JPEG Shootout

[cgw]

Less than definitive but still worth a look:

 

[Piccell]

Odd way to test a camera made to shoot RAW. It makes some sense for point and shoot photographers, but generally when a person pays a lot of money, they take some time to learn to use the tech.
The test seems to be just a comparison of the processor.

 

[Ysarex]

Wow!

I have read a Bryan Petersen book so I can't say that's the dumbest thing I've ever seen related to photography. And I do remember once asking a couple students what they were doing out in the lab finishing room with a box of 250 sheet 8x10 Ilford multi-grade paper open and they said they were dividing it up. And I do remember a student in the graphics lab who couldn't make the mouse work right and she had the cord on the mouse facing her. And I do remember a student in the graphics lab who couldn't figure out what to do with a CD because he had his coffee in the computer cup holder, but that's the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

Joe

 

[Derrel]

I watched the entire video, start to finish, uninterrupted, but had to go back to catch which specific camera models had been used in the comparison. Based on 15 people judging the prints: Nikon D500 #1, "a close second" was Canon #2 and the Canon 80D with its punchy color, Panasonic G85 #3, Fuji XT-2 #4, Olympus Pen F #5, #6 was the Sony A6300; the Pentax K-70 and the iPhone 7 were both tied for last place, or #7.

Basically it seems that the results were what the 15 evaluators, both men and women, preferred in Printed Form, from one professional lab, and the paper, set-up, and printing equipment that lab used to print these straight out of camera JPEG files.

Small-Scale outdoor landscape, window-light baby portrait, and indoor tungsten "studio test scene"...three shots from each of the cameras.

I guess it was what it was: One of Canada's better pro labs making prints from SOOC camera-created JPEGS exposed under outdoor overcast lighting, what looked to me like indoor window light, and then the indoor tungsten lighting studio test scene.

Very specific camera models. Default profiles, no Vivid settings, no dynamic lighting optimization, just the way the cameras tend to shoot their conventional JPEGs. it is a comparison, and an evaluation by 15 different people, scoring un-marked color prints, made by one, professional lab.

Some things were pretty obvious, while other things were less markedly clear. But, then again, this is basically SOOC images, from specific, new-era cameras, and only ONE, single lab's print results.

 

[Piccell]

I can't imagine that is one of their better pro labs. They do not even support negative or slide scanning.

 

[cgw]

I can't imagine that is one of their better pro labs. They do not even support negative or slide scanning.

Suspect they know their market a bit better than you do? Those aren't services pro labs I know make their $$$ from in 2016.

 

[Piccell]

LOL

It helps to offer more rather than less. I doubt any make the most money from them, but they do make money if they have the equipment.

 

[Derrel]

I can't imagine that is one of their better pro labs. They do not even support negative or slide scanning.

Uhhhhh, yeah, AS IF Calgary could support such outdated services... It's a pro lab that makes a lot of prints...they work from image files, not outdated slides or negs amateurs have built up. it's 2016 now.

Price List

 

[Piccell]

They offer flatbed scanning...how antiquated. lol

 

[unpopular]

SOOC 4 LYFE!

 

[jcdeboever]

Interesting... Poor Ken Rockwell, that would be a painful video for him to watch, he loves his Nikon Vivid +3 saturation profile.

 

[Dave442]

I don't have any of those exact cameras, but I do have that tripod. I almost never extend those final leg sections. I also mount my iPhone on the tripod when shooting video so I just have to consider they added the iPhone at the last minute to the test.

I liked his comment to the one girl to not judge the prints in order of which baby shot was the cutest.