-=JPG JULY DISCUSSION THREAD=-

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

This is basically what prompted the idea of the JPG July experiment.

Woolbur and I were discussing the fact that we both shoot in RAW, but do very little in the way of post processing to many of our shots. That prompted us to give JPG a try.

I tried jpeg today. It felt wrong crippling my 14 bit camera to 8 bit. My keeper rate was way down and I'm a very careful shooter, I don't have my 40D set to machine gun mode. I had to PP the jpegs much more than I do RAW, mostly trying to get rid of compression artefacts. I used my ExpoCap that I got free with something for the first time and wow, setting custom white balance is such a pain compared to not caring as RAW isn't affected by it.

Result for me is that I'll be sticking with RAW.

I just posted my first offering over in the picture thread with a comparison to the original RAW. There is a very noticeable difference between the RAW and the JPEG, especially since I bumped up the parameters in the Picture Style on the JPEG.

I'm curious... For the purposes of this exercise, just how much post processing is allowed on the JPEG? Can we do any adjustments (other than cropping and resizing) or do they have to be straight out of the camera?

Pete wrote in post #5858849
This is basically what prompted the idea of the JPG July experiment.

Woolbur and I were discussing the fact that we both shoot in RAW, but do very little in the way of post processing to many of our shots. That prompted us to give JPG a try.

Ah see I don't do what I consider a lot, but I have various presets in LR that take care of the equivalent of a lot if they were actions in Photoshop. Saves me a lot of time because the preview of the Preset is instant, and they're applied at export. I still run some actions once I get into PS but they're a lot lighter and mostly in batch...the biggest one being the resize/watermark/save in various sizes.

Another reason I use Lightroom and therefore RAW on my dSLRs (besides the hot pixels) is that my Fuji F40 doesn't have adjustable settings for image parameters. I use Lightroom for those JPEGs to get the look I want right off as a default, and then do what I want, if anything, beyond that. Since I do that for the Fuji, I may as well do that for everything. If the Fuji had RAW I would be using it too. Basically Lightroom is my go-to program for everything, and I want the most I can get out of every camera.

JWright wrote in post #5860641
I just posted my first offering over in the picture thread with a comparison to the original RAW. There is a very noticeable difference between the RAW and the JPEG, especially since I bumped up the parameters in the Picture Style on the JPEG.

I'm curious... For the purposes of this exercise, just how much post processing is allowed on the JPEG? Can we do any adjustments (other than cropping and resizing) or do they have to be straight out of the camera?

I don't think there is a set amount of processing allowed so to speak, but the idea is to try and minimize your PP. Use the parameters in the camera to do most of the work for you. But if you wanted to convert something to B&W that might take a little work and should be fine.

Damo77 wrote in post #5844830
Sounds like you're scared. Aren't you confident enough of your photography skills to abandon the post-processing power of Raw even for one challenge?

I made myself extremely unpopular recently by expressing these views, but they haven't changed one bit. I'm not dissing Raw - it is a wonderfully powerful format, and offers all sorts of advantages, especially for professional use.

But in circumstances where lighting is good, I can't think of many reasons why a competent photographer shouldn't be able to get a perfectly good shot in jpeg.

Yes, I can get a perfectly good shot in jpeg, I do it regularly with my Canon P&S, but why, why, why should I LIMIT myself to such a restricted format when I have the capability for so much more in my camera.

That's why I BOUGHT a DSLR in the first place! I could have just kept on with P&S cameras, and been much better off financially.

Analog6 wrote in post #5862338
Yes, I can get a perfectly good shot in jpeg, I do it regularly with my Canon P&S, but why, why, why should I LIMIT myself to such a restricted format when I have the capability for so much more in my camera.

That's why I BOUGHT a DSLR in the first place! I could have just kept on with P&S cameras, and been much better off financially.

There is still a difference between a P&S and a DSLR besides the available formats of recording the data. I bought my DSLR because my P&S couldn't keep up with my then 9 month old daughter. The reason to limit yourself to JPEG in this exercise is to take a step back and try to do as much as possible BEFORE taking the shot. Get back to the roots of photography and stay out of the hustle and bustle of PP life. Shooting RAW is not wrong, nor is shooting JPEG. But I tell you what, I have had a lot of fun for the past few days enjoying this exercise.

Can anyone help me how to upload a photo here or put a link where it's explained? Got a few good jpegs to show.

hotrod1935,
Here is a link that explains how to upload a photo to the forum Tutorial: How to attach photos to a post <-- click to see

However this is where they are showing the photos JPEG July <-- click to see

Thank´s John_B

Uh, where do I find the settings on my computer to be able to take jpg images?

Pete wrote in post #5848056
Ok.. Here's a puzzler.

I've been shooting in jpg and wondering why my shots look softer than usual, so I did a compare in LR.

Now, the shot on the left is the RAW file, the one on the right is the jpg (shot in neutral picture style with everything set to 0)

So, how can this be? I'd expect the raw file to contain about the equal amount of sharpness as the jpg file.

Other things can have an effect on the perceived sharpness of an image such as contrast, clarity, and tone curves. Also, Photoshop may operate differently than DPP when demosaicing the RAW file which could account for some of the difference.

cdifoto wrote in post #5855308
..... and that's why I shoot RAW. Plus Lightroom automatically kills the dead pixels on my sensor with RAW

So, if they are dead ... why do they need to be killed? Is this an un-dead thing?