Jpeg Shooters only!

Wow...

I appreciate the photos and the comments!!!

And John thank you for taking the time in posting all of that!!!

It helps!!!

Here's where I'm coming from gang...I enjoy what I'm learning post-processing in CS2 and I know there are other PLUG-INS that I'm interested in purchasing!
I've been reading and reading about RAW and maybe MOST of it is TRUE...However I enjoy shooting Jpeg and I believe by shooting in NEUTRAL mode I am able to have a lot more ability to manipulate thing in PP, than by shooting in STANDARD mode...I am really happy with what I'm getting!!! I don't do a whole lot in PP just the NORMAL adjustments, etc...

HOWEVER, as a total NOOB I just want to be sure that I can still shoot JPEGS ane get phenomenal CLARITY and DETAIL...That's the point of this thread!...I'm trying to determine if the CLARITY and DETAIL in JPEG shots leave much to be desired when compared to RAW shots!

So far from the images I've seen I would say JPEG images hold up pretty darn GOOD!!!

Could I see several more please...Thanks!

Now its time for me to post-up with an image that I like...Yet my PP skills could use your help and instruction...If I can get this image to look more SILKY and SMOOTH and CRISP and DETAILED that would be all I could ask for...

Here's some info on this Jpeg SHOT....This was only the 5th time I ever shot photograhy and my first real SHOOT...Total noob...The other four times were just practicing around my home...

This shot was taken last month on my trip to AFRICA....This ORYX was hauling A** no doubt...I got a 7-shot sequence and my goal is to keep practicing my PP skills and LEARN how to get the most out of this photo...I would say this is about a 75-80% crop...

Any instruction on what I need to do as I feel my PP done here is just not good enough if I was more experienced and capable...IMO it looks dull, flat and lacks vibrancy, and dynamic color and contrast....

Please help with some guidance and instruction...Feel free to PM if you'd like

Here's another try in my feeble PP attempt...

Here's another shot....And the more I think about the limited quality of my images as they were all pretty much exposed correctly, I think its because of the distance in shooting these animals with my small glass combo...Or at least its one of the major factors in not seeing the quality I would like as much of the shots I got are of animals an easy 145+ yards away...

I think I should get the quality I'm looking for with a 100-400mm IS or the 400mm PRIME...

Here's another attempt to add some vibrance...Is it overdone? Comments please!!!

BTW how do I include my EXIF when using "SAVE for WEB"...I just noticed it ain't showing up...did I MISS something?

If you put over an hour into post-processing a JPG, what have you actually gained by shooting JPG? It saves you almost nothing (except file space) and probably was more of a hassle without all the data to work with.

If JPG is to be promoted as a time-saving alternative to post-processing, I think it's unfair to show off JPGs that are more processed than your average RAW file. How much post processing was done to the other files posted here?

The question seems to be, "what will I get straight out of the camera with JPG because I do not want to make any adjustments to my files." It's just not fair to show post-processed JPGs in response to that.

If you shot those with raw- they would be more crisp. They have more data to work with. Comvert a RAW to jpeg and compare out of camera jpg and see which one is bigger. The raw converted jpeg would be. It has more image data. If those are good enough for you, then so be it. Jpeg is fine for you. I've seen people who are happy with out of focus pictures too because they cant tell. Just curious, why are you capitalizing some words? If it's for emphasis , you're overdoing it. It looks wrong in some places as they don't need to be emphasized. Imagine someone speaking like that in real life... that is how most people read online.

AndreaBFS wrote in post #6036163
If you put over an hour into post-processing a JPG, what have you actually gained by shooting JPG? It saves you almost nothing (except file space) and probably was more of a hassle without all the data to work with.

If JPG is to be promoted as a time-saving alternative to post-processing, I think it's unfair to show off JPGs that are more processed than your average RAW file. How much post processing was done to the other files posted here?

The question seems to be, "what will I get straight out of the camera with JPG because I do not want to make any adjustments to my files." It's just not fair to show post-processed JPGs in response to that.

Hi AndreaBFS...

I took ONLY 4-5 minutes to PP each of these JPEGS in CS2...

Being a NOOB to all of this and trying to UNDERSTAND the pros and cons of each was the intent of my thread in regards to picture QUALITY; Its something I would like to determine for myself in reviewing JPEG shot images...Yes, my request is for heavy-processed images and the like as I'm not interested in seeing JPEGS directly out-of-camera...And to clarify, my interests indeed lays in trying to DISCOVER what can be done with moderate and/or extreme post-processing skills and techniques from a JPEG shot image...So far the images posted here in my thread look pretty good...I think things pretty much iron themselves out in the wash as far as CRISP and DETAILED images go as I've seen some pretty poor quality RAW images posted on this forum...And I've seen some SUPER images that have been captured in RAW and manipulated with such extreme refinement...I've listened to BOTH sides of the coin and understand the benefits of each...But in my thread I'm trying to make a decision in determining this for myself by a personal visual review versus having other photogs deciding my perogative and reasons for engagement...NOW all I have to WORK on is to STOP taking OOF shots and then I think I'll be alright...

Maybe its just as I've been hearing and reading from several professionals who have been sharing stuff with me from time to time...Whether shooting JPEG or RAW you still have to NAIL the shot... I guess in all actuality it boils down to the USER...I have a long ways to go but shooting JPEG has been FASCINATING, EXCITING, and FUN for me...

Any more images gang...

AndreaBFS wrote in post #6036163
If JPG is to be promoted as a time-saving alternative to post-processing, I think it's unfair to show off JPGs that are more processed than your average RAW file. How much post processing was done to the other files posted here?

The question seems to be, "what will I get straight out of the camera with JPG because I do not want to make any adjustments to my files." It's just not fair to show post-processed JPGs in response to that.

I agree. I shoot in JPG some of the time, nothing wrong with it as long as you don't plan on doing alot of post processing afterwards. But if you do, why in the hell would you not take advantage of the wonderful thing called RAW?

And a question for everybody here- would you shoot a WEDDING in JPG? I would never consider it unless I started to run low on memory for some reason.

Shot about an hour ago, only re-size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

AndreaBFS wrote in post #6036163
If you put over an hour into post-processing a JPG, what have you actually gained by shooting JPG? It saves you almost nothing (except file space) and probably was more of a hassle without all the data to work with.

If JPG is to be promoted as a time-saving alternative to post-processing, I think it's unfair to show off JPGs that are more processed than your average RAW file. How much post processing was done to the other files posted here?

The question seems to be, "what will I get straight out of the camera with JPG because I do not want to make any adjustments to my files." It's just not fair to show post-processed JPGs in response to that.

Most of mine less than 5 minutes. The KTM rider that is different but again am trying to sell it to them. That image had about 10 layers on it.

I think your only mistake was the way you labeled the thread. This would only encourage jpg shooters to see it. You still have some, including myself, who are here telling you RAW is better. Try posing the question jpg vs RAW and you will find a consensus. Unless you are using a Commodore 64, shoot RAW. You will be able to more easily handle white balance and sooner or later you will need to resurrect a file after blowing the exposure. With RAW, you will have a chance.

HI gang.... after reviewing the photos, I'm wondering if someone would be able to help me in taking a RAW + JPEG shot and to process each of them please...as the last comparison I would need...

Now I'll be able to make a better decision in determining what's best for me...I really appreciate all the help that I'm receiving...Thank you very much!

booju wrote in post #6036390
Hi AndreaBFS...

I took ONLY 4-5 minutes to PP each of these JPEGS in CS2...

OK... but... that's all the basic processing I need for RAW files, too. Is it just storage space that you're worried about?? It just seems to me that if you're going to process your images anyway, you'd want to have the most flexibility in doing that.

I'd like to hear from more people who shoot exclusively JPG with *no* processing... JPG with 5 minutes of processing is equal to basic RAW processing.

AndreaBFS wrote in post #6038382
OK... but... that's all the basic processing I need for RAW files, too. Is it just storage space that you're worried about?? It just seems to me that if you're going to process your images anyway, you'd want to have the most flexibility in doing that.

I'd like to hear from more people who shoot exclusively JPG with *no* processing... JPG with 5 minutes of processing is equal to basic RAW processing.

I'm not interested in this at all...sorry.....Maybe you need to start a thread on your own as mine is SPECIFICALLY targeted for JPEG shots that have been processed...Thanks

And I'm not worried about storage space either but more in the fact that I didn't want to put any more time in learning any more PP stuff, i.e., converting RAW files and the like...I'm not a computer lover nor a savvy in using these software programs...That's my issue...I've been reading and reading about RAW here and all I see is mass CONFUSION when people are in the LEARNING CURVE of using RAW....I'd rather pass on the HYSTERIA as I feel I don't need to OVER_PROCESS my photos for the type of images I'm looking for mainly SH, Sharpening, USM, and cropping....If I was wanting more flexibility in my photos and demanded to do a variety of skilled adjustments for the effect then I would most definitely seek to LEARN to process RAW images...I wish I was SMART and a lot more INTELLIGENT at learning technical stuff but I gotta be REAL...I ain't the most computer intelligent computer savvy guy I wished I were....

HOWEVER, if someone could personally guide and instruct me with a well-written tutorial that I could EASILY follow...I would most CERTAINLY appreciate it and would even offer to pay them for their time for a modest price....I really want to LEARN but I'm a type of guy who needs to follow a DETAILED outline that has some parameters to follow...That's the only REASON for NOT going RAW...I'm just tired of being confused and reading so many contradictions from people who are experienced that its been really difficult for a NOVICE soft-brained guy like me to determine much from it...And then I get super FRUSSSSS-TRATED....

Could you or any other EXPERIENCED PROVEN MEMBER here help me out in this manner...I would go RAW right this minute with that type of written DETAILED outline and guidance...I want to shoot RAW desperately but again I find myself lacking in trying to assess the manifold contradictions I read...

A step by step RAW detailed outline for DUMMIES is what I need....STEP by STEP...I'm the kind of guy you had in class that needed the teacher to DRAW a picture....But once I see a picture that's it...as I got lots of RAW TALENT as an artist but don't have the comprehension skill level I would like to have had in addressing technical things...

Someone PLEASE help me if you are able to as its my desire to LEARN...

PM me if you'd like ....

booju,
Back in the film days, it was slides vs negatives. Slides were like Jpeg photos as the photographer had to get it right in the camera. Developing of slides wouldn't automatically correct user errors. Negatives were like RAW, it can more easily correct errors in developing. I guess it should seeing how the raw files are about 4 times larger

I personally like to get it right in the camera, not later in software. It is harder as you need to get white balance correct (or at least close to what you want, but it is fixable in software) and of course exposure correct. However with prints in sizes up to 16 x 20" from two different DSLR's (only 13 x 19" from my 10D) from Canon (I compared all three) I can't see a difference with my eyes between jpeg and raw prints.

But thats what is great with cameras, they offer many options to try to keep many happy with what they like