JPEG has made me a better photographer

[RichardtheSane]

This post was kind of hard to deceide where to put it, it is sort of post processing, sort of EOS and sort of general photography talk. If it needs moving mods, please do so because I couldn't decide where to put it!

It is my workflow experinces really, but I thought it would be nice to share :)

Recently I went from a 10D to a 20D as my christmas present to me. I’m not going to get into the debate of why go from a 10D to a 20D , I simply say a few things that bugged me about the 10D bugged me enough to buy a camera where those issues had been addressed :)

But this post is more about workflow and how it affects photography and not cameras. I mentioned the upgrade because I have had to temporarily change my workflow and while it is frustrating it has actually started to improve my photography.

With my 10D I used C1 to develop my RAW files. Well during the hours of research I did making sure the 20D was a worthwhile investment for me I managed to completely fail to check if C1 actually supported it – to be honest it really didn’t occur to me and I assumed that since the camera had been around a few months an update with support would be out too. DOH!!

SO now I am faced with a situation that I am not too keen on, a new workflow, at least until C1 3.6 is released. So, what were my options bearing in mind I am not spending any more money because I already own RAW conversion software?

Canon DPP 1.5
Photoshop CS Camera Raw
Breezebrowser
Shoot Jpeg
Don’t shoot at all.

I’m not going to address the last option, I’m not going to explain why, I don’t think I need to.

I’m not going to do a review of each piece of software because that would be silly, more qualified people have done it already. No, I will simply give a little narrative of how I found each piece of software and how it affected my idea of a workflow.

I am going to give a quick rundown of my Capture One workflow though. I would download my images then use breezebrowser to delete the howlers. This leaves images that are worth looking at so I load C1 up and make a start.
Check focus first, making sure that the intended bits are sharp and then choosing wether or not to apply USM here or work on the image in PS – this first step is vital as I do not run every image through PS.
Next view WB to double check I got it right - and also have a look and see if the image looks better with a different WB setting (sometimes).
Have a look at exposure, check histogram then make adjustments as required. Tweak saturation if I think it needs it (and I don’t plan on opening the image in PS).
Finally if I don’t plan to run the image through PS then crop and develop as a jpeg.
If I plan on running through PS develop as a TIFF.
Go and make a coffee while C1 develops the batch.

Depending on the image this whole process usually takes well under a minute per shot but can sometimes take longer.

So that is my workflow, and believe me when I say I am in RAW shock on having to change this, in fact it is so significant that had I known I would have held off getting the 20D until the C1 upgrade was complete, or so I thought.

I tired DPP, and I was frustrated at how slow I found it to be, the workflow above simply could not be done quickly and then I hade to wait for each image to be processed before I could move onto the next.
Same with PS CS Raw. You make the adjustments, and to give CS credit the layout to make these adjustments is really good, but again (unless I am missing something) you have to do them one image at a time and save them one at a time.

So I had down the road of option 3, shoot jpeg for a while. Now here is where I am actually glad I have had to because I think I was getting careless and starting to make more corrective amendments in C1 than I should have been. With Jpeg I have to get the WB and exposure bang on to produce images I am happy with, so I have had to correct some habits I was starting to develop.
I have explored custom white balance and I really like it – I think I will use it when I am back to raw shooting again too!
I have been taking a little more time over shots, looking around the scene and working to predict what the camera meter will do with it, and compensating exposure accordingly.

The jpeg workflow is still slower than C1 RAW for me, but I am pleased to say I am producing more images that require minimal adjustments (cropping, saturation and usm)

In the weeks since I have not been shooting raw I have (I believe) become a better photographer. I will be keeping these lessons in mind once I start shooting RAW again.

Thank you for reading and goodnight :)

[aam1234]

Another jpeg convert! yebee.

A side note, and as noob as I am, I never understood why would it be difficult to nail the exposure (except for extreme conditions). The only difficulty I see is with WB, which can be easily overcome w/ custom WB (never tried it but people here say it's not difficult at all).

Stick with jpeg Richard for a while and I bet you will use RAW a lot less in the future.

[RichardtheSane]

Not a convert I'm afraid.
My RAW workflow was srill quicker than a joeg workflow so the sooner I can get back to it the less time I will spend in front of the PC :)

[Big_B]

I nevery shoot RAW any more. I find that it takes me additional time that is not in proportion to any perceived quality gains.... plus it lets me take a tonne more pictures :lol:

[aam1234]

Not a convert I'm afraid.
My RAW workflow was srill quicker than a joeg workflow

Pardon my ignorance, but is there a workflow for jpeg's? I thought the whole idea of jpeg is to avoid any workflow (if you set the parameters to your liking).

[RichardtheSane]

Maybe it is, but I don't really like the lack of control the parameters give you. There is still the issue of cropping if needed, sharpening, saturation. OK, none are required, but I still like to have the ability to get the best from my images and doing this is a workflow in itself.

Which is why I prefer the C1 Raw workflow over the jpeg workflow as it allows me to do all of that often in little more time than it takes to load each jpeg into photoshop. :)

[Pekka]

For me it is much quicker to correct WB (esp. in batch) and other minor edits with RAW/C1 than in JPEG/PS. Just do it in any way you are comfortable with.

Shooting less and thinking more is a state of mind. But RAW can actually help in that thinking part. I do make mistakes in exposure and I do knowingly allow myself to make "mistakes" in exposure and WB so that I can concentrate on the moment so shooting RAW means sometimes better quality and extra insurance. I like it that way because photos I give out are more valuable than my yet-to-be reputation of getting perfect exposure every time. RAW also means better quality in high ISO, and I shoot 90% of the time with ISO 1600.

PS. One thing I do not get: at these times when more megapixels is better and more megabytes and is better why 8 bit images are accepted as "ok"? Why 256 levels per channel is chosen over 4196 levels? 8 bits means you get truncated data. In addition to that the 8 bits are compressed so you lose even more data. You invest thousands in latest gear and then are satisfied with a file format that is intended for web use, and which has USM and WB burned in? You get a JPEG and that's that, end of story - everything done to it degrades quality. RAW file is just the starting point and will give even more in years to come.

The ONLY reason for me shooting JPEG would be to get more photos on one card.

[scottbergerphoto]

I make mistakes and will continue to make mistakes with exposures. Shooting Raw gives me that extra stop lee way between a photo that isn't worth keeping, and one that cleans up well.
In addition, as Pekka stated, Raw gives you 12 bits. Why settle for less. I convert my Raw to 16 bitt tiff files.
The only adjustments I do in Raw are exposure and WB. It is agonizing at times waiting for the file to be converted even with a P4 3GHZ machine, but I feel it's worth it. I follow that with cropping, levels, saturation, blemish/wrinkle controll/dust removal, and sharpening.

The only time I shoot jpeg now is if I'm short of memory.
Regards,
Scott

[aam1234]

"and I do knowingly allow myself to make "mistakes" in exposure and WB so that I can concentrate on the moment "

So true. For me at least, that's one of the main reasons I'm considering RAW.

"You get a JPEG and that's that, end of story - everything done to it degrades quality"

Sorry to disagree with you on that one. Repeated edit/save for jpeg's doesn't degrade its quality (within reason of course).

[Jon]

"You get a JPEG and that's that, end of story - everything done to it degrades quality"

Sorry to disagree with you on that one. Repeated edit/save for jpeg's doesn't degrade its quality (within reason of course).
Any re-saving of a JPEG will result in additional lossy compression being applied. You can moderate it by choosing the minimum compression possible, but there will still be some compression. Which is why the general recommendation is to save edited images in uncompressed or lossless compression formats, such as the photo editor's native format or a TIFF. Of course, you can't edit a RAW file directly in its particular format; you'll need to convert (either in the editor or prior to editing) to a "standard" graphic format your editor can deal with. But as a rule, you should never alter the original file, whether it's JPEG, CRW, CR2, TIF, . . . Make a copy which you'll edit. And I work in JPEG except when I know I'm running into odd conditions. I don't want to post-process any more than I have to, and for all intents and purposes, a print's going to be limited to 24-bit (3x 8 bit) colour anyhow.

[OneManArmy]

I follow that with cropping, levels, saturation, blemish/wrinkle controll/dust removal, and sharpening.


Scott
On a side note, is there a way to sharpen using photoshop 8?

[aam1234]

Any re-saving of a JPEG will result in additional lossy compression being applied... but there will still be some compression.

True, I'm not disagreeing with that. But the loss from edit/save is so minute that it's not worth worrying about (again, within reason).

[RichardtheSane]

On a side note, is there a way to sharpen using photoshop 8?

There are many, the most common one being Unsharp Mask (USM)

[RichardtheSane]

For me it is much quicker to correct WB (esp. in batch) and other minor edits with RAW/C1 than in JPEG/PS

Workflow wise I think this statement sums up the way I feel right now, thanks Pekka :)

True, I'm not disagreeing with that. But the loss from edit/save is so minute that it's not worth worrying about (again, within reason).

The loss from one single edit and save is minimal. If you edit again and save the loss is minimal, but the loss factor from the original image is greater. Edit and save again and the loss is greater still. After not too long of this you may start to loose detail/see artifacts in shadow areas.

That is why I am currently saving my edited jpegs as a TIFF - to maintain the original quality.

I miss RAW/C1 :)

[Scottes]

I agree wholeheartedly with Pekka and Scott. Wholeheartedly.

[aam1234]

The loss from one single edit and save is minimal. If you edit again and save the loss is minimal, but the loss factor from the original image is greater. Edit and save again and the loss is greater still. After not too long of this you may start to loose detail/see artifacts in shadow areas.

That is why I am currently saving my edited jpegs as a TIFF - to maintain the original quality. I miss RAW/C1 :)

Hi Richard,
According to your example you edited&saved three times. I don't think three edites&saves will do any harm to the original jpeg. I don't know the exact figure, but one needs to do a lot more than three edit/save to affect the jpeg.

That raises an interesting point, and it has nothing to do with raw/jpeg. How many times, on average, do people edit/save a photo. Again, on average.

[PacAce]

Hi Richard,
According to your example you edited&saved three times. I don't think three edites&saves will do any harm to the original jpeg. I don't know the exact figure, but one needs to do a lot more than three edit/save to affect the jpeg.

That raises an interesting point, and it has nothing to do with raw/jpeg. How many times, on average, do people edit/save a photo. Again, on average.

I think you're missing the point about quality and editing. I don't think the number of times a jpeg file can be saved before image quality suffers is the issue here. It's the fact that when editing an 8 bit image vs. a 16 bit image, some editing can get really intense and trying to apply such editing on a jpeg file, no matter what the compression factor is, is going to cause a loss of detail,or putting it another way, introduce unwanted artifacts.

[Scottes]

I almost never save an image more than once. Convert RAW -> image.tif. Process, resize, then Image... Duplicate. Dupe1 gets saved as image_4x6.tif and then gets sharpened and this image gets Saved As image_4x6.jpg. Dupe2 gets resized further for web, gets sharpened and gets Saved For Web as image.jpg. There's often more images in there, but rarely do I ever save over an image.


As to JPG degradation... JZaun and I ran some tests a long time ago, saving a JPG at max quality 80 times. I could ***barely*** tell the difference. It's there, but not easily detected by humans. And I don't recommend this, just tstaing the results of some tests.

I would not ever do this with less than Max Quality, either. And I personally always do TIFF -> JPG. Out of 15,000 pictures taken I think that I have edited about 10 JPGs - and that was (is!) because Capture One doesn't support the 20D (officially). I did it because I **had** to do it.

[aam1234]

Thanks Scottes for putting a figure on edit/save a jpeg. Didn't expect it to be that high.

[Pekka]

As to JPG degradation... JZaun and I ran some tests a long time ago, saving a JPG at max quality 80 times. I could ***barely*** tell the difference. It's there, but not easily detected by humans. And I don't recommend this, just tstaing the results of some tests.

What I tried to speak of was not about saving the same image again. I shoot a lot in available light, in very low light, and at the same time there is a problem with excessive highlights which I do not want to burn too much. So, the solution is to shoot e.g. 1/2 stop underexposed.

When you raise that 1/2 stop (or more) using curves in C1, it will have to remap all the data from the dark end of histogram to higher level. If there is not enough real data (bit resolution) you'll see blocky transitions. Same happens to overexposed areas with negative corrections but is harder to see.

Of course lower bit depth is not a problem if you shoot in well lit places and have most of the target data in the mid/high end of the histogram.