 

Good luck, and I hope your queries meet with friendlier responses in future.

[g dan mitchell]

jpg files are "acceptable," and can be fine if your exposure is perfect and the shooting conditions are not challenging.

 

Processing RAW is not necessarily that complex. The software that comes with your camera can make this somewhat

automatic, more or less doing the same thing that the camera does internally when it converts the RAW sensor data to

jpg for storage on your memory card.

 

The advantages of RAW include: greater dynamic range, no compression artifacts, etc.

 

If you are very casual about your photographs and your photography, go ahead and shoot jpg. But even if you are casual

and you think you might occasionally get a shot that could benefit from RAW mode you have two other options. Your

camera should have a mode that captures a jpg and a RAW version of the file simultaneously - in most cases your jpg

should suffice, but you'll still have a RAW version when it doesn't. You could also shoot RAW and let DPP (or other

software) do default conversions for you.

 

Dan

[tdigi]

If your a casual shooter and can get near perfect exposure, JPG is just fine. I shoot large JPG about 75% of the time. But

if your shooting for money or something very important then I would strongly suggest RAW or doing a combination of RAW

and JPG.

 

Its really cool what you can do with a RAW file but I find it is much more time consuming too.

[Landrum Kelly]

Yes, RAW files mean more work, but sometimes one gets a really good shot and wishes that one had shot it RAW. I have moved to more JPEG shooting, since it makes photography a little more spontaneous and fun. When I am really serious, I still shoot RAW.

 

--Lannie

[Brad_]

>>> As your only options are RAW and JPG and you're not going to be using RAW, can you explain the point of asking

this question?

 

Seemed like a straightforward and valid question to me...

 

As I own an XSI, my response is the jpegs it produces are great.

[phule]

[[The bloke obviously doesn't know the difference and that appears why he is asking. We've all been there.]]

 

The person stated that he already decided he did not want to shoot RAW. The point of my asking why he posted

here was to get him to think about his reasoning.

 

"I am very hungry and have a choice between an apple and an orange, but I don't like oranges. Should I eat the

apple?" That's a nonsensical question and one that is no different than what was presented here.

 

[[The question in my mind Rob is, "If you didn't want to help then why answer at all?" ]]

 

I guess your irony meter did not peg to 11 when you wrote this, though it should have.

[becks_panno]

Wow Rob..anyway moving on...

 

As an alternative Anthony you can always set the XSI to shoot both Raw and Jpeg at the same time. Only draw back is that you will chew up more memory. The result is that you will have 2 files of the same photo. One in JPEG format and the other in RAW. Hence you have the best of both worlds and choices...you can choose to eat the apple or the orange or both...have fun and, the question was a good one. You'll just have to choose the most appropriate answers.

Rob. I'm asking simply because if the JPEGs are gonna be crap and I am forced to spend hours at my computer fixing

RAW files then maybe I'll reconsider getting the DSLR altogether. You seem angry today. Sorry I bothered your apples

and oranges logic. But if I prefer apples, and I saw a worm in it, I'd choose the orange.

[tdigi]

Anthony I get what your saying, its a good question. I would not let that be what makes you decide on an SLR or point

and click. Either way you will get better JPGs with a DSLR then you will with a Point and click simply because of sensor

size. For what its worth you can shoot RAW on a G9 or G10.

 

Keep in mind. you can still fix a jpg but you have much more flexibility with RAW. When you get an SLR test them out

and see for yourself.

 

Practice getting it right in the camera. its a lot harder then it seems. People always think its the camera and not the

photographer. I had someone use my 40D and say is that your good camera? I can't get it to take a good shot? sorry to

jump all over the place. get the camera and have fun.

[phule]

Why would Canon release a camera that produced "crap" jpg files?

 

If you don't want to spend time learning how to process RAW files then you have only one option: JPG. End of story.

 

I'm not angry in the least, but apparently asking people to think for themselves is somehow offensive these days. If you want to know about the differences between RAW and JPG, why not just ask? Why state, very clearly, that you don't want to process RAW files and then get pissed when someone takes your statement at face value?

[Brad_]

>>> Rob. I'm asking simply because if the JPEGs are gonna be crap and I am forced to spend hours at my computer

fixing RAW files then maybe I'll reconsider getting the DSLR altogether.

 

Anthony, the XSi is a great camera and it produces great jpegs. Really. This is coming from someone who has had the

cam for four months now.

 

It really was a simple question. And there is a simple answer.

 

Go ahead and get the cam...

[paul_russell1]

Rob, I don't have an irony meter, if I had I don't see how it would apply anyway, unless you have an incorrect understanding of what irony is, don't worry many people do, and like you, misuse the word.

 

Your frustration aside, I don't see your need to be so facetious. You got out the wrong side of bed and it seems everybody else is going to suffer.

 

The bloke asked for advice, the rest of us seem to have been capable of providing it without being arsey about it. Nobody asked for a high-school level debate on logic or semantics.

 

Enjoy your photography and before you use the word 'irony' again, please make sure you know what it actually means and when to use it.

Thanks gentlemen. Your advice is much appreciated.

 

Brad, I remember and thoroughly enjoyed your work from a few years ago on the Leica and "street and doc" forum. If

the XSi is good enough for you well then... whatever happened to the street forum anyway? I've been away from

photo.net for awhile spending most of my free time on the golf course, but am recovering from surgery now. Do we have

a new Frank G. that I should be aware of?

 

Rob. Please excuse me if my questions insult your sensibilities. I only ask because I'm kind of on the fence right now

and thought opinions from members here might guide me towards a decision.

[jennifer_henry]

Hi Anthony,

 

I have a new XSI and found the .jpegs to be just a little bit softer than I'd like. I am a beginner to dslr so I am certainly

no expert like most of the people who answer questions here. I did post some examples on another forum and

someone said that my shots were fine so maybe I am being too particular for a beginner.

 

However, I have been playing around and also asking questions and what I have found is that: (A) On .jpeg files, and

even Raw files that already look quite sharp, simply moving the sharpen tool in the software all the way to the right

makes a great difference on my computer screen. (I have not printed any that I have sharpened this quickly,

though.) Admittedly it may not be this easy to correct all photos, but it has produced nice results for all of the

pictures I have taken and is a very quick process that can be done in a matter of seconds.(B) Someone told me

there is a setting in the camera (that I missed) that allows you to apply better sharpness to .jpegs as a rule. I plan on

trying that and expect it will produce very good results.

[photohns]

I also have the XSI and shoot jpegs most of the time. I am happy with the results. You are able to adjust sharpness by going under the picture style menu. Some people are happy with this, others prefer to shoot raw. When doing something like weddings, raw is alot easier. You will just have to see if you are happy with jpeg shooting or not. The xsi is capable of making great jpegs.

[dogbert]

The XSi can have a tendency to under-exposure in some situations but mostly produces very acceptable JPEGs. If you want to shoot JPEG only (and I mostly do) the main thing is to check your histogram and re-shoot to get correct exposure as necessary. For static subjects this is easy. For action shots is more of a problem.

 

Even JPEGs allow a fair bit of adjustment after the event provided they are not too far off and if your RAW is a long way off to start with you'll likely be at most only be able to salvage it to pass standard rather than A+.

 

It always amazes me that people hang around in internet forums and then act as though their time is being wasted by percieved silly questions. I think the question is perfectly valid. If one wants to shoot JPEG then whether a camera produces good results would obvioulsy make a difference when choosing between differnet models and different brands. My Pentax P&S seems to have pretty much infallible metering, whereas I find the XSi is a little more temperamental.

[alan_myers]

Hi Anthony,

 

I don't think there is a DSLR on the market that can't produce nice JPEGs if the photographer sets up the camera right.

 

All cameras have some nuances that we each have to learn. And all camera's light metering systems can be fooled by certain lighting conditions. RAW simply gives us more latitude to go back and fix an important shot that's not quite right. With JPEGs you can do some tweaking, too, just nowhere near as much as you can with RAW.

 

So, do yourself a favor and buy the book "Understanding Exposure" at the same time you purchase your new camera. I've been shooting for over 30 years, but found a lot of good ideas and more than a little refreshing of the old memory while reading that book recently. It gives you good explanations why no camera on the market can be absolutely accurate with every exposure, how to resolve most situations, reasons why you might choose one set of exposure parameters or another, and more.

 

Something that's not in that book at all, I also recommend people who are concerned about accurate exposure consider getting and using a separate, incidence-type light meter. Once you learn to use one, which isn't difficult at all, it's even faster and more straight forward than the methods in "Understanding Exposure". I seldom go out shooting without one on my belt and a spare in the car.

 

Over the years I've used a lot of different cameras and a wide variety of light meters. IMHO, an incidence meter is about the simplest (and most logical), whenever accuracy is important.

 

The histogram display provided on the camera is also a great tool making accurate exposures. It's invaluable to be able to check it immediately and reshoot right then and there, if necessary.

very good advice. thank you.

[matthijs]

I shoot RAW and JPEG's as I fancy. Just shooting jpeg's is no problem.

 

Just one note: you might want to play with picture styles because the default settings tend to be a bit bland.

 

Something like "Faithfull, +2 Saturation, Sharpness 5" gives results I prefer to the default.

 

Another fun option is "Monochrome, Contrast +2, Sharpness at maximum". Just remember that if you don't additionally shoot RAW the color's lost for those pictures.

 

Regards,

 

Matthijs.