-=JPG JULY DISCUSSION THREAD=-

Pete wrote in post #5848178
I've got sharpening in LR set to 0.
So why does it sharpen my CR2 files and not the JPG files?

Pete,
Sounds like a good question for Adobe

Dan-o wrote in post #5845940
Exactly.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to shoot RAW, shoot BMP for all I care. I'm not even one of those who will taught the benefits of increased control of WB and exposure because 95% of the time it really doesn't matter. To say RAW takes extra time just is a false statement. Like I wrote before. Insert card into card reader> delete obvious bad shots> adjust first image for color, white balance and exposure> batch convert the rest> export to CS3 sharpen droplet and save.

What part of that work flow would have been quicker with JPEG?

1. Most shots don't need adjust for color or WB or Esp, mostly just crop
2. Batch convert, What is that? If I want to send to printer (Vendor) I don't need to batch convert from RAW to JPG. And, remember I shot RAW for a long time so I know converting 100 RAW images to JPG takes time. I don't know why the camera can do it at 9 frames a second but the computer takes so long, but it does.
3. Sharpen? shoot 90% people, JPGs razor sharp, so much so, I might need to soften. Those with more years don't like sharp faces.

Unless your workflow is entirely in RAW even to post to web, I doubt it, or send to printer it takes longer, not much on the individual level, but when we are talking 100's or thousands of pictures you are wrong.

There are those in these forums that are more graphic artists than photographers, not even sure what interest they found in this thread, I fancy myself as the later, photographer.

I'm not sure why cameras don't come locked in RAW since everyone that shots in other settings "is plain ignorant". or wait we have a choice.

These arguments are like
Pepsi is better than Coke
My god is better than your god
pro life vs pro death (choice)
etc.

They are still fun though.

Pete wrote in post #5848178
I've got sharpening in LR set to 0.

So why does it sharpen my CR2 files and not the JPG files?

it's true...it adjust black as well on CR2's (and sharpening automatically) but if you import a jpeg, it automatically does nothing...

and how did you get Adobe to automatically not sharpen raw files? I haven't been able to figure out how to turn that off...

Well Zazoh I guess it isn't even a question of RAW and JPEG. The fact is I'm a perfectionist I guess. Very rarely is a shot perfect to the fact that a little color or contrast added won't make it better. Like I said even when I shoot JPEG my workflow doesn't change. I don't know why your computer takes so long but in Lightroom I click SYNC and in 5 seconds all the pictures are converted.

Permagrin wrote in post #5848697
...and how did you get Adobe to automatically not sharpen raw files? I haven't been able to figure out how to turn that off...

You mean LR? I have set up a develop preset that applies 0 sharpening and then I apply that to all images upon import.

Dan-o wrote in post #5848938
I don't know why your computer takes so long but in Lightroom I click SYNC and in 5 seconds all the pictures are converted.

Define all? You mean to tell me you can batch output RAW to JPG (Export I think LR calls it)100 pictures in 5 seconds?

In reading the forums you are VERY lucky then. Most Lightroom users main complaint is speed of application. I have it and rarely use it because it is slow, I have a gig of RAM and fast computer and it still drags.

Hey if it works for you fine. I just find it faster, easier, and at the end of the day no one knows the difference. (Viewing the output)

I may have said this, I was a RAW user, but just found no need to be.

Anke wrote in post #5844893
Are you finding that you are chimping more shooting JPG?

Yes. But I also was double and triple checking the meter before taking a shot. Out of a hundred shots from today I only see 2 or 3 where my exposure was way off and that was due to complete user error. I was also using Manual mode and didn't change settings between shots in and out of the sun.:o

Zazoh wrote in post #5850744
Define all? You mean to tell me you can batch output RAW to JPG (Export I think LR calls it)100 pictures in 5 seconds?

It doesn't take very long at all to sync 100 photos. The export takes a little longer but it's quite fast really. Maybe it's different on different OS...

Exporting 950 shots takes awhile, I'll admit. But by the time I got that many finished in LR I need a break before I hit 'em in PS anyway. Gives me a chance to coffee up and go outside for some fresh air.

Permagrin wrote in post #5851776
It doesn't take very long at all to sync 100 photos. The export takes a little longer but it's quite fast really. Maybe it's different on different OS...

No, I read the internet forums, I think you are very lucky.

What is sync, are you just applying the same recipie to all the files, WB, EXP, Color etc? I've never shot a situation where I could do that, are you shooting in a studio or something?

Zazoh wrote in post #5855164
What is sync, are you just applying the same recipie to all the files, WB, EXP, Color etc? I've never shot a situation where I could do that, are you shooting in a studio or something?

I dunno about him but I can do that quite a bit. I'll often have a series of shots under the same conditions that I can sync up. Preparations all the same, ceremony all the same, reception all the same.

cdifoto wrote in post #5855179
I dunno about him but I can do that quite a bit. I'll often have a series of shots under the same conditions that I can sync up. Preparations all the same, ceremony all the same, reception all the same.

So the question becomes, could this have been handled by a camera setting? If not, then perhaps you are applying stylistic mood to your photo's, which is fine too, can be done in JPG too, ya and I understand bit depth and all that, but I also know it doesn't matter.

And, did you folks that shoot RAW, because you think you have to, come to this thread to learn more about JPG or to convince yourselves that what your doing is superior?

The fact of the matter RAW does take longer, to shoot, to transfer to a card, to load the images from the card to load the images in software to store to batch convert etc, it takes longer at every stage of the the process. (ALL Facts) In no case does working with a RAW file become a faster process than working with JPG.

But that doesn't even matter, what matters is that if you are a photographer and can work in various lighting conditions and capture moods and subjects that are engaging when you print or display on the web no one will know.

Show me an image that can't be corrected in JPG and I'll show you an image that goes straight to the recyle bin.

I guess I should note that in the film days I shot slide as well. Maybe it boils down to me being a photographer and you folks being graphic artists. At the end of the day it doesn't matter how we get there we just get there. I guess both methods work.

I like to shoot, and you folks like to process. You folks also keep forgetting one thing, I decided to go back to JPG on my own, because it worked for me. I'm not saying it will work for everyone, face it everyone is not that good .... (Kidding)

I'm no less a photographer because I shoot RAW than you are because you shoot JPEG. I hate to process and that's why I shoot RAW. Plus Lightroom automatically kills the dead pixels on my sensor with RAW but does nothing to the JPEGs. And it's harder to remove those dead pixels from a JPEG. Just killing off the hot/stuck/dead pixels is reason enough to shoot RAW, in my opinion.

BTW I'm not dismissing JPEG altogether. If you're on a tight deadline, need all the speed you can get out of your camera and/or space you can get out of your cards, JPEG can be useful. In my opinion, those are the ONLY times JPEG makes sense. If you're not pressed for time and/or have plenty of storage, why would you NOT shoot RAW?

As for workflow, RAW only takes longer if you do nothing to your JPEGs.

cdifoto wrote in post #5855308
I'm no less a photographer because I shoot RAW than you are because you shoot JPEG.

I agree.

cdifoto wrote in post #5855308
BTW I'm not dismissing JPEG altogether. If you're on a tight deadline, need all the speed you can get out of your camera and/or space you can get out of your cards, JPEG can be useful. In my opinion, those are the ONLY times JPEG makes sense. If you're not pressed for time and/or have plenty of storage, why would you NOT shoot RAW?

For all the reasons I've mentioned earlier. My position is not unique, to these forums it is, because people belive nearly everything they read here.

http://www.shawnstarr.​com/, read his FAQ, specifically the two questions about RAW

cdifoto wrote in post #5855308
As for workflow, RAW only takes longer if you do nothing to your JPEGs.

Only if you don't do the last step of a conversion and print straight from RAW, and don't post to the web. And, JPGS at 1/4 the size load 3 times faster.

I'm not here to change your mind, obviously you have a system that works for you, quite well based on your site. I do, however, feel there is a great deal of hype around RAW that isn't well deserved. In fact, most folks could benifit from learning more about their cameras and technique than learning about RAW.

Let's not turn this into a RAW vs JPEG discussion please. That has been done many times before. This thread is to discuss our findings from shooting JPEGs during JPEG July.