JPEG from an SLR

Joined: 18 Jan 2006 Posts: 44 Location: Lincolnshire UK

Hi, I currently use an S2IS camera. My next purchase which is some time away mind you will be a digital SLR. My question is this. Is it possible to get good quality photographs from an SLR shooting in JPEG mode. I have heard so much talk about shooting RAW.
I am not very familiar with RAW but am led to believe that a RAW image is more or less as it sounds, a rough image that would need enhancing in a photo editing programme.

The reason I ask this question is because at the moment I don't have anything like photoshop etc to edit photos. All I do to any images from the S2IS is to sharpen a little if needed or auto contrast etc, very basic stuff done mostly with free software.

In your opinions would I not be getting the best out of an SLR not shooting RAW. Would I be better just sticking to a good non SLR

I haven't the time to spend ages on editing photos and like I said I haven't the software anyway as yet. Please don't think I have any problems with anyone who does a lot of editing to there shots.

Sorry to waffle on but basically I want to know, is it possible to get good quality shots straight out of an SLR camera as JPEG's
Thanks.

Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 360 Location: Revere, Boston

dslr will produce great jpeg images, if you expose the image correctly and all that other stuff...

only advantage that RAW has is that there is no postprocessing done in camera, you have a RAW image, you have to correct white balance and exposure and many other things on your computer. When camera produces jpeg, the camera does the processing for you...

Quote:

In your opinions would I not be getting the best out of an SLR not shooting RAW. Would I be better just sticking to a good non SLR

Many dslr cameras come with basic RAW conversion softwere, so you can shot in RAW mode and open the image with softwere provided and adjust the image the way you want to and then save it as jpeg or some other file format.

Quote:

I haven't the time to spend ages on editing photos and like I said I haven't the software anyway as yet. Please don't think I have any problems with anyone who does a lot of editing to there shots.

I dont spend alot of time postprocessing my photos, i apply s curve, fix up the levels, and sometimes do little sharpening, nothing big...

Here is my first image with my new dslr Nikon D70s,

Basic size jpeg, no post processing

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 7:54 am

As mentioned, your new camera will come with RAW conversion and imaging software. For instance, a Canon 350D will come with Arcsoft Photostudio, or a Nikon D70 will come with PictureProject 1.0. Both of these programs are pretty bad and I'd highly recommend getting Elements 4.0 or PaintShop Pro X.

Only highend users need RAW, there's nothing wrong with jpegs. Contrary to popular belief, you can correct white balance in jpegs just as easily as with RAW. And you can have a "raw" jpeg if you want- just turn off the auto enhancers like additional sharpening, saturation, white balance, etc. All digital images require some post processing, especially sharpening- this is normal- don't let it throw you.

I degress. Let's answer your original question: "Is it possible to get good quality shots straight out of an SLR camera as JPEG's?"

Yes. An SLR produces the best jpegs you can get. Period. End of discussion.

However, you got a darn nice long zoom, 5 mp camera, with great glass capable of producing some outstanding images. Are you sure it's your camera that is holding you back making you think you need a SLR?

Joined: 18 Jan 2006 Posts: 44 Location: Lincolnshire UK

Thanks for the replies, you have both answered my question and removed any doubts I had about an SLR being able to take good quality jpeg's.

[b]goofup wrote However, you got a darn nice long zoom, 5 mp camera, with great glass capable of producing some outstanding images. Are you sure it's your camera that is holding you back making you think you need a SLR?[/b]

I was more long term planning than anything else. I am thinking in the future of concentrating more on wild bird photography. I find it hard to get close enough to wild birds with the S2 without disturbing them. I have no facilities at home to set up a feeding station etc.

I am realy trying to decide if an SLR would make this any easier or wether it would be better to get an additional lens/lenses for the S2. I know this is possible.

Thanks for all the help.

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:38 am

There is much more to the SLR than just RAW capability. Read the article here about this. This is just the first part of the article, more will be posted soon.

http://www.phototakers.com/articles/articles/36.html

As for the JPGs. Your best JPGs will come from an SLR. The main point for this is the sensor in the SLR. They are significantly larger (physically) than the counterparts in the Point and Shoot (P&S) world. Even if you had the same MP count on the P&S camera as you did in the SLR, the larger (again physical dimensions) sensor on the SLR will give you far better results. I find 6MP SLR sensors outperform 8MP P&S sensors without issue, regardless of brand.

RAW images give you the best flexibility and image quality, no question about it. However the JPG images are excellent as well. RAW processing is not for everyone. That is not to say that only Pros or Advanced users can benefit. With a little application, anybody can use RAW files to get the best from their shots.

Lastly, A comment about it being easy to correct color or other issues in JPGs. It is not as easy nor as fast as it is in RAW files. In addtion to this it alters the pixels in the image. When you adjust a RAW file using a converter, you are applying the WB, Exposure, Color, Contrast, etc, that you want and creating an editable image with those settings. It is the same as shooting a new JPG with different settings every time. With JPGs all these settings are already there. If you have to shift the WB you must change the color of the pixels in the image that have already been recodrded.

Now, please understand, this sounds worse than it is. I am not saying you cannot do it. I am saying the process is more tedious and will produce slightly less perfect images that if you used a RAW image.

JPGs are perfectly acceptable and will produce excellent photos. RAW files simply squeeze out every possible benefit from the camera. If you don't want to use RAW output, it's fine and you will still kick any P&S camera butt.

Joined: 25 Jun 2006 Posts: 9 Location: Llanfyllin, Wales

One thing you need to take into account when comparing JPG with RAW or other (TIFF for example) formats. JPEG is a lossy compression algorithm, and unless you are careful how you save images, you can reduce the file size each time you save a JPEG (in Photoshop for example). It's better to use either RAW images if you can, save them to TIFF, then if needed, "save as" a JPEG for printing. Don't "save" your original JPEGs if that's the only format you have - "save as" and keep the original each time, then you have a reference image that you can always come back to.

Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 5:49 am

the simple answer is Yes, great jpegs can be achieved with DSLR's

Joined: 05 Jun 2006 Posts: 245 Location: Northern MA

DaveGrif wrote:

*snip* It's better to use either RAW images if you can, save them to TIFF, then if needed, "save as" a JPEG for printing. Don't "save" your original JPEGs if that's the only format you have - "save as" and keep the original each time, then you have a reference image that you can always come back to.

I have to disagree with one part of DaveGrif's post. Most was right, but "save as a JPEG for printing" to me is not the best thing. Typically, if you can view TIF format, you can print it. JPG is mostly just for digital viewing, and not the best for printing.

When you shoot JPG, keep it at the highest quality JPG file (for me, it's JPG Fine), which produces a 266ppi image. Yes, it's best to save the JPG file to a non-lossy format, but if you make no changes to the image, this type of JPG will, to your eye anyway, look the same as a RAW file.

The advantage to RAW is that you can make some adjustments in your RAW conversion software, but with a photo editing application, you can make most of the same conversions - it's just not as apparent as to how.

Photo Editing Applications are not limited to just Adobe Photoshop. PS is typically considered the 'industry standard' but doesn't mean it's the only thing available. At the same level (and cost level), you have Macromedia Fireworks that exists for the moment. At a lower level (READ: Non-pro) and significant cost savings, you have Adobe Photoshop Elements, and Corel PaintShop Pro. They're somwhere between 1/7 and 1/9 the cost of the professional editing software and will get you 90% of the tools you'll need.