Have JPEGs improved over the last seven years

I own a 450D and up till a few months ago shot almost exclausively in RAW. I no longer print jobs and only put shots up on a Facebook page so I'm now just shooting in max size JPEG. Can't say I'm really happy, the quality is just OK and I don't seem to be getting results as good as before. Friends with more modern cameras though are getting very good results out of JPEGs and have given shooting in raw away. The camera magazines also seem to now be of the opinion that JPEGs will easily suffice for all but the most demanding applications.
My camera was released Jan 2008 so probaly uses 2007 era firmware. I'm curious, has in camera JPEG processing been improved over the last seven years to the point where it gives near RAW IQ?

Thanks,

Hal55

(Facebook page "Focus on Photography Tamborine Mountain"

All jpg files are the result of a conversion from the raw file. If you shoot jpg, you are just having the camera make the conversion internally and then it deletes the raw file. If you shoot raw, you can get the exact same jpg by using Canon DPP, or you can get a better jpg by using a version of DPP that is more recent than your camera, or by using another software.

I shoot exclusively in raw and I store only raw files on my computer. They are all compiled, sorted and modified with Lightroom.

One really great reason for this method of file storage is that I can always make new jpgs. I once had some images that were a little noisy when I shot them five years ago. I can create a new jpg today with the latest version of Lightroom that is better (less noise) than any jpg I could make five years ago. This is because I still have the raw, and Adobe's raw conversion software keeps getting better.

Given the kinds of software available for managing raw files, and given the low cost of storage, there are not a lot of strong reasons to shoot jpgs in my opinion. Only if there is some need for having images immediately for upload or something.

Interesting question. Subscribing t see the comments. If jpegs have improved significantly, I would think though that you could get the same benefit from shooting raw and letting DPP do the raw conversions using in-camera defaults. I know that the newer Canon cameras are using more aggressive noise settings but I really don't think there is much change on the bayer interpolation but I could be wrong.

Until about two years ago I was shooting with a 300D and then upgraded to a 20D. Both of course now quite old cameras. I now shoot exclusively in RAW, and have pretty much always done so. The original canon RAW converter that came with the 300D was pretty useless, as it predated DPP. I started by using RAWShooter Essentials and PS Elements 2 for processing. RAWshooter was bought by Adobe and became the basis for both ACR and then LR. I upgraded to PSCS and then CS3 using Bridge/ACR/PS as my workflow. I then upgraded to LR4 and later PSCS5 (for the content aware tools). Every single upgrade in RAW processor gave me better quality results. Yes I did also get better at processing over time too, but that would not have helped if I had shot only in camera JPEGs.

I have to admit that I now shoot ETTR and base my exposure choices on the ability of the RAW processor to now deal with highlight detail that older processing versions were not able to deal with. This also brings an improvement to the results. If I were in a situation where I could upgrade to a current tach body I would do so, but I would still continue to shoot RAW and to optimise my exposures to suit the RAW processing software that I was using. I would also know that as new processing algorithms were developed I would be able to use them to improve the results that I was already getting/already had. Or at least to adjust my processes to make new exposures optimised for those new algorithms.

When I was first shooting digital I was relatively limited by the amount of storage that I had. The then difference between the quality of result I could get from in camera JPEG and shooting RAW was quite limited. So at a couple of events I shot JPEG instead of RAW to conserve storage space. At the time the difference between good for either format was pretty small/non existent. Now I go back and I can get much better results processing the RAW images from following years events in LR4. The in camera JPEGs look pretty poor now in comparison with those reprocessed images. I have images that could now be really nice, and are unrepeatable, that just won't cut it because I chose to use JPEG instead of RAW to save space on the card in the camera.

Alan

JPEG is just a compression technology and hasn't changed at all. It is simply the format that the file is saved in after it has been processed.

All digital images are shot in RAW. They are then either saved to the card as RAW then exported to your computer where you process them using a package like Lightroom, or they are processed in camera and then saved to the card as JPEG. Any improvement to the end JPEG image is as a result of improvements in in-camera RAW processing engines over the last few years - External RAW processing software like Lightroom has similarly improved dramatically.

I've shot raws exclusively for about 10 years... but the final quality of the jpegs has improved greatly imo as cameras have got better processors and are able to run more sophisticated processing on the raw. its not necessarily the jpeg algorithm itself (tho maybe part of it, no idea), but the noise processing etc is probably the majority of it.

With my 5D3 I shoot raw + small jpeg and use the jpegs for blogging / Flickr etc; only really using the raw if I wanna do some Photoshop work and / or print, but storage is cheap, so I want them for all shots. no reason not to have them - never know when you'll produce that masterpiece

With the SL1, it can't produce a raw and small jpeg, and regardless of how cheap storage is, it's too much hassle for me to convert them all, so I just shoot a medium jpeg, which is an uploadable size, but which I can still print from. Even 'normal' jpegs are really quite good. I use the SL1 for family days out. If I go out specifically to take photos, I pack the 5D3. tbh, with the SL1 and kit lens, there's not much quality loss by shooting a medium jpeg - the lens isn't really sharp enough to use the full resolution anyway. 5D3 with L-glass is still strap at 100% so much more worth having the best possible file

Dan Marchant wrote in post #16881081
JPEG is just a compression technology and hasn't changed at all. It is simply the format that the file is saved in after it has been processed.

^^ this
but the quality of the RAW converter (and other features) may have changed

Have you spent some time with your manual and gone through all the in-camera settings which affect the photo. With the 450 you have settings for sharpness, contrast, saturation, color tone (all settable under the picture style selection). You also have color temperature to think about, usually automatic is pretty good but not always. Furthermore, have you made sure that you're camera is set to the highest quality jpeg?

Dan Marchant wrote in post #16881081
JPEG is just a compression technology and hasn't changed at all. It is simply the format that the file is saved in after it has been processed.

All digital images are shot in RAW. They are then either saved to the card as RAW then exported to your computer where you process them using a package like Lightroom, or they are processed in camera and then saved to the card as JPEG. Any improvement to the end JPEG image is as a result of improvements in in-camera RAW processing engines over the last few years - External RAW processing software like Lightroom has similarly improved dramatically.

I'm going with Dan here.

Cameras and the way cameras process jpegs has improved vastly over the years. Jpegs themselves,, no.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #16881081
JPEG is just a compression technology and hasn't changed at all. It is simply the format that the file is saved in after it has been processed.

All digital images are shot in RAW. They are then either saved to the card as RAW then exported to your computer where you process them using a package like Lightroom, or they are processed in camera and then saved to the card as JPEG. Any improvement to the end JPEG image is as a result of improvements in in-camera RAW processing engines over the last few years - External RAW processing software like Lightroom has similarly improved dramatically.

^^ This.
But you can improve your jpegs by using the picture style editor and creating your own styles that more closely match the results you want. Basically you are manually pre-programming your preferred editing settings and having them applied in-camera as it converts from the RAW data to jpeg before deleting the RAW data.

I've done a real "mix" as to the variety of things I've shot and as to how I use them.

It's also true for me that in recent times I haven't done prints (my walls have been filled with them) and most of my "sharing" has been here and/or in FaceBook and yet the reasons why I switched to shooting Raw only back when I got my first DSLR really haven't changed. When I shoot a photo I'm looking to "capture" a good image, and then I open it to process it in the "digital darkroom". This is where I look to optimize the quality of that image.

Even though I did shoot for a number of years with "jpeg only" cameras and accepted those shots with the limitations of how much processing you could do with them, and even though I recently bought an old used "pocket camera" for $5 that shoots only jpegs (and I've been having fun with it), still there is not a doubt to me as to when I really want to "capture an image" I'll use my DSLR and shoot Raw.

Clearly the quality of the Raw data has improved and so the jpgs made with it are correspondingly better, whether made in or out of the cameras. The Digic in-camera processing and DPP conversions have also improved, primarily in their NR, but third party software has far outstripped Canon's advancements in multiple areas (clarity, Vibrance, highlight recovery/shadow enhancement {IOW, more useful DR} local adjustments, more sophisticated sharpening and NR. So the gap has widened if anything. The same rule that was true in the past remains true today, for some people and some uses jpg will be good enough while other people will always strive for the maximum. There is no simple dividing line and no clear answer. Too many fluid factors play a roll: aesthetic judgements and standards, time and economic considerations, recorder vs. creator, innovator vs. traditionalist. Everybody finds his own niche.

The way I look at it, a JPG can function just as well as RAW for images that will spend their lives on the web just so everything goes perfectly well with both the shooter and the camera settings. Since my level of trust in everything perfectly going well is not all that high I shoot in RAW.