Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Fuji X Series > Fuji X-100 Series

Fuji X-100 Series This forum is for fans of the rangefinder retrostyled Fuji X Series of digital cameras.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 10-31-2011   #41
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 42
Posts: 16,638
I'm a RAW only type, but if I was going to shoot JPEG, I'd at least shoot jpeg and RAW. What happens if you get your best photo ever and it's a jpeg that isn;t exactly exposed right... would be nice to have the RAW then no? There are no absolutes in photography.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-31-2011   #42
avikrc
Registered User
 
avikrc is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
I'm a RAW only type, but if I was going to shoot JPEG, I'd at least shoot jpeg and RAW. What happens if you get your best photo ever and it's a jpeg that isn;t exactly exposed right... would be nice to have the RAW then no? There are no absolutes in photography.
yeah. that's what makes the most sense I guess. The X100 mostly produces pretty good jpegs, but for certain cases it is most comforting to know that I also have the RAW file somewhere.

Just the other day I was shooting indoors with a custom white balance and forgot to change it later and the jpeg came out all blue. It would have ruined the fun if I didn't have the RAW to sort things out...

..Just my two cents..
__________________
------------------------------------------------

Regards,
Avik

  Reply With Quote

Old 10-31-2011   #43
celluloidprop
Registered User
 
celluloidprop is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 882
X100 B&W jpgs are quite gray, IMO - playing with the shadow/midtone/highlight settings helps that quite a bit (even 'medium-hard' settings don't blow shadows or highlights on a regular basis), but I've never gotten the results I can get from SEP2.

It is nice for viewing B&W in-camera, though.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-12-2012   #44
Archiver
Registered User
 
Archiver is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 711
I am following this thread with interest as I do not (yet) have a X100 but I shoot a range of cameras, all in raw if possible. I have the X10 and I find that the jpeg output is surprisingly good enough to use as a default, although I shoot in raw + jpeg in case there is something I want to tweak extra hard.

I am very interested to know just how good the X100's raws are in Lightroom. I shoot in raw with every camera since I discovered how much more I can get out of my images when I do. But if the X100 jpegs are good 'enough' like the X10's, then it will be a very pleasant surprise.
__________________
~Loving Every Image Captured Always~
Archiver on flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-12-2012   #45
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,816
The JPEGs are good sometimes, and sometimes they can ruin a bunch of photos - like when there's odd light (fluorescent etc). I just shoot raw now - no extra effort, better IQ. No brainer IMO.

The x100 jpeg is good, but there's nothing like being able to control exactly what the contrast and color is in a photograph.
__________________
http://nopraise.tumblr.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-12-2012   #46
rbelyell
Registered User
 
rbelyell is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,305
we can complicate this up, but its really simple--its visually visceral--what looks better coming out of the X. to my eye the jpegs have more dynamic range and more 'pop'. that's pretty much it, not much further analysis is necessary except for settings, which in my case are: Fine, provia, med hard sharpness, auto iso, auto DR, everything else to default. i find astia a little soft and shadows a little clipped and skin tones not as pleasing or realistic.

i think astia is actually a less 'garish' or saturated version of velvia setting, which i do use for some nature/landscapes, but then i put DR to 100 and 'shadow tone' to lowest setting to mitigate shadow clipping.

i extremely low light i do shoot RAW plus b&w jpeg to get better WB control of the color and easy immediate qualitative comparison between color and b&w. typically in those situations i'm shooting people so i 'spot meter' with a greatly reduced-in-size focus frame, and use the green filter setting, which really conveys subtleties of skin tone. ive found no need for any external b&w processing as the OOC renderings are among the best ive ever encountered.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-12-2012   #47
gilpen123
Gil
 
gilpen123's Avatar
 
gilpen123 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Manila, Philippines
Posts: 2,373
Very true get your exposure right and you're ok, however, opening and closing Jpeg files will eventually degrade the file. Best to save as TIFF after shooting Fine Jpeg.
__________________
Gil

"Imagination is more important than knowledge"
  Reply With Quote

Every Jpeg file>save or file>save as discards data
Old 01-12-2012   #48
kuzano
Registered User
 
kuzano is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,894
Every Jpeg file>save or file>save as discards data

I don't really concern myself with RAW vs. Jpeg in editing. What I DO concern myself with is the amount of data discarded from the file on any and all Jpeg functions which involve the creation of a new file, including the first Jpeg out of the camera.

Jpeg is a lossey algorithm that discards data from the file on every edit>file>save or save as. This should be obvious from the choices one makes on quality out of the camera, as in fine or high quality vs. standard or low quality on Jpeg creation. It should also be obvious when one gets that last dialogue box, in most editing software, on saving a Jpeg, where one chooses the % quality of the image.

You are instructing the camera, or the computer, specifically how much "like" data to round up and throw out of the image.

I believe more people would shoot RAW + Jpeg if they realized how a Jpeg degrades EACH time it is saved once at creation by the camera and each time you edit/change the image.

It only takes about 8-10 saves in the computer using a low percentage of file save in that final dialogue box pertaining to Jpeg quality, to visually detect degradation.

Jpeg stands for Joint Photographer Experts Group, the people who got together long before we had "broad band" over the internet, to devise a compression algorithm for files that would speed transfer via telephone modems and similar problems.

With the advent of broad band internet and cheap storage, Jpeg may actually be somewhat obsolete considering it's originally intended purpose, but the camera manufacturers will surely not let it go. Too heady to explain to the end user/consumer.

And, for some people, the processing engine in the camera takes care of a lot of hours of begrudged time spent in front of the computer. So, in that case, the first Jpeg OOC is useful and a great time saver. If you take the time to properly understand your computer and it's internal "edit" functions, Jpeg gives you the opportunity to get very satisfactory results bypassing a lot of time spent massaging raw.

So the point that makes the most impact for me is the fact that EVERY Jpeg loses data on the save, because the file on a save is a new file and the Jpeg function ALWAYS discards SOME or much data depending on your choices.

If you never intend to edit (using ANY software that offers a Jpeg save) you pictures, then perhaps that one first Jpeg save OOC, is perfect for your needs and has enough data for a high quality image, using High, Fine or Super quality. That way the data loss is one time only, OOC, and minimal loss because of the quality selection, in addition to the resolution (pixel count).

So I can agree with Nick and everyone else on this thread, as long as you understand the degrading impact that Jpeg has on repetitive editing and saving of the file.

Some people also believe that opening and closing or transferring Jpeg files runs the compression algorithm and that is NOT the case.

This is a very helpful article on some of the Jpeg myths:

http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/for...mythsfacts.htm
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2012   #49
chris00nj
Young Luddite
 
chris00nj's Avatar
 
chris00nj is offline
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Texas
Age: 37
Posts: 1,016
An older thread, but as someone who is potentially moving to digital for the first time with the X-pro 1, I thought this thread would be a useful read as I thought "oh jeez, does going digital mean I have to learn to use RAW and buy Lightroom?"

Nick, thanks for the sanity check.

I'm transitioning to digital because I can't keep up developing and scanning with two small children. Spending hours processing RAW files to get a result that is 0.1% better than the JPEG does not seem like a worthwhile effort for me.
__________________
My Camera Family


Flickr

Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2012   #50
celluloidprop
Registered User
 
celluloidprop is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 882
You won't spend hours on RAW files. There's no reason to do an entire PP process on every image you take.

These days I'm shooting RAW + mono JPG for previewing. Then I import into LR3, delete the obvious missteps, decide which are good enough for displaying then (Flickr, RFF, etc.) and edit in Silver Efex Pro 2 or Color Efex Pro after making the RAW low-contrast in LR3. In each of those programs I have recipes set up that get me 90% of where I want to be with one click. Sounds complicated, but the process really takes only moments per image. A bit more if I use SEP2's selective adjustments tools for dodging and burning.

I really can't imagine not having as much control as possible over my images.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2012   #51
celluloidprop
Registered User
 
celluloidprop is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 882
There is a grayness to the unaltered image in LR (it almost looks like a fog over the image) - generally bumping blacks from 5 to around 10 takes care of a lot of that and makes the entire image look richer.

Unlike Canikon models, Adobe has no camera profile under the calibration area for the X100 - with my D700, you could see Camera Standard, Camera Vivid, Camera Neutral, analogous to the various JPG settings available in-camera. If you could select X100 -Provia in that drop-down, you'd see something much closer to JPGs from the camera.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2012   #52
Turtle
Registered User
 
Turtle is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,635
Its very simple. JPEG will give a 90% result 99% of the time. Thats fine, even desirable for general usage, but far from fine if you want the very best possible. The camera's engine cannot possibly know what you want, only you can... and you have to put the time in to get it.

My solution is to capture both files. Use the JPEG when it suits,but have the RAW there for when I need to really work on a file.

Nick, a lot of the best photographers shoot in very challenging lighting conditions most of the time because its a good way to produce powerful images. Visit a Salgado exhibition (pre-Genesis) and then think about whether you'd have shot them in JPEG or wanted the latitude of RAW...
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2012   #53
Turtle
Registered User
 
Turtle is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,635
But KR's photos are not demanding from a technical perspective. I don't look at them and think 'wow, what technically impressive work.... how has he so delicately balanced X & Y... I can see that must have been a nightmare to achieve'

It is easy to see from the sort of work he shoots that he has little need for RAW as the lighting and other factors are relatively straight forward. As long as KR has lots of contrast and lots of colour punch, he seems to be happy and that's fair enough considering his creative objectives. His images are bold rather than subtle and they are rarely shot under nasty lighting conditions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
Ken Rocwell - whose site produces inexplicable angry reactions (because he's opinionated), but remains one of the most informative sites on the intertubes and one I enjoy... has a nice comprehensive article on raw vs. jpeg that I happen to agree with. In fact, I was kinda surprised when I stumbled on this article a while back because I recon'd Rockwell for a raw shooter:


JPG vs Raw:
Get it Right the First Time
2009 KenRockwell.com. All rights reserved.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Using raw files obviously takes a lot more time and patience...since you could have had all that processing done right in the camera for free...Raw looks no better than JPG for real photos. It just takes up space, wastes your time and runs the risk of not being able to be opened now and in the future.

I cherry-picked his criticisms of RAW, actually he doesn't diss raw completely. He says, basically, if you don't shoot a lot and like to play around with images for fun and enjoy doing this, knock yourself out. Shoot raw, be my guest. But on the whole it's a waste of time and doesn't result in better looking pics for all you wasted time/effort when printed/viewed at a normal viewing distance - only maybe if you magnify your images to the relative size of a billboard when you pixel peep. Raw is also good for if you completely screw up exposure but any digital camera - even cheap ones, pretty much nail exposure... so the only way you're really going to screw this up if you shoot in manual mode because - ya, know, that sophisticated technology and processing power in your camera that's orders of magnitude greater than what was used to get a manned rocket back and forth to the moon, is incapable of accurate exposure...

I agree with Rockwell in full. His opinion is spot on.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2012   #54
rbelyell
Registered User
 
rbelyell is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle View Post
But KR's photos are not demanding from a technical perspective. I don't look at them and think 'wow, what technically impressive work.... how has he so delicately balanced X & Y... I can see that must have been a nightmare to achieve'

It is easy to see from the sort of work he shoots that he has little need for RAW as the lighting and other factors are relatively straight forward. As long as KR has lots of contrast and lots of colour punch, he seems to be happy and that's fair enough considering his creative objectives. His images are bold rather than subtle and they are rarely shot under nasty lighting conditions.
i think yours is the exact point for a different conclusion, which is UNLESS you are in a technically demanding situation, especially as respects lighting, shooting raw is a waste of time, space and energy. most of us are not professionals testing the limits of man and machine. if we were we'd be using much different equipment. for 90% of us in 90% of the situations we encounter there is no longer any reason whatsoever to shoot raw.

for the space this argument engenders, the definitive conclusion is quite easy and objective to achieve. shoot the same normal scene at the same time raw and jpeg and try to find a difference in your prints. unless youre postering a wall with them, my bet is you won't be able to find any noticeable difference. if you do, that would be worth hearing about!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2012   #55
jamesbf
Registered User
 
jamesbf is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 74
Pereonally I shoot jpeg. I think I'd only go raw if I was shooting magazine fashion or some type of commercial job. For street and everyday I alway shoot jpeg. If I spend more then 2 min on a edit in photoshop I usually scrap it.
__________________
flickr.com/photos/jamesbfeatherstone
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2012   #56
Turtle
Registered User
 
Turtle is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,635
Sure, but are you going to switch from JPEG to RAW and back and forth when your lighting varies from shot to shot?

I guess if you are a challenging photographer you have little choice but to shoot RAW. If you play it safe, ensure lighting is always 'compliant' etc then there is no need.

You can always work a RAW file towards the JPEG your camera would have produced, but you cannot always work a JPEG towards the file you would have produced from RAW....

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbelyell View Post
i think yours is the exact point for a different conclusion, which is UNLESS you are in a technically demanding situation, especially as respects lighting, shooting raw is a waste of time, space and energy. most of us are not professionals testing the limits of man and machine. if we were we'd be using much different equipment. for 90% of us in 90% of the situations we encounter there is no longer any reason whatsoever to shoot raw.

for the space this argument engenders, the definitive conclusion is quite easy and objective to achieve. shoot the same normal scene at the same time raw and jpeg and try to find a difference in your prints. unless youre postering a wall with them, my bet is you won't be able to find any noticeable difference. if you do, that would be worth hearing about!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2012   #57
Turtle
Registered User
 
Turtle is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,635
I'd add that with a very small amount of thought, LR or the like can be set up to squirt out your RAW files pretty much however you want, so you can get out what the camera JPEG would have been with the click of a button.

Besides, we can shoot RAW and JPEG together. I know I do.... Aside from quantum speed, I cannot see any reason not to have those RAW files there just in case. You can always delete them!

While I understand the point about lots of people not being professionals, that's no argument, because the point here is that Ken Rock suggested, as supported by Nick Trop, that there is 'no point' shooting RAW unless you want to spend your time tinkering for the sake of tinkering. That is patently untrue and there seems to be consensus on the idea that if the highest standards are your goal, esp if the lighting is nasty, RAW is the way to go!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2012   #58
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,959
I will always shoot raw because I refuse to automatically destroy information before I know whether or not that information is valuable.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

williamchuttonjr.com, FLICKR,
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2012   #59
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 42
Posts: 16,638
I shoot RAW and will work on a file as long as it takes to get it to my liking. My thinking is that if I get the best photo of my life, I'll be glad I used RAW. J-peg is only for convenience or for those who are too lazy or don't have the desire to post-process.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2012   #60
rbelyell
Registered User
 
rbelyell is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle View Post
Sure, but are you going to switch from JPEG to RAW and back and forth when your lighting varies from shot to shot?

I guess if you are a challenging photographer you have little choice but to shoot RAW. If you play it safe, ensure lighting is always 'compliant' etc then there is no need.

You can always work a RAW file towards the JPEG your camera would have produced, but you cannot always work a JPEG towards the file you would have produced from RAW....
when i say 'difficult lighting' i typically mean 'artificial' lighting. typically, that doesnt change from shot to shot. when i'm inside in artificial light and pictures are critical, i shoot raw. 99% of other times i shoot jpeg-no going back and forth.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2012   #61
rbelyell
Registered User
 
rbelyell is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle View Post
I'd add that with a very small amount of thought, LR or the like can be set up to squirt out your RAW files pretty much however you want, so you can get out what the camera JPEG would have been with the click of a button.

Besides, we can shoot RAW and JPEG together. I know I do.... Aside from quantum speed, I cannot see any reason not to have those RAW files there just in case. You can always delete them!

While I understand the point about lots of people not being professionals, that's no argument, because the point here is that Ken Rock suggested, as supported by Nick Trop, that there is 'no point' shooting RAW unless you want to spend your time tinkering for the sake of tinkering. That is patently untrue and there seems to be consensus on the idea that if the highest standards are your goal, esp if the lighting is nasty, RAW is the way to go!
as they say in the states 'i'm from missouri, you've gotta show me'.

some folks like to tinker for the sake of tinkering, i think thats great, go for it and have fun spending hours futzing with your raw files to get them to look pretty much like my jpegs.

some folks believe jpegs destroy critical information without exactly knowing what that information is or how it effects IQ. again, fine, enjoy filling up those hard drives!

some folks, like me, have never seen, actually seen with their own eyes, side by side prints of the same simple scene made from raw and jpeg where there was any noticeable difference between them. in fact, this kind of observation actually showed us no discernible IQ differences. until we actually see real IQ differences, we feel everything else is fantasy.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2012   #62
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbelyell View Post
some folks, like me, have never seen, actually seen with their own eyes, side by side prints of the same simple scene made from raw and jpeg where there was any noticeable difference between them. in fact, this kind of observation actually showed us no discernible IQ differences. until we actually see real IQ differences, we feel everything else is fantasy.
I took some photos with my x100 the other day in a national park with my girlfriend. The WB on the camera was on 'auto', 'provia' and highlight/shadow settings on 'std'. The photos I took in JPEG came out too warm, and far too green. The skin tones on my girlfriend were almost sickly yellow. Adjusting them in lightroom to get a decent balance proved very difficult - mainly with the cast on the skin tones. They were ruined.

Luckily I had the raw files too - I made a quick adjustment to wb, bumped up the red/yellow/orange luminance and then batch corrected the rest of them. Literally took about 20 seconds total for about 40 photos.

Raw 4 lyfe.
__________________
http://nopraise.tumblr.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2012   #63
celluloidprop
Registered User
 
celluloidprop is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbelyell View Post
for the space this argument engenders, the definitive conclusion is quite easy and objective to achieve. shoot the same normal scene at the same time raw and jpeg and try to find a difference in your prints. unless youre postering a wall with them, my bet is you won't be able to find any noticeable difference. if you do, that would be worth hearing about!

I will guarantee you that I can "find a difference" between any OOC monochrome JPG that I've used, and one I've edited in LR3/Silver Efex Pro 2.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2012   #64
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 42
Posts: 16,638
I like it RAW: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHkRHiEjt8I
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2012   #65
umcelinho
Marcelo
 
umcelinho's Avatar
 
umcelinho is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sao Paulo
Age: 33
Posts: 1,328
raw keeps more info on each file than a jpeg will do. time goes by and raw processors get better and better, unlike the in camera jpeg converter. so i just shoot raw even if sometimes i just take a look on the files on lr3, am pleased and export them to jpeg right away.
__________________
Gear:
right eye
right index finger
cameras & lenses

What I've seen around: flickr

  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2012   #66
Bike Tourist
Registered User
 
Bike Tourist's Avatar
 
Bike Tourist is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Central California
Age: 80
Posts: 1,024
I don't wish to micromanage my pixels. For me, jpeg works fine, allows me to integrate files from different camera brands, withstands several iterations of manipulation, is fast and uncomplicated, and is my digital buddy.

Of course, I have low standards.
__________________
Dick Thornton

Stock Portfolio:
http://www.shutterstock.com/g/biketourist
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2012   #67
paulfish4570
Registered User
 
paulfish4570's Avatar
 
paulfish4570 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Lapine, in deep south Alabama
Age: 64
Posts: 10,202
if i can ever figure out how to process RAW, maybe i'll have an opinion on this ...
__________________
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind ...
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2012   #68
Richard Berter
Registered User
 
Richard Berter's Avatar
 
Richard Berter is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: cincinnati ,ohio
Posts: 205
Same goes for me Paul
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2012   #69
Benjamin Oliver
Registered User
 
Benjamin Oliver is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Louisiana
Age: 26
Posts: 125
I started shooting raw+jpeg with the jpeg in BW. For me it is easier to get the color photos the way I like them with RPP, and the BW jpeg helps he decide if the photo will work better in BW or color having seen both.
__________________
Website
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2012   #70
andy_v
Registered User
 
andy_v's Avatar
 
andy_v is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Minsk, Belarus
Age: 54
Posts: 85
X100 is my first digital camera I prefer to shoot jpeg with.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2012   #71
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,816
Heh.. I've been going back and forth on this issue now since I bought my x100. I'm shooting raw+jpeg currently. After some more experimentation, I've started to change the simulation modes depending on the light - provia mode for very contrasty and harsh light, astia for most situations (but with the color toned down) and velvia for very very flat light. Likewise the highlight and shadow options get moved around a bit - usually I leave them on med-hard for provia, and then make them softer as I go to astia and velvia. The white balance is also really crucial - really warm scenes can trick the auto WB, so I try to set it as one of the presets most of the time. This helps with accuracy a lot.

There is definitely something quite amazing about the x100s JPEG engine - sometimes I literally cannot match the colors and tones with a raw file. When the JPEG engine 'overcooks' the colors on a file I've learned exactly how to tone them down selectively in lightroom, and the results are pretty damn good. I bought the fastest sandisk card available (90mb/s) and it's helped a lot with the write times when shooting raw+jpeg.

So yeah, I've backflipped again and most of my published photos from the x100 are jpegs (with the RAW files there as backup for important stuff).
__________________
http://nopraise.tumblr.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2012   #72
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,816
Also - I've noticed in Astia mode a tendency to clip shadows a bit - which I actually really like as it reminds me of a positive film scan. Sometimes there's a richness to the astia JPEGs that's really strong and pleasant - like in this photo:

__________________
http://nopraise.tumblr.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2012   #73
Deep Fried
Registered User
 
Deep Fried's Avatar
 
Deep Fried is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: CANADA
Posts: 138
X100 blows the white balance in mixed light too often for me to trust it. Indoors with mixed flourescent, halogen and incandescent, it will pick some wacky things sometimes.

Also, for a lightroom user there is zero difference in amount of work required for raw or jpeg. It makes it a non issue.

Yes, raw file colours are flatter. I find this to be true of all digital cameras I have shot raw. The thing is, I want to choose what to do with the colour.

The other big issue for me is creating tone curves for B&W highlights. You can't get nearly as nice highlights when trying to work over a jpeg.
__________________
Jeff
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2012   #74
kbg32
neo-romanticist
 
kbg32's Avatar
 
kbg32 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 5,520
"f i can ever figure out how to process RAW, maybe i'll have an opinion on this ... "

This is a problem with the majority of digital shooters. If they knew how to process RAW files, they would never use a jpeg again. Take your time, ask questions, experiment, find a friend, buy a book......
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2012   #75
rbelyell
Registered User
 
rbelyell is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavinlg View Post
Also - I've noticed in Astia mode a tendency to clip shadows a bit - which I actually really like as it reminds me of a positive film scan. Sometimes there's a richness to the astia JPEGs that's really strong and pleasant - like in this photo:

gavin, ive found that astia is to my eye simply a less sharp, slightly less saturated version of 'velvia'. it has been pretty well documented that the velvia setting severly clips shadows, so no surprise astia does also, though less severly. i set 'shadow tone' to 'soft' when shooting velvia, and that seems to alleviate the clipping problem.
tony
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2012   #76
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
 
dreilly's Avatar
 
dreilly is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Finger Lakes Region of New York State
Posts: 1,026
Any thread that starts with an early evocation of Roddy Piper and "They Live", moves on to Ken Rockwell, and then produces this gem from MrbessaR4a:

"The jury was done on RAW in 2006. JPEG is a distribution format, RAW is a capture format. Don't waste your camera and shoot JPEG. It's not archival, it's not full quality, it's not maleable, it's mostly stupid. JPEG is for ebay sales and iPhone cameras."

...is, well, my kind of thread. Incidentally, there is a very good couple of posts on The Online Photographer about just this issue. Worth reading.

I'm a JPEG shooter, so much so that I've sold cameras because their JPEG processing sucks. I come from a slide film background, and never minded working within the constraints of slide, and certainly don't mind the much more considerable lattitude a you can get from a digital file from a camera with a fine JPEG engine (which is Olympus, Epson and Fuji in my book, Canon and Nikon is usable but not particularly endearing).

But I am convince enough by this argument about "losing information" that I will only shoot with an extreme wide-angle fish-eye lens from now on. That way I'm capturing more information and discarding less.

Someone up above wrote:

"Personally, I wish reviews would spend more time assessing in-camera processing..."

I totally agree with this. There are better JPEG engines than others. JPEG engines are like film stock and deserve a little more analysis and experimentation.

I've only had the x100 for a week or so but so far I'm enjoying the JPEGs. I did a shoot last weekend with the x100 and shot RAW+JPEG just to see the difference, and by far I liked what I got from the JPEGs with minor tweaks vs. what I could do in LR3 with the RAWs and much more significant tweaking, which took me more time, and since I don't like postprocessing (and generations of photographers had little to do with pp, the slide shooters I mean), then the less time I spend on that the more I can be out making images. I look for a camera like I would choose for a film stock, something that helps me match my vision. The X100 seems to fit the bill. Any Olympus camera does. The Epson R-D1 had the best I've ever seen.

It really depends on the person. I shoot JPEG. My images end up in a magazine. Others do too. It certainly wasn't decided in 2006.

To directly address the OP's...O.P....I was using Astia with medium-soft shadow and medium highlight, I think the color was bumped up one or two.

cheers
doug
__________________
-D is for Doug

http://www.flickr.com/photos/xenar/collections/

No place is boring, if you've had a good night's sleep and have a pocket full of unexposed film. ~Robert Adams, Darkroom & Creative Camera Techniques, May 1995 (I suppose that should now read: "and have a full battery and an empty memory card." Though that sounds so dull.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2012   #77
Deep Fried
Registered User
 
Deep Fried's Avatar
 
Deep Fried is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: CANADA
Posts: 138
raw. exported from Lightroom as jpeg with no adjustments


In camera jpeg velvia setting
__________________
Jeff
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2012   #78
Deep Fried
Registered User
 
Deep Fried's Avatar
 
Deep Fried is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: CANADA
Posts: 138
That's why I shoot raw boys and girls. At the end of the day you still get a jpeg but there is a big difference in what that final jpeg looks like
__________________
Jeff
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-16-2012   #79
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
 
dreilly's Avatar
 
dreilly is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Finger Lakes Region of New York State
Posts: 1,026
Deep Fried,
One comparison a successful argument does not make. The Velvia setting is by all accounts not the optimal one.
doug
__________________
-D is for Doug

http://www.flickr.com/photos/xenar/collections/

No place is boring, if you've had a good night's sleep and have a pocket full of unexposed film. ~Robert Adams, Darkroom & Creative Camera Techniques, May 1995 (I suppose that should now read: "and have a full battery and an empty memory card." Though that sounds so dull.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-16-2012   #80
Deep Fried
Registered User
 
Deep Fried's Avatar
 
Deep Fried is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: CANADA
Posts: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreilly View Post
Deep Fried,
One comparison a successful argument does not make. The Velvia setting is by all accounts not the optimal one.
doug
Loss of detail is the same regardless. The film simulation doesn't alter the amount of compression.
__________________
Jeff
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 00:02.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.