PDA

View Full Version : E3 jpg's


Malcolm Cousins
25th September 2008, 10:01 PM
Does any one out there use jpg's straight out of the box?. Well I do. After a couple of years using Canon I had to use RAW all the time as the jpg's were awful. Not so with Olympus. These must be the best jpg's ever. I have tried to better them using lightroom and capture one but the in camera processing of the Olympus cameras always seems to beat them. I may be stirring up a hornets nest here but I have been using digital photography for many years now and I know what I like.
All the Best

MC

dennisg
25th September 2008, 11:08 PM
Although I do not own an E3 I do own an E520. And I agree that the JPEGS from Olympus are pretty hard to beat. When I compare them to the RAW files that I shoot, there is a little bit of a difference, but overall, they are comparable.

If the shot is taken where there are no major blowouts and the exposure is close, then the JPEGS do come through with flying colors. What's nice here, is that I use the Level and Curve adjustments and they do enhance the JPEG file. With so little time available these days, it's nice to know that you can get high quality shots from the JPEG format using an Olympus rig.

Dennis G*chr

photo_owl
25th September 2008, 11:28 PM
Does any one out there use jpg's straight out of the box?.

yes

wet in washington
26th September 2008, 01:13 AM
Malcolm, is that SHQ or HQ that you use?

Chillimonster
26th September 2008, 07:30 AM
If i'm shooting in the Gym, or at the side of a pool, i'll go for RAW + LSF Jpg's just to be safe, but if i'm out shooting for me i generally shoot LSF jpg's only.

The only exception to that is if i'm after a specific effect such as HDR or black and white. If i'm shooting B&W i shoot RAW + JPG as the JPG comes out in B&W to give me an idea of the final look of the shot, and the RAW is still colour meaning i can still tweak in lightroom.

But i agree that the Oly JPG's are very hard to beat.


Chris

Malcolm Cousins
26th September 2008, 12:00 PM
I use SHQ-LSF ( largest size ) Keith. They come out around 6mb in size. As long as you get the white balance right ( the E3 has tremendous auto WB ) then you can't go wrong.:)

Real Ramona
30th September 2008, 11:29 AM
If I am out shooting in predictable light then I'll use JPEGs as I have found them to be far and away the best JPEGs straight out of any camera.
If I am indoors, or in shadowy woods for example then I'll use RAW just to give me the extra latitude and room to change things in post.

Wreckdiver
30th September 2008, 06:17 PM
I never shoot JPEGs, ever. I shoot Raw all the time for the increased colour bit depth, up to 2 extra stops of dynamic range and because I can set the white balance as I wish, as often as I wish, post shooting. With the price of memory cards falling all the time storage space is not an issue. Neither is the speed of saving Raw to memory card (E-3). With a Raw file I can make as many different flavours of of JPEG, PSD or TIFF as I wish. With a JPEG I am severely restricted.

The argument of spending ages post processing Raw files doesn't hold up either if I just want to make a quick JPEG. I just use the default Raw settings (and click a few auto adjustments) and save as a JPEG to get exactly what the camera would have given me anyway.

So I don't see any case for ever shooting JPEGS.

Hope I didn't turn this into too much of a Raw versus JPEG argument *zzz

Steve

250swb
30th September 2008, 08:48 PM
I never shoot JPEGs, ever. I shoot Raw all the time for the increased colour bit depth, up to 2 extra stops of dynamic range and because I can set the white balance as I wish, as often as I wish, post shooting. With the price of memory cards falling all the time storage space is not an issue. Neither is the speed of saving Raw to memory card (E-3). With a Raw file I can make as many different flavours of of JPEG, PSD or TIFF as I wish. With a JPEG I am severely restricted.

The argument of spending ages post processing Raw files doesn't hold up either if I just want to make a quick JPEG. I just use the default Raw settings (and click a few auto adjustments) and save as a JPEG to get exactly what the camera would have given me anyway.

So I don't see any case for ever shooting JPEGS.

Hope I didn't turn this into too much of a Raw versus JPEG argument *zzz

Steve

I agree, whats the point of JPEGs when RAW creates the same image but with so much more potential?

If it takes one click to get a JPEG file on your screen it only takes two clicks to get a RAW image, hardly time consuming, although it can make a difference if you don't use a decent RAW processor. I just think it is a shame to take the time to photograph something and then throw away a large chunk of the information that is recordable by using JPEG. You only get one chance so why waste it *shrug ?

Steve

andym
30th September 2008, 08:55 PM
If it takes one click to get a JPEG file on your screen it only takes two clicks to get a RAW image, hardly time consuming, although it can make a difference if you don't use a decent RAW processor. I just think it is a shame to take the time to photograph something and then throw away a large chunk of the information that is recordable by using JPEG. You only get one chance so why waste it *shrug ?

Steve

Yes I agree.I have never quite understoood why you would want to RAw+jpeg when all the info to convert the Raw file is there and can be converted with the camera setting if you feel the need in Master or Studio.
Just seem to take up a lot of space on the card.:confused:

photo_owl
30th September 2008, 09:10 PM
card space costs nothing - only issue is possibly buffer related if that's your style of shooting.

the question posed was whether anyone used the jpegs straight out of the camera - not if people relied on them......... as I read it.

therefore the only difference between the raw only club (as presented) and the raw + lsf i offs, bluntly, irrelevant.

what I have become to realise is that the decision as to whether you are shooting jpeg to use or jpeg for pp is much much more fundamental - despite seeming to be a lesser issue. jpeg to pp is natural, low contrast and sharpness and neutral saturation (SAT and NF off). jpeg to use straight to print or publish wouldn't use these settings.

Makonde
30th September 2008, 09:23 PM
I find I'm quite often using RAW+small jpeg (E520). Why? - because it's very quick to look at the small jpeg and decide which are the few likely keepers out of a batch. I move those RAWS to a working file and dump the rest, jpegs and all.

davidh
30th September 2008, 10:09 PM
I have been shooting raw+jpeg on my e510 - but have come to the conclusion that shooting both takes too much space on the memory card so in future will only shoot raw.
i find process time quite short for most images - sharpening and adjusting levels mainly.


Dave

Ian
1st October 2008, 07:51 AM
Does any one out there use jpg's straight out of the box?. Well I do. After a couple of years using Canon I had to use RAW all the time as the jpg's were awful. Not so with Olympus. These must be the best jpg's ever. I have tried to better them using lightroom and capture one but the in camera processing of the Olympus cameras always seems to beat them. I may be stirring up a hornets nest here but I have been using digital photography for many years now and I know what I like.
All the Best

MC

Olympus JPEGs are defintely above average, but now with tools like Adobe Photoshop Lightroom I am getting better overall results than with JPEGs on their own.

I actually record Large JPEGs with RAW by default, but usually process the RAW file if I have time.

You get more consistent white balance control and slightly more headroom when bringing back highlights. Noise control is better too.

Ian

ajwh
13th October 2008, 08:11 PM
I use SHQ JPGs almost all the the time - started this with the E-1 and stayed with it for E-3.
I used to switch to RAW+JPG for very tricky exposures, but the the E-3 seems to get them right!

Andrew