Jump to content

Ok, Fuji...You win. I'll shoot JPG! ;-)


xuser101

Recommended Posts

A friend of mine just joined the Fuji X-T1 crowd. He is a senior citizen and despite being an expert photographer was very confused by all the many operations which he believed that he had to perform.

 

I pointed to him that the EVF gives an accurate rendition of what the picture will be like and that by means of the exposure compensation ( or the ISO dial ultimately if he found the shutter speed uncomfortable or not suitable)  he could manipulate the shot easily and quickly using the WYSIWYG principle.

 

He did it and now he is shooting away getting most of his pics quickly and efficiently made without too many problems. Of course he could shoot raws but then this would mean hour and hours of post processing when he really only needs little corrections which he can do in one of the several programs which he has.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i've never thought the white balance on Fujis to be that accurate (especially with reds and blues which is supposed to be expected) especially when compared to my Lumix. it amazes me at how accurate my Lumix gets colours (in sufficient light) to my eye. though with that being said, i still prefer the tones that the Fujis give. now IQ with Fuji's sooc jpgs.. well, that's another story as theirs are the best i've seen around.

 

however, i do still shoot RAW no matter what. i've had a few pics being recirculated on other forums i was foreign to as someone else's, and that is one reason, among others (post), it's important to have the negative/s, so to say.

 

(Sent from another Galaxy via Tapatalk)

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my Nikon period i always shot RAW or RAW&JPEG.

At home i processed the raw's, for a quick photo on the road i used the (small) jpg's for sending by phone to a newspaper or website.

In the beginning i did the same with my Fuji's, but i always used the jpg's.

So now i shoot jpg only, except in dificult light situations i also shoot raw for security.

 

The Fuji's create very good JPG's

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, you have to make up your own mind, and shoot according to your style. As long as I an remember, I've shot both jpeg + raw.  Yes it does take a bit more card space as well as disk space but that is so cheap nowadays.  Since I shoot primarily for stock, I live and die by the raw file;  but even for personal and family work, if I feel the lighting is off or that the images will need some recusitation at some point I'll still shoot JPEG+raw just for safety.  If when reviewing the images I find the jpeg is fine, then the raw is deleted -- of course this is only for certain images such as BBQ's parties, etc.  For any type of work that I may be able to use for stock, lifestyle, large prints it's RAW to the rescue.

 

Normally, when I'm shooting for pay, the RAW stays, and the JPEG are chucked once I've adjusted the raws to match or better the color/tones in the jpeg film simulation of choice.  Using LR, I have a preset on import that applies the film simulation (mines defaults to Astia), as well as sharpening, and some clarity.  This way I find I don't have to fiddle with either the jpeg or the raw after import unless I want to.

All my review work in LR is done off the jpeg.  It just seems to render faster when viewed at 100%.  If I'm happy with the composition, sharpness, etc of the jpeg I then tweak the raw if necessary. But the jpeg will be tossed out at the end of the review/edit cycle.

 

I know this was long-winded but I don't think that I could just use jpegs for everything -- I like that "negative" as a back stop.  I still have my medium format and 35mm negatives from weddings I shot going back to 1977 when I started in this business and I don't plan on getting rid of them, so why not have the digital one as well?  Again:  disk space is super cheap now.  

 

Ultimately it's your decision, so use whatever you are comfortable with. If you don't need the raw file to extract the maximum amount of details, and/or to change the various settings after the fact - or you are that good, more power to ya.  I like to keep my options open - and as I sell thousands of images every year just in stock/lifestyle/landscapes as well  as print sales, I love my workflow, and my raw files.  :)

 

THAT'S MY STORY AND I'M STICKING TO IT!!   :)  BEST,

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Struggling with this for the last year since I grabbed a cheap X-E1 and fell in love with it.  It has helped that I have at last found a JPEG color setting that I really like and it has become a matter of simply adjusting a decade of Nikon-based workflow. At the same time, I am moving away from an Adobe-based workflow at home. (Not so long after having my Aperture-based workflow die a slow death.) Changes!

 

Fuji has such a strong film heritage - I guess my problem is I never really loved ANY color film, Fuji or otherwise. I have had to work to find what I think is a really neutral color setting. (In my case I shoot Pro-Neg Soft with -2 Color.) The result is a bit bland, but still malleable - I can add saturation, or contrast, or tweak the WB (sort of) - within the limits imposed by an 8-bit-per-color jpg. I can tweak the "Fuji Cyan Sky" syndrome.

 

Still going to keep those RAW files. But I may never need them if I'm lucky. Good thing storage is cheap. 

 

In case you are wondering - I loved - and still love Tri-X. But only in medium format or larger. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks.  

Provia

Sharpness = 0 (I mildly sharpen in Lightroom)

Highlights = -2

Shadows = -1

Color = 0

Noise Reduction = -1

I tried these settings for a while, but when I compared the JPEG and RAW files, I felt the RAW files had more depth to them. Im guessing thats pretty obvious since there is so much more data. But still, Id like to play with the settings a bit more. Would love it if members could share their settings for RAW + JPEG.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried these settings for a while, but when I compared the JPEG and RAW files, I felt the RAW files had more depth to them. Im guessing thats pretty obvious since there is so much more data. But still, Id like to play with the settings a bit more. Would love it if members could share their settings for RAW + JPEG.

 

Try shooting at DR200, it would bump your ISO at 400, but considering the X-T1 sensor, that's hardly an issue. Your JPEGs will look a bit more dramatic too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I shoot both raw and jpeg. Sometimes the jpeg wins, sometimes it doesn't...

 

I also find the jpeg rendering quite different between X bodies...

 

Velvia is a prime example, to my eye, completely different between the XE1/XP1/X100S/XT1

 

For me, the XT1 more often than not goes to raw processing

 

My XP1 more often makes jepgs that I leave SOOC

 

I also think it depends on what you're shooting, if for example the image I want has a massive leap between dark and light, I can get this SOOC, but if I PP the raw, the convertor generally tries to fix the shadows, so then I have to muck about with image brightness and it's easier to just to go with the SOOC jpeg...

 

IMO if you need the maximum detail from highlight and shadow, then RAW is the best way...

 

I use capture one.... A fun game to play with capture one, is too select a base profile, NOT from your camera, this way you can change the look of your image quickly and easily, without changing specific colour curves and saturations. Like a subdued colour with open shadows? Try one of their canon profiles, what to saturate bright colours, but not the whole image? Try one of their Leica profiles, there's lots to choose from!

 

The Fuji jpegs are superb, they really are, but really IMO you'd need to change your DR/Shadow/Highlight/Film Sim between shots to maximise the Fuji jpeg engine, and ultimately this is easier afterwards... You can of course do this in camera... Quite I few times I'm not satisfied with MY raw PP, nor what I got SOOC, so the raf/jpeg goes back on the SD card and I edit it in camera and I get what I want!

 

I tried these settings for a while, but when I compared the JPEG and RAW files, I felt the RAW files had more depth to them. Im guessing thats pretty obvious since there is so much more data. But still, Id like to play with the settings a bit more. Would love it if members could share their settings for RAW + JPEG.

My XT1 jpegs settings are:

 

Prog neg std

Colour +1

Sharp +1

Highlighlight -2

Shadow -1

NR -2

DR Auto

 

I also have a Velvia setting that is the same as above, but with colour set too -2

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Old but interesting topic.

All I can say is that low light = Raw

I tried 6400 ISO with both jpeg and Raf and Raf is definitely better as we can easily control the noise.

Portrait and street photos (daylight) jpeg specially that we can use the fujifilm film modes

Link to post
Share on other sites

at 6400 iso the ooc jpeg is applying visible NR which makes the photos look to soft in my opinion, so yea for low light raw it better.

 

This, definitely! This is the main factor that would prevent me from ever using jpg 100% confidently with Fuji currently. The NR looks awful at higher ISO, even when set to -2.

 

I did some test shots the other day at ISO6400 NR-2, and they looked noticeably worse than the same Raw files with Lightroom's own NR cranked way up. They have a smeary quality, as if some low frequency blurring is being applied, akin to some skin smoothing plug-ins.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...

People seem to be missing the main purpose of RAW: Dynamic range.

 

RAW doesn't give you license to be lazy with your exposure. It gives you latitude in the image to pull back blown highlights and crushed shadows. JPEGS discard highlight and shadow information. RAW allows you to shoot a scene with loads of dynamic range without using graduated ND filters etc. Sky and cloud detail that would otherwise be blown out and white can now be pulled back in post - because the data exists, and the JPEG would've simply discarded it.

 

You can't shoot JPEG and just 'get the exposure right in camera' because of the technical limitations of the jpeg format. JPEG inherently discards too much data to get a proper exposure in a high dynamic range scene. 

 

I haven't experimented a great deal with fuji and jpegs, but I'm not certain that  having a +/- 2 variance on shadows and highlights is enough to correct for JPEG's technical limitations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have considered shooting just jpeg.  But I like to cover all my bases so I shoot both jpeg fine + uncompressed raw.  Yes, it takes up more card and disk space but it does allow me/you the freedom to make changes - even in LR.  I have found the profiles for the Fuji camera in LR come pretty darn close, if not exact (for me) when I compare a jpeg and a raw side by side.  Even though you can adjust a jpeg file to a certain extent I love the fact that with the raw file, I can swap the profile say from Provia, my go-to fuji profile to say Classic Chrome, or something else.  You can also process the raw files in camera, where you can't do that with the jpeg.  Now, one thing you won't here me say here or anywhere else is that I shoot in raw so I can "fix it later".  to me, that is a waste of valuable time and a big no-no when I can nail it in the camera whenever possible - hence, the jpeg.  Once I import in LR, and I can see the images side-by-side I will make the determination whether I'll keep the raw file or the jpeg.  Since I shoot stock images I normally maintain the raw file and chuck the jpeg.  However, when I photograph family and family events I do still shoot in raw+jpeg, but I find, that if I did my job correctly, I can usually just keep the jpeg and chuck the raw file. Sometimes (actually many times) I screw up the exposure, or white balance and have to use the raw..  The X-T2 uncompressed are 50mb, no small amount, these are very comparable with my D800e raw files (lossless compressed).  I do not use the lossless compressed on the Fuji.  Just a quirk on my part.  

As I said, card space, and HD space are relatively cheap.  I have a Drobo running 16TB of HD space, and a RAID1 WD system running another 8TB of data - the hard drives are under 100.00 bucks US ea for 4TB or more.   With regards to SD cards, over the last several years I've accumulated 25 or so cards in the 16G and 32G variety.  I pick up a few whenever they are on sale.  I can shoot in JPEG+Raw a total of just over 10,000 images before I have to reload.  Again:  cards are cheap, and so are hard drives.  So unless you are a super human, world class shooter who doesn't make mistakes, or a casual care-free photographer I would seriously consider shooting jpeg fine+ raw.  Then make your final decision as to which file to keep or discard after you've imported and reviewed your images.  

 

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...