jpeg camera settings ?

[LOZ]

Off to Japan on Sunday( WORK) and need to travel light naturally I am taking the d70 + 2x1gig, cards kit lens and 50mm lens. What I need to know is what are the best camera settings for best image when using jpeg. The only reason is 1000 pix in jpeg or 350 per day in RAW .When I was playing around today using jpeg and RAW on the same subject the difference in pix was amazing .The jpeg looked much more natural than the RAW but the jpeg looked very grainy . All suggestions would be appreciated. LOZ

[sirhc55]

jpeg fine

[birddog114]

Off to Japan on Sunday( WORK) and need to travel light naturally I am taking the d70 + 2x1gig, cards kit lens and 50mm lens.

Going to Japan? eBay your current gears and buy a fresh new gears there!

[gstark]

What I need to know is what are the best camera settings for best image when using jpeg.

No such thing.

The question makes no sense at all.

Sorry.

[Alpha_7]

How many photo's are your planning on taking ? and do you have access to a PC / Laptop / photo lab / internet cafe.

Since I started shooting raw, I wouldn't consider shooting Jpeg unless it was an emergency.. Jpeg even at it's highest in camera settings is still a lossy image format, plus you can't correct things like exposure nearly as easy as NEF/RAW images. I'd have to agree with Gstark, best camera settings and jpeg is an oxymoron...

[olrac]

I beg to differ with Gstark on the best camera settings for Jpeg, If you dont get the settings right for WB and exposure and to a lesser extent sharpness saturation and tone comp you are pretty much stuck with them.....

Raw gives us more flexibility in post processing.....

I say shoot raw but go to shibuya (a big electronics area in Tokyo) on the first day and buy a few more CF cards you will never regret it....

[LOZ]

Off to Japan on Sunday( WORK) and need to travel light naturally I am taking the d70 + 2x1gig, cards kit lens and 50mm lens.

Going to Japan? eBay your current gears and buy a fresh new gears there!

????????????????? What would be the saving on a 2Dx. Birdy I will staying in Tokyo for a week do you know of any good suppliers there .Duty free is not a bargin any more thanks to you LOZ

[LOZ]

, If you dont get the settings right for WB and exposure and to a lesser extent sharpness saturation and tone comp you are pretty much stuck with them.....

..



Thanks olrac this is the imfo I am after what settings do you use

[avkomp]

I would try my hardest to shoot raws.
you can make jpgs later on from those if you need to.

You can do much more with fixing exposure issues with raw than jpg.

The killer of course is that raw is bigger. how much storage space you need will depend on how many shots you plan on taking.

If you had access to a notebook or someones computer, you could download the raws there and even burn to cd.

or Hit the shops and get some more CF cards.
Compared to the price of a trip to japan, I would call this cheap insurance.
you wouldnt want a trip of a lifetime soured by substandard pix.

Just my 2 cents worth!!
Steve

[gstark]

I beg to differ with Gstark on the best camera settings for Jpeg, If you dont get the settings right for WB and exposure and to a lesser extent sharpness saturation and tone comp you are pretty much stuck with them.....

Raw gives us more flexibility in post processing.....

Yep.

I have said that there are NO good jpg settings.

None at all.

Nil.

Zero!

Zilch!

Putting it simply, good settings, and jpg, are incompatible!


So, in what way, precisely, do you believe that you are disagreeing with me?

I say shoot raw but go to shibuya (a big electronics area in Tokyo) on the first day and buy a few more CF cards you will never regret it....

Yes, I would concur with this advice.

I suspect that you have misunderstood my original comments.

[birddog114]

Off to Japan on Sunday( WORK) and need to travel light naturally I am taking the d70 + 2x1gig, cards kit lens and 50mm lens.

Going to Japan? eBay your current gears and buy a fresh new gears there!

????????????????? What would be the saving on a 2Dx. Birdy I will staying in Tokyo for a week do you know of any good suppliers there .Duty free is not a bargin any more thanks to you LOZ

LOZ,

There few good reputable camera shops in Shinjuku district and in Akihabara, I cpuld not recall their names but I knew which way to get there, in Akihabara (Electronics town) major stores selling electronic with good camera gears, some of them aren't cheap in comparison with the US, if you can find good stores, there're big saving overthere.

I have few local contacts and they were my guide during my stay, don't expect them to answer you in English, if you have your friend or anyone who lives there than it'll be helpful.

Do you have room or an empty luggage which I can hide in there and get along to Japan with you

[Aussie Dave]

How many people here used film-SLR's prior to their dSLR ? There was no RAW/NEF format with these cameras, it was up to the photographer to do their homework so they'd get the exposure etc.

It feels to me like RAW/NEF is being taken for granted and, for want of a better description, a cheat !

Now, I will admit that I ALWAYS shoot RAW and I too amend exp. settings etc if I get it wrong.....but I try my best to get it right (whilst shooting) and never think to myself...."it's OK, I'll just fix them in post"

JPEG 'is' a lossy format, but depending on how much/what PP you do to your RAW images, so is PP'ing NEF's.

IMO....if you think you can get your exposures fairly close IRL, then go JPEG (and using suitable curves may assist you also). If not, go to that electronics store in Tokyo (as suggested) and get some more CF cards.

[Poon]

I start to shoot with Raw and find I start to love my D70.

It is very slow in processing with Capture 4 but it is worthy to do so.
Imagine if you take 10 shoots and you can not fine one is satisfied to you, why don't take one slowly and you are sure you can get good result.
I agree with Gary taking with Raw is the only choice for serious users.

After viewing in Capture 4, I will save the images as tif, but is big and slow in saving.

After saving it as tif, I will open it with photoshop for printing.

Is it the correct way for printing?

Or have other methods for better printing?
------------
regards
Poon

[Nnnnsic]

That may be true Dave, but if you don't use the features that make NEF so useful, you'll still have a better format to work with than Jpeg.

And regardless, look at the D100 where you had the option of jpeg, the old uncompressed NEF, and TIF, which would have just defeated the point of your argument regarding a lossless format being taken advantage of.

You still have to make a shot work well.

There are loads of examples floating around here and the web where skills or shots aren't up to scratch and NEF has saved people, but there are also loads of examples floating around here and the web where people have known what they were doing and used NEF to improve a shot.

[olrac]

I agree with Dave if you can get it right first time you probably are safe with Jpeg....

CF cards cost you about 100 a gb if you buy them in 1 gb or less, Compare that to the cost of screwing up a bunch of photos from a holiday (work or not) and it all comes into perspective.

If you are not keen on the CF card idea look at getting a backup drive/p2000/Ipod with adapter over there and shoot to your hearts content.....

[Poon]

http://www.photo.net/learn/raw/

May help.
-----------
Regards
Poon

[birddog114]

LOZ,
CF card is very cheap now, especially in Japan, save up your buck and only eat Udon noodles on the street, or bring along the Uncle Toby snack bar as much as you can, live on them while you're there instead of eating steak and fish at the luxury restaurant then you can buy many CF cards as you wish, one week without steak and fish, won't kill you.

[gstark]

How many people here used film-SLR's prior to their dSLR ? There was no RAW/NEF format with these cameras, it was up to the photographer to do their homework so they'd get the exposure etc.

It feels to me like RAW/NEF is being taken for granted and, for want of a better description, a cheat !

I view NEF as being the digital equivalent of a negative.

In a proper darkrrom could do all the manipulation of an image that i desired, and then some. I see no differences in the digital world.

JPEG 'is' a lossy format, but depending on how much/what PP you do to your RAW images, so is PP'ing NEF's.

No. If you save in NEF, there is no loss, you simplky save the raw image, plus the current adjustment set. If you save in JPG, every time you save your image, you lose information. The two are very different.

[Poon]

Raw = Negative
-------------
Great saying Gary.

[gstark]

Hi Poon,

How are you?

After saving it as tif, I will open it with photoshop for printing.

Is it the correct way for printing?

Or have other methods for better printing?

How much memory does your computer have? The more memory, the better/quicker you'll find Capture works; I have 1GB, which is the minimum for effective work within NC.

In NC, once I have the image the way I like it, I generally print directly from Capture to the R1800, after saving it, of course.

While I have Photoshop installed on this system, I rarely find a use for it, NC being suitable for maybe 90%+ of the PP work I need to do.

[Aussie Dave]

That may be true Dave, but if you don't use the features that make NEF so useful, you'll still have a better format to work with than Jpeg.

And regardless, look at the D100 where you had the option of jpeg, the old uncompressed NEF, and TIF, which would have just defeated the point of your argument regarding a lossless format being taken advantage of.

You still have to make a shot work well.

There are loads of examples floating around here and the web where skills or shots aren't up to scratch and NEF has saved people, but there are also loads of examples floating around here and the web where people have known what they were doing and used NEF to improve a shot.

very true Leigh....
perhaps I didn't explain myself properly.

People should certainly take advantage of what you can do with RAW/NEF's (as I do also) & it does still give you a better starting point, but my main point was that you shouldn't rely on it....IMO.

And in regards to my reference to RAW being lossless.....I meant that as you PP your image (even a RAW image), you are "potentially" losing quality anyway - depending on what you are doing (ie. shadow/highlight tool, noise reduction, adding saturation etc...). It may only be minor, but it is still losing quality.

Hope that makes more sense

[Poon]

Hi Gary,
I am fine.
I have 40G in my computer.
I will keep some good photos in raw saving and most in JPEG for not important photos.
Is captuer 4(4.3) is faster and better than 4.2?
----------
Regards
Poon

[DaveB]

People should certainly take advantage of what you can do with RAW/NEF's (as I do also) & it does still give you a better starting point, but my main point was that you shouldn't rely on it....IMO.

Agreed.

And in regards to my reference to RAW being lossless.....I meant that as you PP your image (even a RAW image), you are "potentially" losing quality anyway - depending on what you are doing (ie. shadow/highlight tool, noise reduction, adding saturation etc...). It may only be minor, but it is still losing quality.

That's splitting hairs a bit isn't it? The camera captured an approximation of the scene, with exposure, focus, and composition affecting what it captured.
What RAW gives us is no loss of information between that point and the "darkroom" inside your computer. Shooting in JPEG asks the camera to make a bunch of decisions for us (WB, sharpening, tone curves, etc) and then save a lossily-compressed version for us. RAW lets us delay that processing until the computer where we have full manual control if we need it.

You can do good work in JPEG (especially if you get the exposure and WB spot-on) but personally I'm much happier with the flexibility of RAW (and yes, that occasionally does include being able to "save" shots where I screwed up ). From 2000 until 2003 most of my DSLR shooting was in JPEG, but after I moved to RAW I haven't been tempted to go back!

[gstark]

Hi Gary,
I am fine.

That's good to hear.

I have 40G in my computer.

THat would be your storage (HDD), but what about RAM? Does 256 or perhaps 512 sound like numbers that your system might have? If so, that's where I'd be looking to perform a minor upgrade.

I will keep some good photos in raw saving and most in JPEG for not important photos.
Is captuer 4(4.3) is faster and better than 4.2?

I'm still using 4.2 myself; I don't see any need (at this time) to upgrade further; the newest versions are, if I'm not mistaken, providing compatibility with the newer cameras like the D50 and D70s, none of which directly affects what I'm doing.

For local storage, I keep everything as NEF + JPG (that's how I shoot) anbd I use the JPGs for quick and dirty stuff, but the NEFs are for anytime I want to do something even semi-serious with an image.

I do have tons of storage online here - my server still has about 80G, and this system enjoys three drives with over 500GB in total.

[Alpha_7]

Slightly off topic but here goes.

I am continually amazed by people who sell there hardware short...

A girl at work bought a new Canon 5MP camera then was explaining to me how she only ever took photo's on the lowest settings. She said the quality was so good you didn't need it any better, now she wasn't short on memory, yet she was taking all her shots at the lowest res and with maximum jpeg compression. She could of saved herself a couple of hundred bucks and got the 2MP version of the same camera.

Now it's very similar to shoot in jpeg when you have the option of shooting RAW. Straight off your reducing the quality of your results, so a bad shot is a bad shot in whatever format, but if you shoot an excellent shot do you want it ruined by jpeg artifacts or muddy colours. It seems like a big waste to limit you potential if you can afford the space of NEF files over jpeg.

[birddog114]

I always shoot RAW and RAW for the last 4 years since I had my first DSLR D100.

[leek]

Slightly off topic but here goes.

I am continually amazed by people who sell there hardware short...

A girl at work bought a new Canon 5MP camera then was explaining to me how she only ever took photo's on the lowest settings. She said the quality was so good you didn't need it any better, now she wasn't short on memory, yet she was taking all her shots at the lowest res and with maximum jpeg compression. She could of saved herself a couple of hundred bucks and got the 2MP version of the same camera.

Now it's very similar to shoot in jpeg when you have the option of shooting RAW. Straight off your reducing the quality of your results, so a bad shot is a bad shot in whatever format, but if you shoot an excellent shot do you want it ruined by jpeg artifacts or muddy colours. It seems like a big waste to limit you potential if you can afford the space of NEF files over jpeg.

A nice analogy Craig...

It's amazing how your standards change over time as well... I used to use a digital video camera that could take 1Mp images and I was quite happy... Then I had a 4Mp P&S which took 4Mp shots and suddenly the 1Mp images looked really noisy and low quality...
Now that I have the D70, I can easily tell the difference on-screen between the JPG files and NEF files in a full screen display of the image...

I will always shoot in the highest qual possible - unless I need extreme speed... Memory is cheap...

[LOZ]

Thanks all looks like a D2x + 4 x 8gig cards and shoot RAW LOZ

[birddog114]

Thanks all looks like a D2x + 4 x 8gig cards and shoot RAW LOZ

Oh yeah! and have Udon noodle for the next 5 years

[digitor]

Is captuer 4(4.3) is faster and better than 4.2?
----------
Regards
Poon

Hi Poon,

Yes, capture 4.3.x is quicker than 4.2. I noticed quite a difference on my system (3.8GHz P4, with 2 gig of ram). Capture likes lots of FAST memory, perhaps it's slightly inefficiently written!

Cheers

[Onyx]

Ask for jpeg settings and everyone sells you the virtues of raw...

JPEG normal, the difference between it and fine are minute in image detail, but double the space requirements for the latter makes it a poor choice. If you're shooting JPEG, part of the reason would be space. This IMHO is the best compromise. If space really is a premium, drop image size down a notch to medium instead of 'basic' quality mode large image.

Color mode IIIa. Unless shooting people/skintones, mode IIIa affords richer, more saturated colours. Also saturation enhanced if that is still not enough.

I'd shoot a med-low tone curve, or upload a custom curve you're familiar with. Don't forget to dial in +0.3EV.

You might like to try Hue of -3 degrees, for slightly warmer funktastic colours. Subtle effect, but the result may/may not be pleasing.

Remember for the same filespace of 1 NEF, you could bracket 3-4 shots in JPEG. IMO it's a much better deal.

Those who don't shoot JPEG IMO are missing out on exploring many of the features and options afforded by this versatile camera. If you strictly shoot NEF, you'll never know of continuous 3FPS shooting (after the 4 shot 'stumbling block'), the differences or lack thereof in image quality between JPG and NEF will astound you. I ask that you try it out for yourself instead of immediately closing your mind to new thought and labelling me a lunatic.


The Jpeg Junkie.

[leek]

The Jpeg Junkie.

aka Chi The Contrarian...

[Heath Bennett]

Ask for jpeg settings and everyone sells you the virtues of raw...

JPEG normal, the difference between it and fine are minute in image detail, but double the space requirements for the latter makes it a poor choice. If you're shooting JPEG, part of the reason would be space. This IMHO is the best compromise. If space really is a premium, drop image size down a notch to medium instead of 'basic' quality mode large image.

Color mode IIIa. Unless shooting people/skintones, mode IIIa affords richer, more saturated colours. Also saturation enhanced if that is still not enough.

I'd shoot a med-low tone curve, or upload a custom curve you're familiar with. Don't forget to dial in +0.3EV.

You might like to try Hue of -3 degrees, for slightly warmer funktastic colours. Subtle effect, but the result may/may not be pleasing.

Remember for the same filespace of 1 NEF, you could bracket 3-4 shots in JPEG. IMO it's a much better deal.

Those who don't shoot JPEG IMO are missing out on exploring many of the features and options afforded by this versatile camera. If you strictly shoot NEF, you'll never know of continuous 3FPS shooting (after the 4 shot 'stumbling block'), the differences or lack thereof in image quality between JPG and NEF will astound you. I ask that you try it out for yourself instead of immediately closing your mind to new thought and labelling me a lunatic.


The Jpeg Junkie.

Agreed. I only shoot RAW if on an assignment, with JPEG medium just in case the client wants something at an unrealistic deadline. For fun RAW is overkill most of the time. If I am shooting a sunset or something that requires more dynamic range, I may be inclined to switch it on.

I guess my bottom line is shooting RAW and/or JPEG depending on situation.

JPEG is not a sin.

[LOZ]

ONYX Thank you ,
It really makes me wonder why Nikon gave us all those little options M-A- S- P sports- auto -pretty flowers- jpeg- jpeg fine- ect ect. Did they just need to fill up the menu to make it look like a wiz bang camera or was it to give us more options to play with . NIKON should have a cheaper model with MANUAL + RAW been the only settings available.(D70 - s basic purest pack)
Now that would save a lot of time and effort on Internet forums . LOZ

[gstark]

Those who don't shoot JPEG IMO are missing out on exploring many of the features and options afforded by this versatile camera.

There's a broad statement that overlooks the fact that every user is different, and many have already gone down that path and found it lacking, for the simple fact that shooting jpg destroys parts of your image even before you capture it.

That may well be fine for non-critical shots.

Then again, if it's non-critical, why bother capturing it? It's non-critical, right?

[Aussie Dave]

ONYX Thank you ,
It really makes me wonder why Nikon gave us all those little options M-A- S- P sports- auto -pretty flowers- jpeg- jpeg fine- ect ect. Did they just need to fill up the menu to make it look like a wiz bang camera or was it to give us more options to play with . NIKON should have a cheaper model with MANUAL + RAW been the only settings available.(D70 - s basic purest pack)
Now that would save a lot of time and effort on Internet forums . LOZ

They did, didn't they ? Wasn't it called the D100 ?

[Heath Bennett]

Those who don't shoot JPEG IMO are missing out on exploring many of the features and options afforded by this versatile camera.

There's a broad statement that overlooks the fact that every user is different, and many have already gone down that path and found it lacking, for the simple fact that shooting jpg destroys parts of your image even before you capture it.

That may well be fine for non-critical shots.

Then again, if it's non-critical, why bother capturing it? It's non-critical, right?

I think he was stressing that JPEG allows you a much larger burst, a useful feature of the camera. A .RAW burst may be too short to capture a critical sequence. I would rather have a 4,5,6+ JPEGs than 4 RAW files that miss the critical moment/s.

[gstark]

Those who don't shoot JPEG IMO are missing out on exploring many of the features and options afforded by this versatile camera.

There's a broad statement that overlooks the fact that every user is different, and many have already gone down that path and found it lacking, for the simple fact that shooting jpg destroys parts of your image even before you capture it.

That may well be fine for non-critical shots.

Then again, if it's non-critical, why bother capturing it? It's non-critical, right?

I think he was stressing that JPEG allows you a much larger burst, a useful feature of the camera. A .RAW burst may be too short to capture a critical sequence. I would rather have a 4,5,6+ JPEGs than 4 RAW files that miss the critical moment/s.

Yes, I know this.

But IAE, one can always very easily switch between modes, as any intelligent user would, I expect, be inclined to do.

But that sort of shooting mode is, I suspect, way off-topic within the context of the original question asked by Loz.

[ajo43]

when photoshop makes a white balance adjuster for JPEG shots then that's when I'll switch from RAW. This is the only reason I use RAW at the moment. I don't see any real difference in the highlight detail or resolution.

[Heath Bennett]

when photoshop makes a white balance adjuster for JPEG shots then that's when I'll switch from RAW. This is the only reason I use RAW at the moment. I don't see any real difference in the highlight detail or resolution.

It kind of already does - image>adjustments>colour balance

With a bit of a fiddle it works fine. There are many other ways also.