JPG Parameter Settings

[dsze]

For those of you who either, Shoot in JPG or shoot in RAW, but sometimes switch to JPG:

1. What parameter settings to prefer for portraits on your 10D? Do you have a different parameter setting for different lenses?


2. If you shoot in RAW, does it make any difference to the RAW file whether or not you have your 10D set to A.RGB or 1 of the param.? I've always assumed that having a parameter set only processes the JPG embedded in the RAW file... and in that case

3. If you just shoot in JPG, do you get better JPG results by shooting in A.RGB and post processing or better results by using a parameter setting?


...sorry for the multiple questions, but I think they are all correlated.
thanks,
daniel

[roanjohn]

I don't think parameter settings should matter when shooting RAW as you can change everything later when post-processing.

A few tips I've learned:

1. When shooting high contrast area, decrease your contrast to -2 to avoid blown highlights.

2. For general shooting (parties, events etc.), boost Saturation +1 to decrease post-processing time.

These rules only apply when shooting JPEG>

I also notice that when I shoot with an "L" lens, a boost of +1 saturation oversaturates the photo..........so with an L, I usually do -1 contrast, 0 saturation and 0 sharpness........sometimes -1 saturation.

I hope this helps :?

Ro1

[dsze]

Thanks for that info. Let me explain my situation a little more:

I will prefer to shoot this wedding coming up in RAW, and will do so most of the time. However, I'd also like to mix in some JPG's for the shots that I feel most confident with and have the time to delete/adjust/reshoot if needed. By mixing in some JPGs with the RAW files I should be able to get another 100-200 images than if I just shot RAW...

So, I have my SET button readied to switch between RAW & JPG. For this purpose, should I leave the camera on a parameter setting or leave it on A. RGB? Your opinion?

thanks,
daniel

[robertwgross]

I don't think parameter settings should matter when shooting RAW as you can change everything later when post-processing.

A few tips I've learned:

1. When shooting high contrast area, decrease your contrast to -2 to avoid blown highlights.

2. For general shooting (parties, events etc.), boost Saturation +1 to decrease post-processing time.


In RAW, parameter settings do not matter period.

---Bob Gross---

[roanjohn]

I don't think parameter settings should matter when shooting RAW as you can change everything later when post-processing.

A few tips I've learned:

1. When shooting high contrast area, decrease your contrast to -2 to avoid blown highlights.

2. For general shooting (parties, events etc.), boost Saturation +1 to decrease post-processing time.


In RAW, parameter settings do not matter period.---Bob Gross---

What if you're shooting RAW and used a parameter of +2 for Contrast.

...........then you ended up with overblown highlights.........can you recover those details later on??

............I have no experience, I never shoot RAW.

Ro1

[dsze]

Robert.... I disagree.... in RAW, parameter settings do still appear to affect the embedded jpg.

My question is: should I leave the camera set to a parameter or to A.RGB for the times when I'm switching back and forth b/w RAW and JPG?

That is, are better results achieved when one post processes jpg's or when the jpg's are processed in-camera? My gut feeling is that with jpg's, more quality will be kept with in-camera processing...

-daniel

[robertwgross]

roanjohn, I think you misquoted me.

---Bob Gross---

[scottbergerphoto]

Robert.... I disagree.... in RAW, parameter settings do still appear to affect the embedded jpg.

My question is: should I leave the camera set to a parameter or to A.RGB for the times when I'm switching back and forth b/w RAW and JPG?

That is, are better results achieved when one post processes jpg's or when the jpg's are processed in-camera? My gut feeling is that with jpg's, more quality will be kept with in-camera processing...

-daniel
Most people shooting Raw don't use the embedded JPEG, they use the Raw file. The Raw file is not affected by the parameters set in the camera unless you tell the Raw converter to use them.
You are basically talking about how best to shoot JPEG. If you know how to do post processing, do as little in the camera as possible other then your White Balance. I leave sharpness, saturation and contrast at 0. Photoshop has much more powerful tools to adjust your photo then the camera. Use your camera to get the best exposure you can and your computer to do the rest.

By the way, Robert's usually right!
Scott

[robertwgross]

If you want to maintain complete control over the image, shoot RAW and convert it to TIF.

If you want to maintain partial control only, then shoot JPEG. The one exception to this is the sports photographer.

It escapes me why anybody would shoot RAW+JPEG, and then try to get the JPEG to match up to what the RAW would have done. Actually, I think it would be good practice to try that.

I'll repeat that. With a RAW file, the parameters are not used on the image. They are stored along with the image, and if you had to, you can convert to TIF using them, but the parameters are not used in the RAW image.

---Bob Gross---

[dsze]

Thanks Scott....and I agree; Robert is usually right...However, he said that parameter settings simply do not matter when shooting RAW. This is incorrect. The parameters do not affect the RAW file directly, but they do affect the embedded JPG (which is always there w/10D)....and even though most people shooting RAW dont use the jpg, the jpg is used for the preview in pre-workflow sorting programs....

...but yes, you are right...what I am essentially asking is what is the best way to process jpg's (in-camera or post) and you answered that very clearly....thank you,
daniel

[dsze]

Yes, Robert...you got that last post in before I finished mine... I understand what you are saying....I think we are both saying the same thing. :)

I understand that the user has optimal control of the image with the RAW file...and I almost always shoot in RAW...however, for this situation...If I feel that I have the time and confidence with a particular shot, it may be worth taking it in jpg and getting a few more shots out of my available memory.

-daniel

[roanjohn]

roanjohn, I think you misquoted me.

---Bob Gross---

:oops: Fixed!!

Ro1

[robertwgross]

Where this gets complicated is that there is a RAW image, and there may be a JPEG image, and there may be one file that holds both images.

The parameters do not affect the RAW file, although they are carried along with the file in case you choose to use those during conversion.

Personally, I find it too complicated to shoot half of an event in RAW and the other half in JPEG. I would forget where I was and shoot with the wrong format. As a result, I always shoot RAW period. On my camera, the RAW file is RAW only, no RAW+JPEG.

Compact flash memory is getting very cheap these days. Hard disk space also.

---Bob Gross---

[jyrgen]

Since you say you usually shoot RAW, and hence acknowledge it's usefulness and superiority over jpg, it seems your actual problem lies just in lack of memory. Why not solve it by buying a tripper/xdrive/digibin type of device? Or if it's really for one occasion, just borrow some additional CF cards? Because otherwise you will waste some valuable shooting time on calculating available memory and/or deciding whether particular situation falls within your confidence limits and is "worth" to be taken in jpg.

I have never shot jpg with my 10D. But if I would shoot jpg with intention to process it further in PS, I'd maybe set all said parameters to -2, or whatever the minimum is. Wouldn't it give even more "unprocessed" picture than setting to 0?

[Jesper]

Oh great..... let's have another RAW-vs-JPEG war..... :(

I almost always shoot RAW. Occasionally I shoot large, fine JPEG, for example when I need to have the photos available quickly without spending a lot of time post-processing, or when I'm not near my computer with PS CS and all my other tools. (For example, when visiting my family in Denmark, I made photos at a party and shot JPEG so that I could put them on my uncle's computer immediately without any post-processing).

Shoot whatever works best for you. I like to work with my photos on the computer to try to get the best out of them, so I shoot RAW.

I have never shot jpg with my 10D. But if I would shoot jpg with intention to process it further in PS, I'd maybe set all said parameters to -2, or whatever the minimum is. Wouldn't it give even more "unprocessed" picture than setting to 0?

Whatever you set the parameters to, there will be processing by the camera if you shoot JPEG. When the camera converts the raw sensor data to an RGB image, it has to interpret the sensor data in a certain way. How it interprets the data determines how the image is going to look (colors, contrast etc.). The processing is inherent in the conversion algorithm, so an "unprocessed JPEG image" doesn't exist.

You will probably get the most neutral result if you set all the parameters to 0 (not -2).

[dsze]

...lol...it always turns into a RAW vs. JPG thing doesn't it? Thats not what I was trying to start. Oh well...I think I got my answer....(just go play with different settings until I find what I like)....probably what I should have done in the first place.

Yes, the main issue here is memory. And I may end up with plenty.. I could go buy more, but I just dropped about $1000 on new stuff in the last week, including more memory...wife says it has to stop somewhere :) I'll be shooting with a little more than 1.5 GB...so I may just have enough for it all to be shot in RAW....

Robert, what camera are you shooting with? Must be a MII or a 1D I'm guessing; since you have the option of no embedded jpg?

thanks all,
daniel

[robertwgross]

Must be a MII or a 1D I'm guessing; since you have the option of no embedded jpg?


Actually, no, it isn't either.

---Bob Gross---

[dsze]

...not going to tell me what it is? :)

-daniel

[Kinger]

Well I know that there is a good chance that I am wrong here, but I have all of my jpeg settings set at "0." My thinking is that with these settings the camera shold be doing the least amount of work to the jpeg, so it should come out very similar as a RAW. I am not saying the same as RAW, cause I do know the benefits of RAW, but when I do switch I don't want to complete change my proccessing routine.

[robertwgross]

Daniel, did you ever notice that you spend an awful lot of time wondering about things that really don't matter at all?

Although there are many similarities between these Canon camera models, what goes on in mine shouldn't make any difference to you? Right?

---Bob Gross---

[dsze]

You make me laugh Robert. THIS IS A CAMERA FORUM!!!!! I asked what kind of camera you have? YOU brought up the fact that your camera doesn't record a JPG with the RAW file.... I just asked for more info.... Geez... It would have take you a fraction of the time it took you to post a rude response, to just type in your model # :?: ... lol.. Anyway, if you feel so strongly that I waste so much time on things that don't matter that you can't hold back from degrading me every chance you get, then just don't post in response to my threads, please. BTW, if you had ANY information in your profile, I wouldn't have to inquire as to what you shoot with. There is no info in your profile, nor can I find a single photo of yours on here? Whats up with that? You post alot of criticism and disrespect for a guy who doesn't post photos of his own.

-daniel

[robertwgross]

Daniel, you are the one who has questions about how to operate his camera. Therefore, the type of camera is relevant to the discussion.

My photos are on-line, but that won't help you with your camera problem.

---Bob Gross---

[dsze]

ok, robert. You win again. :P I'd love to see your photos. Oh wait, I have to start a separate thread, one entitled, "robert post a link to your photos," right? ....because its not relevant to my questions about operating my camera? :)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Someone owes me a new laptop!

'cause I just spit my coffee all over this one! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[roanjohn]

:?

Hmmmm..........whats going on here??
1.5 gigs will give you tons and tons of RAW images.

Ro1

[scottbergerphoto]

:?

Hmmmm..........whats going on here??
1.5 gigs will give you tons and tons of RAW images.

Ro1
That depends on the camera and the size of the JPEG if any you save with the raw file. A 1GB card will fit only 90 Raw files on a Mark II as compared to 150 JPEG's(10 Quality).
Scott

[dsze]

Well, I have the embedded JPG size set to small-highly compressed in CF's, so I figure that if I shoot ONLY RAW, I'll get about 300 shots... which could be sufficient....but the more the better obviously and I just can't afford to drop more $$$ on CF cards right now.

-daniel

[robertwgross]

On a normal wedding, I generally shoot at least 150 frames. Typically 200 frames. I think 230 was the most.

The most was over an eight hour period. The least was over a three hour period. The one tomorrow is supposed to be about five or six hours, so I fully expect to shoot 200, and I will have enough memory cards for an additional 200 more, in the event that hell freezes over.

Often, the really good-looking brides and grooms will smile more for the camera, and it is nice to have enough memory cards to keep shooting.

---Bob Gross---

[dsze]

Thanks..... I think maybe I'll just keep it set to RAW and hope that my 300 frames will be enough...It will be a 6-7 hour event. Maybe I'll beg all of my friends to let me use their CF cards for the day! :)

....appreciate the advice everyone... thanks
-daniel

[robertwgross]

Maybe I'll beg all of my friends to let me use their CF cards for the day!


Just hope that they don't loan you the CF card that is acting kind of suspicious. Anyway, you're going to need to format each one in your camera before the whole affair ever gets off the ground. Otherwise, your camera could get into some weird image numbering.

---Bob Gross---

[dsze]

good point....I've had to fix that numbering issue once, after I bought my 10D and sold my 300D.... It all happened in the same day and in the excitement I didn't even think about reformatting each card on my computer before sticking them in my new camera...so, I had a new camera that was already on the 3500th frame! I think my father may have some cards he'll loan me ...and I trust his equipment.

-daniel