tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7913915168052873347.post6962085654919250621..comments2024-03-26T13:00:25.188-07:00Comments on The Friedman Archives Blog: Where the anti-JPG bias came from...Gary L. Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12816533617814819591noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7913915168052873347.post-74982412154743401472011-09-02T15:00:23.061-07:002011-09-02T15:00:23.061-07:00Gary's last comment touches on the simple reas...Gary's last comment touches on the simple reason why I shoot only RAW. Having such complete control over a scene that I know I will not have to coax detail from the extreme tones of the image (where JPEG doesn't give you many bits to manipulate) happens... well, almost never.<br /><br />It's a valid approach to try to make the image coming straight out of the camera require little correction, but my approach has tended to be to think of the camera as the device that captures the maximum possible information from the scene, knowing that later steps in the workflow will turn that information into the most pleasing image. That approach requires RAW (14 bits per pixel is 64 times as many tone levels as JPEG's 8 bits), and keeping as much of the image high up on the histogram as possible. Highlights can even be overexposed, as Lightroom's Recovery feature brings detail back if slightly overexposed. With my A55 I usually expose +0.3 or +0.7 over for this reason.<br /><br />The resulting image doesn't always look like what you want to publish (it's usually a bit flat and too bright) but if you consider the goal of the image capture phase of the workflow as capturing the maximum amount of information from the scene, that's how to do it. The following workflow steps can then accentuate detail in high or low brightness areas as you wish. WIth this approach, that detail is there. With a typical JPEG, unless it happens to be *perfectly* exposed, it won't be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7913915168052873347.post-48301603475414107812011-08-15T17:05:59.665-07:002011-08-15T17:05:59.665-07:00Hey, I shoot RAW too! But I've found that if ...Hey, I shoot RAW too! But I've found that if my light is good (and the exposure is right for that light), then my shots don't benefit greatly from RAW. If I'm unsure about anything, I'll shoot RAW and figure it out later. :-)Gary L. Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12816533617814819591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7913915168052873347.post-50903706232589791042011-08-15T13:49:39.336-07:002011-08-15T13:49:39.336-07:00when you export as JPEG you:
- Lose the ability to...when you export as JPEG you:<br />- Lose the ability to correct whitepoint<br />- Reduce the ability to correct under/overexposure<br />- Lose the ability to use the image in HDR<br />- Reduce the ability to use many third party applications such as Lightroom.<br /><br />When you export as RAW you:<br />- Reduce the speed of your camera in continious mode (at least, you do once the camera's local buffer is full).<br />- Reduce the number of images your camera can store.<br /><br />MAin reason I shoot RAW is because I believe the ability to tweak an image after the event using Lightroom and Photomatix et all more than compensates for the speed advantages of JPEG.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7913915168052873347.post-85104954698045418632011-08-10T15:52:14.736-07:002011-08-10T15:52:14.736-07:00Again an interesting and informative newsletter pr...Again an interesting and informative newsletter presented in an entertaining way. Keep it up. And Thank you!!! <br />YOur friend S.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7913915168052873347.post-11998672154531160372011-08-10T12:56:40.407-07:002011-08-10T12:56:40.407-07:00I don't consider myself in a war with .jpg. I ...I don't consider myself in a war with .jpg. I use it on a daily basis when I post images to the web or as enclosures in email. It certainly has its place as a file format, however I strongly believe that that place is now very much, strictly a post processing export format, and should rarely, if ever be used for export directly from a camera. This has nothing whatsoever to do with a .jpeg image's quality, or lack thereof.<br /><br />When you choose .jpeg as the export file format from your camera, you are, forever choosing to accept the camera manufacturer's choices for initial manipulation of the image. This has little to do with destructive compression, although that can be a problem too. <br /><br />As Gary said, much water has run under the bridge since cameras started exporting .jpg. Indeed, cameras have become much more sophisticated and the images they export have become much better, BUT output devices such as monitors and printers have also matured. What has NOT matured is the .jpg standard, which is fixed in stone. <br /><br />Today's cameras shoot in 10, 12, 14 and even 16-bit bit depth, giving dramatically increased dynamic range. IPS monitors and pro-level printers support these higher bit rates and also support wide colour gamuts… far wider than sRGB or even AdobeRGB. By choosing the .jpg file format, as well as destructive compression, you automatically choose a limited 8-bit, sRGB output that permanently and visibly limits the ultimate quality potential of an image… regardless of enlargement size. <br /><br />By shooting RAW, working in a non-destructive image editor and converting to another file format later you avoid all these pitfalls and more. The original RAW converters were good but not great. There have been considerable advances in the quality of RAW converters. Because I elected to shoot RAW only, I can re-process all of my images using these new RAW converters and take advantage of the improvements. I will be able to continue doing so each and every time a better RAW converter emerges. I'm not locked in. Likewise, because RAW output does not convert bit-rate or colour space, I can take advantage of continued improvement in output devices, although I admit that we already have devices with better colour gamut than AdobeRGB. We need to convince camera manufacturers to support ProPhotoRGB in-camera.<br /><br />I completely agree with Gary when he says memory is cheap. I also agree that it can become confusing if you are constantly having to remember to change file formats in your camera. That's why I set my camera to RAW and the AdobeRBG colour space when I bought it. The settings have never changed. Everything gets shot RAW/AdobeRGB. I convert to whatever file format I require in post.<br /><br />Simply put, shooting RAW gives me choice… both now and in the future. .jpg does not.<br /><br />Every photograph is an instant in time, recorded. You only get once chance. Why needlessly limit your choices?<br /><br /><br />Gerry Curry<br />Gerry Curry Fine Art Photography<br />and PrintingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com