Camera JPEG engines

Martin Brown writes:

On 18/11/2012 23:33, Alfred Molon wrote:
I'd be curious about your opinion/experience with the JPEG output of
today's cameras. Do you only shoot RAW and postprocess everything, or
RAW+JPEG and only postprocess selectively, or do you only shoot JPEG?

There is not enough time in the day to shoot everything in RAW and
post process. Highest quality JPEG is generally very good on most
decent cameras and has been for ages. Some are actually faithfully
digitising the thermal noise as well as the image - wasting space on
the card.

Ah; now THAT is why I converted to Bibble Pro, these many years ago.
Makes processing 1500 raw files much more palatable -- I can adjust
groups rather than individual files, and get the equivalent of pro-lab
video-analyzed prints in similar amounts of operator time, or less.

--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On 2012.11.18 18:33 , Alfred Molon wrote:
I'd be curious about your opinion/experience with the JPEG output of
today's cameras. Do you only shoot RAW and postprocess everything, or
RAW+JPEG and only postprocess selectively, or do you only shoot JPEG?

My personal experience is that the JPEG output of modern cameras is not
bad, sometimes surprisingly good, and -if the camera is set up properly-
only a certain percentage of images need RAW processing.

In camera JPEG is pretty good, even very good. But.

- compression into 8 bit representation means info is missing.
- if you left it WB for outdoor and then shot under incandescent or
fluorescent, you will have a hard time correcting it.
- if you under-exposed, you have little correction available w/o ramping
up quantization noiuse
- if you over-exposed, you can correct and end up with hard-blocked
colors/whites.
- a raw leaves you a lot more leeway for adjustments of all kinds - JPEG
does not because the information space is much narrower.

So, I shoot raw only. I "develop" in ACR - and if a bunch of images are
in the same light then I can "batch" adjust all of them at once.

There really is no excuse for "serious" photographers to shoot JPEG only.

Some professional photogs on the other hand may be better off with JPEG
where time and speed (small files) are of the essence (photojournalists
in particular).

--
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
-Sir John A. Macdonald

On 2012-11-19 14:45:10 -0800, Rob said:

On 19/11/2012 10:33 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
I'd be curious about your opinion/experience with the JPEG output of
today's cameras. Do you only shoot RAW and postprocess everything, or
RAW+JPEG and only postprocess selectively, or do you only shoot JPEG?

My personal experience is that the JPEG output of modern cameras is not
bad, sometimes surprisingly good, and -if the camera is set up properly-
only a certain percentage of images need RAW processing.



I only shoot JPG and only in exceptional circumstances will make a RAW
or HDR file. Can't afford the card/HDD space.

Memory is cheap!
If you could afford the camera you should easily be able to afford one
more 32GB card. 1TB of HDD space is quite affordable.
Your camera has support needs, you should provide them.

I will only get ~1400 fine JPG images on a 32Gb card. NEF 12 bit
lossless make 32mb 14bit lossless make 41MB files and a large tiff
108.2 Mb.

"ONLY ~1400 fine JPEGS"!!

If those are from a single shoot you have management issues far greater
than the cost of card/HDD space

Buy a few extra cards and shoot RAW, and RAW+JPEG more often. If you
are using cards for storage of 1400 JPEGs you have a faulty storage
protocol. I don't know what type of shooting you do, but personally, if
I spend a day at a target rich event I find that I might have shot
750-1200 NEFs, but a more typical figure is 200-350. Then on a local
stroll I might only shoot 20-30 shots.

I always transfer to computer and my triple redundant backup setup.
Once that is done I reformat the card.

As for as I can tell my JPG images have enough information to make
large prints.

They probably do, but I somehow think you might not be printing 1400 of
them from a single shoot.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 20/11/2012 1:08 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-11-19 14:45:10 -0800, Rob said:

On 19/11/2012 10:33 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
I'd be curious about your opinion/experience with the JPEG output of
today's cameras. Do you only shoot RAW and postprocess everything, or
RAW+JPEG and only postprocess selectively, or do you only shoot JPEG?

My personal experience is that the JPEG output of modern cameras is not
bad, sometimes surprisingly good, and -if the camera is set up properly-
only a certain percentage of images need RAW processing.



I only shoot JPG and only in exceptional circumstances will make a RAW
or HDR file. Can't afford the card/HDD space.

Memory is cheap!
If you could afford the camera you should easily be able to afford one
more 32GB card. 1TB of HDD space is quite affordable.
Your camera has support needs, you should provide them.

I now have 8x 32Gb Sandisk Extreme cards for my trips. $40 each - I
don't carry a laptop, too heavy.

Just bought a 3Tb external HDD today quite cheap at $149.00 that should
see me out for the next 12 months at least


I will only get ~1400 fine JPG images on a 32Gb card. NEF 12 bit
lossless make 32mb 14bit lossless make 41MB files and a large tiff
108.2 Mb.

"ONLY ~1400 fine JPEGS"!!

If those are from a single shoot you have management issues far greater
than the cost of card/HDD space

No its not management issues its a finger problem, Fine JPEG file is on
average 20Mb (that is dependent on the content as you are aware.)

Its a Nikon camera.

Buy a few extra cards and shoot RAW, and RAW+JPEG more often. If you are
using cards for storage of 1400 JPEGs you have a faulty storage
protocol. I don't know what type of shooting you do, but personally, if
I spend a day at a target rich event I find that I might have shot
750-1200 NEFs, but a more typical figure is 200-350. Then on a local
stroll I might only shoot 20-30 shots.

I always transfer to computer and my triple redundant backup setup. Once
that is done I reformat the card.

As for as I can tell my JPG images have enough information to make
large prints.

They probably do, but I somehow think you might not be printing 1400 of
them from a single shoot.

No but I don't get to go places all the time so I take quite a few
images when I travel - 7000 images last time - I scabbed a few good ones
though Next trip is for 2 weeks.

On 2012-11-19 21:17:03 -0800, Rob said:

On 20/11/2012 1:08 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-11-19 14:45:10 -0800, Rob said:

On 19/11/2012 10:33 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
I'd be curious about your opinion/experience with the JPEG output of
today's cameras. Do you only shoot RAW and postprocess everything, or
RAW+JPEG and only postprocess selectively, or do you only shoot JPEG?

My personal experience is that the JPEG output of modern cameras is not
bad, sometimes surprisingly good, and -if the camera is set up properly-
only a certain percentage of images need RAW processing.



I only shoot JPG and only in exceptional circumstances will make a RAW
or HDR file. Can't afford the card/HDD space.

Memory is cheap!
If you could afford the camera you should easily be able to afford one
more 32GB card. 1TB of HDD space is quite affordable.
Your camera has support needs, you should provide them.

I now have 8x 32Gb Sandisk Extreme cards for my trips. $40 each - I
don't carry a laptop, too heavy.

See my suggestion below.

Just bought a 3Tb external HDD today quite cheap at $149.00 that
should see me out for the next 12 months at least

At least. ;-)



I will only get ~1400 fine JPG images on a 32Gb card. NEF 12 bit
lossless make 32mb 14bit lossless make 41MB files and a large tiff
108.2 Mb.

"ONLY ~1400 fine JPEGS"!!

If those are from a single shoot you have management issues far greater
than the cost of card/HDD space

No its not management issues its a finger problem, Fine JPEG file is on
average 20Mb (that is dependent on the content as you are aware.)

Its a Nikon camera.

....and that FF Nikon deserves only the best. :-)


Buy a few extra cards and shoot RAW, and RAW+JPEG more often. If you are
using cards for storage of 1400 JPEGs you have a faulty storage
protocol. I don't know what type of shooting you do, but personally, if
I spend a day at a target rich event I find that I might have shot
750-1200 NEFs, but a more typical figure is 200-350. Then on a local
stroll I might only shoot 20-30 shots.

I always transfer to computer and my triple redundant backup setup. Once
that is done I reformat the card.

As for as I can tell my JPG images have enough information to make
large prints.

They probably do, but I somehow think you might not be printing 1400 of
them from a single shoot.

No but I don't get to go places all the time so I take quite a few
images when I travel - 7000 images last time - I scabbed a few good
ones though Next trip is for 2 weeks.

Since you don't want to travel with a laptop, you should consider a
traveling backup, which fits in your bag without a weight penalty.

My suggestion is a Colorspace UDMA (the first leg of my triple
redundant road backup) with an appropriately sized HDD. A great
investment for the road, and one leg of a backup for those new cards. I
would suggest a 500GB-1TB, but you can buy a basic unit and add your
own high volume HDD.

I originally bought a 250GB UDMA and upgraded it my self with a 1TB
drive. That cost a lot less than they were/are asking. I have been
using that for 4 years without a problem. It accepts several card types
(most importantly CF & SDHC) and does full and incremental backups
without issue, and handles NEF, TIFF, & JPEG.
http://www.hypershop.com/HyperDrive-...-UDMA-s/64.htm


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Alan Browne
says...
In camera JPEG is pretty good, even very good. But.

.....
So, I shoot raw only. I "develop" in ACR - and if a bunch of images are
in the same light then I can "batch" adjust all of them at once.

Why not RAW+JPEG, then use either the RAW or the JPEG depending on the
image?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article , Rob says...
No but I don't get to go places all the time so I take quite a few
images when I travel - 7000 images last time

It must take forever to process all these images.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 20/11/2012 07:02, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Rob says...
No but I don't get to go places all the time so I take quite a few
images when I travel - 7000 images last time

It must take forever to process all these images.

So you try and get them right in the camera, rather than relying on
having to post-process!
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 20/11/2012 4:59 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-11-19 21:17:03 -0800, Rob said:

On 20/11/2012 1:08 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-11-19 14:45:10 -0800, Rob said:

On 19/11/2012 10:33 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
I'd be curious about your opinion/experience with the JPEG output of
today's cameras. Do you only shoot RAW and postprocess everything, or
RAW+JPEG and only postprocess selectively, or do you only shoot JPEG?

My personal experience is that the JPEG output of modern cameras is
not
bad, sometimes surprisingly good, and -if the camera is set up
properly-
only a certain percentage of images need RAW processing.



I only shoot JPG and only in exceptional circumstances will make a RAW
or HDR file. Can't afford the card/HDD space.

Memory is cheap!
If you could afford the camera you should easily be able to afford one
more 32GB card. 1TB of HDD space is quite affordable.
Your camera has support needs, you should provide them.

I now have 8x 32Gb Sandisk Extreme cards for my trips. $40 each - I
don't carry a laptop, too heavy.

See my suggestion below.

Just bought a 3Tb external HDD today quite cheap at $149.00 that
should see me out for the next 12 months at least

At least. ;-)



I will only get ~1400 fine JPG images on a 32Gb card. NEF 12 bit
lossless make 32mb 14bit lossless make 41MB files and a large tiff
108.2 Mb.

"ONLY ~1400 fine JPEGS"!!

If those are from a single shoot you have management issues far greater
than the cost of card/HDD space

No its not management issues its a finger problem, Fine JPEG file is
on average 20Mb (that is dependent on the content as you are aware.)

Its a Nikon camera.

...and that FF Nikon deserves only the best. :-)


Buy a few extra cards and shoot RAW, and RAW+JPEG more often. If you are
using cards for storage of 1400 JPEGs you have a faulty storage
protocol. I don't know what type of shooting you do, but personally, if
I spend a day at a target rich event I find that I might have shot
750-1200 NEFs, but a more typical figure is 200-350. Then on a local
stroll I might only shoot 20-30 shots.

I always transfer to computer and my triple redundant backup setup. Once
that is done I reformat the card.

As for as I can tell my JPG images have enough information to make
large prints.

They probably do, but I somehow think you might not be printing 1400 of
them from a single shoot.

No but I don't get to go places all the time so I take quite a few
images when I travel - 7000 images last time - I scabbed a few good
ones though Next trip is for 2 weeks.

Since you don't want to travel with a laptop, you should consider a
traveling backup, which fits in your bag without a weight penalty.

My suggestion is a Colorspace UDMA (the first leg of my triple redundant
road backup) with an appropriately sized HDD. A great investment for the
road, and one leg of a backup for those new cards. I would suggest a
500GB-1TB, but you can buy a basic unit and add your own high volume HDD.

I originally bought a 250GB UDMA and upgraded it my self with a 1TB
drive. That cost a lot less than they were/are asking. I have been using
that for 4 years without a problem. It accepts several card types (most
importantly CF & SDHC) and does full and incremental backups without
issue, and handles NEF, TIFF, & JPEG.
http://www.hypershop.com/HyperDrive-...-UDMA-s/64.htm



looked at that, but I am now carrying 256GB plus in cards (also have a
couple of 32GB CF cards from my old camera.

I'm going to sit down and have a good think about what direction to
take. Have a portable HDD but 60GB HDD which I used about 10 years ago
too slow to download stuff. Took a laptop once. bulky, battery went
flat, bloody airport security problems, now down to an iPad for
communications.

Which ever way the file sizes are getting to be a hand full, storage
wise, archival etc - I have to start the cull on what I now store, but
people always want something different.

On 20/11/2012 7:15 PM, David Taylor wrote:
On 20/11/2012 07:02, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Rob says...
No but I don't get to go places all the time so I take quite a few
images when I travel - 7000 images last time

It must take forever to process all these images.

So you try and get them right in the camera, rather than relying on
having to post-process!

Yes - getting them right in the first place to eliminates post
processing. Taking heaps of happy snaps and scabbing a shot is far from
ideal.

Having an understanding of what you are doing. Evaluating the scene and
thinking what will happen. Difficult situations like wind, extreme
contrast, sports etc - you should know how to maximise to get the shot.

Understand your camera.