Why JPEG files are suddenly good enough for me.

[abjurina]

I've shot two portrait sessions now in RAW+JPEG as an experiment to decide on whether or not the JPEG files are as good as people say.  Since getting into photography professionally about 6 years ago, I have NEVER shot a portrait session with anything other than RAW. I wanted complete control over my output and the colors, sharpening, etc. You all know what I mean, if you shoot RAW. However, since I've switched to the Fuji X System, I've been noticing that my post-processing has changed in a way in which I would find myself trying to mimic the look I was getting in my viewfinder much more often than I did with Nikon or Canon. I loved the look of the JPEG files, but I didn't want to give up the flexibility of RAW...until now. The following two scenarios will explain what I mean:

 

Scenario 1: Harsh, mid-day light with much potential to lose detail in the highlights and contrasty shadows in an outdoor sunny portrait shoot. I shot RAW+JPEG and to my surprise, even the few times where I did need to pull back the highlights a bit in post, the JPEG's were very forgiving. I have to believe that the Fuji JPEG files are the most forgiving I've ever worked with in this kind of lighting. They were amazing! I threw the RAW files out and ended up adding a slight vignette and color-temperature adjustment. Then I just gave them to the clients. Here's an example of how those shots came out (Note, there may be one or two files that were shot with Canon, as my wife shot with me, but most of the pics are from my XT1):

 

http://jurinaphotography.com/blog.cfm?postID=179&hershey-portrait-photographer-i-leah-and-cam-anniversary-shoot

 

 

Scenario 2: Mostly indoor low-light situations with high ISO ranges (above 2000) and back-lit scenes. This was a family and infant shoot.  I shot RAW+JPEG just because I didn't know what the files were going to give me with shooting at high ISO ranges. Again, I was completely surprised at the ability of the JPEG files to hold detail and colors. I had no need for noise reduction to be applied at all. Here are some examples for this shoot (again, keep in mind that some shots may be Canon):

 

http://jurinaphotography.com/blog.cfm?postID=180&hershey-infant-portrait-photographer-baby-b

 

In all, I'm so happy with the JPEG files that I've cut my post-processing time to more than half. While I'm not yet ready to go completely JPEG with my professional work (I like the insurance of the RAW), I now know that I can confidently expect great results with the JPEG and almost no need to use the RAW files unless for emergencies.

 

 

[azmmount]

Looks nice.

 

I must have done something wrong because I switched to shooting just JPEGs shortly after I got my X-T1 because of so many comments on how good their JPEG processing was and hated it. I started regretting the camera purchase because it seemed that the images lacked any real detail. Nice color but everything was "smudged". Then I remembered I had switched to JPEG's, switched back and have not noticed any problems since. It might have been that I was shooting a lot of high ISO stuff during the JPEG dissatisfaction period.

 

Have you changed any settings regarding how the JPEGs are rendered?

 

Mike

[marcelo_valente]

abjurina, I feel the same way.

 

I'm no professional, but when I shot with my Canon I used to edit the raw files only.  With the Fuji X-E2 I started to shoot RAW+JPG but I mostly work on the JPGs in LR and they come out pretty good.  A few minor adjustments and, good enough, for me at least.  I used to delete all the raw files once I edited, but I changed my mind and now I keep the raw files of the jpegs I kept, in case I want to apply the film simulations in LR and do some editings, or if I shoot monochrome and then decide I want the color version.

 

The JPEGs are great, sometimes at high ISO it looks a little weird, I agree.

[abjurina]

I actually do adjust jpegs in camera. I'm trying to figure out the best settings with NR, but right now NR is set to 0, Htone is set to +1, STone is set to +1, Color is +2, and Sharpness is +2...I shoot in Standard(Provia) as well. I'm sure that there could be better settings than that, but it gives me exactly what I want. I don't even bother to sharpen them, since they look great already. People always argue about which program can get better sharpening out of Fuji x-trans files. My answer? Fuji X trans sensors, haha!

[azmmount]

How about Dynamic Range and Lens Modulation Optimizer? I have mine set to Auto and Off. I think these affect JPEG rendering too.

 

I just put your settings in and changed to shoot RAW+Fine. I remember now that last time I switched to JPEG only because I thought I might need a high frame rate and many frames. Of course I didn't really Then I forgot to reset it for a while.

 

Thanks,

 

Mike

[peter nadort]

I've shot two portrait sessions now in RAW+JPEG as an experiment to decide on whether or not the JPEG files are as good as people say.  Since getting into photography professionally about 6 years ago, I have NEVER shot a portrait session with anything other than RAW. I wanted complete control over my output and the colors, sharpening, etc. You all know what I mean, if you shoot RAW. However, since I've switched to the Fuji X System, I've been noticing that my post-processing has changed in a way in which I would find myself trying to mimic the look I was getting in my viewfinder much more often than I did with Nikon or Canon. I loved the look of the JPEG files, but I didn't want to give up the flexibility of RAW...until now. The following two scenarios will explain what I mean:

 

Scenario 1: Harsh, mid-day light with much potential to lose detail in the highlights and contrasty shadows in an outdoor sunny portrait shoot. I shot RAW+JPEG and to my surprise, even the few times where I did need to pull back the highlights a bit in post, the JPEG's were very forgiving. I have to believe that the Fuji JPEG files are the most forgiving I've ever worked with in this kind of lighting. They were amazing! I threw the RAW files out and ended up adding a slight vignette and color-temperature adjustment. Then I just gave them to the clients. Here's an example of how those shots came out (Note, there may be one or two files that were shot with Canon, as my wife shot with me, but most of the pics are from my XT1):

 

http://jurinaphotography.com/blog.cfm?postID=179&hershey-portrait-photographer-i-leah-and-cam-anniversary-shoot

 

 

Scenario 2: Mostly indoor low-light situations with high ISO ranges (above 2000) and back-lit scenes. This was a family and infant shoot.  I shot RAW+JPEG just because I didn't know what the files were going to give me with shooting at high ISO ranges. Again, I was completely surprised at the ability of the JPEG files to hold detail and colors. I had no need for noise reduction to be applied at all. Here are some examples for this shoot (again, keep in mind that some shots may be Canon):

 

http://jurinaphotography.com/blog.cfm?postID=180&hershey-infant-portrait-photographer-baby-b

 

In all, I'm so happy with the JPEG files that I've cut my post-processing time to more than half. While I'm not yet ready to go completely JPEG with my professional work (I like the insurance of the RAW), I now know that I can confidently expect great results with the JPEG and almost no need to use the RAW files unless for emergencies.

 

 

Hello Abjurina, you must be a lucky guy now. I've started with the X-E1, then X-E2 and now X-T1. Very very happy with it. But working with JPG, I've tried, but I throwed them away, not good enough. So using Fuji X will mean that everybody can be happy. regards, peter

[abjurina]

How about Dynamic Range and Lens Modulation Optimizer? I have mine set to Auto and Off. I think these affect JPEG rendering too.

 

I just put your settings in and changed to shoot RAW+Fine. I remember now that last time I switched to JPEG only because I thought I might need a high frame rate and many frames. Of course I didn't really Then I forgot to reset it for a while.

 

Thanks,

 

Mike

I have dynamic range and LMO left on. I seriously love the look of what comes out of my camera. This is all subjective, but that's what's so great about this: we can optimize our jpeg settings, or just shoot RAW. Everybody gets what they want!

[flysurfer]

The shots in scenario 2 look nice to me, but I'd still enhance some of them with the built-in RAW converters to create better SOOC JPEGs.

 

Scenario 1 includes several shots with heavy highlight clipping and severe CAs (or green fringing). Different DR settings would have mitigated the issue, and external RAW processing would have helped even more.

[abjurina]

@flysurfer. In regards to Scenario 1,  I'm not seeing the severe CA you are mentioning. Yes, definitely some clipping, but in my experience with Fuji or anything digital, pulling back highlights in these severe situations looks kind of weird in LR. I let those highlights go since there really wasn't much detail that was important anyways. I'll take the advice on the DR settings though. Any tips on what works best?

[flysurfer]

You can simply meter the DR expansion that's required if you want to know "exactly" which DR mode to set (200 or 400). There are more detailed instructions in my book. Basically, you meter the scene for the highlights and the shadows/midtones, and the difference tells you which DR setting to use.

 

As for the fringing: It's really pretty obvious. For example:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[abjurina]

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm surprised as to how much fringing there is. So the DR settings can fix the fringing? I think I'll be getting your book real soon. Will it be updated with anything for firmware 4.0, or does it not matter?

[flysurfer]

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm surprised as to how much fringing there is. So the DR settings can fix the fringing? I think I'll be getting your book real soon. Will it be updated with anything for firmware 4.0, or does it not matter?

 

Yes, if DR can save the sky, it can mitigate this effect. Firmware 4 doesn't matter here, but the book will of course be updated next month when I'm in Santa Barbara. I'll write at the house of my publisher. Doesn't really matter when you buy the eBook, as the eBook update will be free, I reckon.

[flysurfer]

Btw, there is no RAW vs. JPEG debate in Fujiland. It doesn't exist, it's just a made-up tale. Everybody is shooting RAW, the only difference is how we process our RAWs and what we do with those RAWs after processing.

 

If you set the camera zu "JPEG-only", you are still shooting RAW, of course. Your JPEGs will be processed in the camera's RAW converter with the RAW converter processing settings that are selected in the shooting menu (film simulation, contrast settings, color, sharpening, noise reduction, DR settings, LMO, white balance) and set-up menu (color space). After the RAW has been processed to a JPEG (using the quality, size and format settings in the shooting menu), the RAW file is deleted and the camera will save the JPEG on the SD card.

 

Since most photographers (me included) aren't proficient enough to know and set the perfect film simulation, contrast settings, color, sharpening, noise reduction, DR settings, LMO and white balance settings for each shot in advance (not to mention the perfect exposure), we usually don't delete the RAW file after processing. We keep it to achieve a better in-camera conversion result with different (optimized) settings, or we keep it for external RAW processing. In the end, we still export a JPEG (or a TIFF), so there's really no difference.

 

Of course, the most important factor ist that many situation don't have a solution for one perfect exposure. No matter how you expose, parts of the resulting image will either be too bright or too dark. To solve this impossible equation, one must apply selective exposure, like film photographers did when they printed from negatives in their lightroom. In the digital realm, selective exposure translates to adaptive ISO, which is only possible with either the DR function (in a crude but simple way) or external RAW processing (tone-mapping). This is also why we prefer cameras with ISOless sensors: They are more suitable for adaptive ISO.

[abjurina]

Well put. In a nutshell, I guess I prefer what the camera is already giving me. It saves me a ton of time in front of the computer and thus more time taking pictures with my Fuji camera, which is the most fun part. ;-)

[azmmount]

Btw, there is no RAW vs. JPEG debate in Fujiland. It doesn't exist, it's just a made-up tale. Everybody is shooting RAW, the only difference is how we process our RAWs and what we do with those RAWs after processing.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Every camera in the world shoots raw data and then interprets it into an image (jpg or tiff or whatever). The RAW vs JPG debate is about what you ultimately keep - at least that's how I always understood it. You either keep the data that defines the image or you process it into an image, compress it (usually), and throw the defining data away.

 

Of course, what we display at the end is always a processed image, so I get that the resulting JPG from the camera and the resulting JPG from our RAW conversion might well be identical (maybe that's what you're saying?), but I don't get that we don't need to choose whether or not we keep the RAW file just because we happen to shoot Fuji.

 

Mike

[flysurfer]

I don't get that we don't need to choose whether or not we keep the RAW file just because we happen to shoot Fuji.

 

 

Smart users simply shoot FINE+RAW. If one doesn't like external converters, one can use the built-in one. Takes me about 15 seconds to create an improved JPEG with it, or an alternate version for later review/comparison. Others can use LR, RFC EX or Iridient with Fujifilm presets, that's also very quick. Others will make use of adaptive ISO and have even better results. It varies, there's no general rule. For me, it always depends on the actual image. I leave all options open. And I never erase the RAW file of an image I intend to keep. 

[azmmount]

Bleh. Fired off a few "rolls" with Fine+RAW. Realized that I still have to pull the JPG through PS to resize and I am doing all the same things to the JPG that I would do with the RAW file. I can't see an actual advantage for me to save a JPG at all (it just means twice as many images to import) so I'm back to just RAW. I try to be a smart user but fail, lol.

[flysurfer]

Well, if you don't need more accurate exposure for different formats or a full-size image to check your focus, you can shoot RAW only. Personally, I also need the JPEGs to quickly browse through them in Aperture. Much faster than browsing RAWs, not to mention import times I don't like wasting time on my Mac, so my workflow is streamlined to quickly separate the keepers from the "trash".

[abjurina]

I used to feel that way too, and agree with the feeling of too many files. But what I do is copy the files onto my desktop and just import the JPEG files into LR. If I find any files where I think that the RAW is needed, I just then import the RAW version in and work on that. Most of the time, I don't feel the need to bother with the RAW files, but it's great to have the insurance, just in case.

[azmmount]

... if you don't need more accurate exposure for different formats ...

 

Not sure what you mean here - can you clarify please?

 

... or a full-size image to check your focus, you can shoot RAW only. Personally, I also need the JPEGs to quickly browse through them in Aperture. Much faster than browsing RAWs ...

 

If I want to quickly browse I usually use the browser from OnOne softwares Perfect Photo Suite. It seems blinding fast even with RAW. I'm sure JOGs are faster if not only because they are so much smaller.

 

Normally, I use Adobe Bridge though, and for some reason, many versions ago, I lost the ability to preview the full size images with the loupe in the browser and have to open an individual image in the converter to check focus Super aggravating.

 

 

... so my workflow is streamlined to quickly separate the keepers from the "trash".

 

This is something I need to learn to do better. I need to start throwing out the trash or at least organizing better so I don't have to look at the trash every time I look at the shoot.

 

Thanks,

 

Mike

[azmmount]

I used to feel that way too, and agree with the feeling of too many files. But what I do is copy the files onto my desktop and just import the JPEG files into LR. If I find any files where I think that the RAW is needed, I just then import the RAW version in and work on that. Most of the time, I don't feel the need to bother with the RAW files, but it's great to have the insurance, just in case.

 

I, for some reason, hate having to import photos into Lightroom. This is the main reason I still don't use it - though I am considering giving it another shot so I can hopefully organize the past 14 years of digital files I have on my backup drive. Turns out that remembering what day I did something isn't working after a few years - even remembering the year is complicated

 

Mike

[flysurfer]

Not sure what you mean here - can you clarify please?

 

Tip 27 in my book explains it...

 

• „The live view in the viewfinder or on the LCD display will automatically adjust to the new format, making it easier to compose an image.
• Size and position of the camera’s 49 autofocus frames will adapt to the selected image format. This means that even in the highly cropped 1:1 format, all 49 AF frames will still be available.
• The camera’s exposure metering and live histogram are based on what’s displayed in the live view. Changing the live view to 16:9 or 1:1 will enhance metering accuracy for the respective format.“

 

Auszug aus: Rico Pfirstinger. „The Fujifilm X-T1.“ iBooks. 

[azmmount]

Ah, I see, you mean if I select a different aspect ratio - which I can only do if I am shooting jpeg anyway.

 

But, I also see that by checking focus you meant on camera. I did not realize that I could zoom in closer on the image during playback when I shot jpg. I can see benefit in that for sure. I suppose I could shoot both and only import the RAWs off the card... I will have to think if there is a real benefit to that for me.

 

There might also be a benefit in shooting jpgs if I am transferring then to the iPad for quick edits. Though I'm not sure if iOS will let me choose which ext gets copied over.

 

Thanks,

 

Mike

[Guido]

Well, if you don't need more accurate exposure for different formats or a full-size image to check your focus, you can shoot RAW only. Personally, I also need the JPEGs to quickly browse through them in Aperture. Much faster than browsing RAWs, not to mention import times I don't like wasting time on my Mac, so my workflow is streamlined to quickly separate the keepers from the "trash".

Hello Rico,

I am interested in the details about your workflow, is there any already published article/book in which you describe it?

Thanks

Guido

[flysurfer]

Hello Rico,

I am interested in the details about your workflow, is there any already published article/book in which you describe it?

Thanks

Guido

 

We sometimes talk about workflow options in my workshops, but no, I don't think that my workflow is some gold standard that should be adopted by everybody else. I'm a Mac user (since 1985), and in my experience, that's already a point where I am losing at 50% of the audience, as those 50% refuse to use a computer that runs Mac OS and Windows for maximum flexibility and choice of options.

 

Workflow is also a matter of personal preference. Personally, I recommend choices that allow maximum flexibility (hence always FINE+RAW). I also like speedy handling, so I first browse through my JPEGs and trash everything I do not need, then copy the RAWs of the remaining keeper shots. Of course, there's also the matter of "habit". Many users do not want to change their trusted ways, even when better options are clearly available. In the end, it's about what you like and what feels right. Very few people spend as much time with and thought about the X series as I do, so it's risky to say that my experience/conclusions should apply to everyone.

 

So do as you like, but I do recommend FINE+RAW, then importing the JPEGs only first for browsing/selecting, then importing the RAWs of the keeper files. That works really well for me.