Editing jpegs

[acjones]

I am relatively new to RAW photos and I just learned about editing them in Lightroom, but does anyone have any suggestions on how to go about editing jpegs in Lightroom quickly and efficiently?

 

[Light Guru]

The actual editing process is the same. The difference is in how much a jpeg will let you do and still give you good results.

 

[480sparky]

It's the same for both. Just with raw files (raw, not RAW, it's not an acronym) you have more latitude when editing.

 

[Greiver]

Same process, raw files just give you more flexibility, options and better results.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

but RAW sounds way cooler than raw

 

[AaronLLockhart]

Raw is an uncompressed file source. What you get when shooting a raw photograph is an interpretation of exactly the sensor saw. When you get into Jpeg, you start losing some of the quality in detail because of data compression. You edit them the same. However, raw images will always give you a higher range of alteration, because of the fact that none of the data was lost from the sensor to the file.

It really doesn't matter which one you shoot in, as long as you get the settings right in camera.

 

[KmH]

A lot of Raw files are indeed compressed. There are over 100 Raw file types. Tons of data is lost between the image sensor and the Raw data file that gets recorded on the memory card, mostly in the pixel voltage analog-to-digital conversion.

Nikon entry-level, compact DSLR Raw files are 12-bit, lossless compressed files. (D40, D40x, D60, D3000, D3100, D3200, D5000, D5100, D5200)

The D7000/D7100/D600 offers:
• lossless compressed
• lossy compressed
• 12-bit depth
• 14-bit depth (Page 87 - D7000 user's manual - NEF (Raw) Recording > Type. D7100 - page 67. D600 - page 94)
But, the D7000, D7100, D600 has no uncompressed option, which is just 1 part of what makes them entry-level grade DSLRs.

Prosumer and pro grade Nikon DSLR's add the option of uncompressed Raw files.

A Raw file after conversion isn't anything like what the image sensor saw. That's why the files have to be processed in a Raw converter before they can be seen as a photograph.
Different Raw converters render Raw files with a slightly different look because they all use slightly different algorithms to process the Raw image data files.
That's why all Adobe software that can edit Raw files (Elements, Lightroom, Photoshop) uses the same Raw converter - ACR - so they are all consistent with each other.

Image sensors are linear devices and have a gamma of 1.0. The analog image sensors in digital cameras also cannot record color.

The gamma of the Raw file image data has to be changed to a non-linear gamma of between 1.8 and 2.2 or so, which is what human eyes see.
Color is interpolated (demosaicing) in most DSLR's from the layout of a Bayer Array that is in front on the image sensor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosaicing
Tone mapping is done. Some Raw converters also do some sharpening and noise reduction.

This isn't dated so....http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

A lot of Raw files are indeed compressed. There are over 100 Raw file types. Tons of data is lost between the image sensor and the Raw data file that gets recorded on the memory card, mostly in the pixel voltage analog-to-digital conversion.

Nikon entry-level, compact DSLR Raw files are 12-bit, lossless compressed files. (D40, D40x, D60, D3000, D3100, D3200, D5000, D5100, D5200)

The D7000/D7100/D600 offers:
• lossless compressed
• lossy compressed
• 12-bit depth
• 14-bit depth (Page 87 - D7000 user's manual - NEF (Raw) Recording > Type. D7100 - page 67. D600 - page 94)
But, the D7000, D7100, D600 has no uncompressed option, which is just 1 part of what makes them entry-level grade DSLRs.

Prosumer and pro grade Nikon DSLR's add the option of uncompressed Raw files.

A Raw file after conversion isn't anything like what the image sensor saw. That's why the files have to be processed in a Raw converter before they can be seen as a photograph.
Different Raw converters render Raw files with a slightly different look because they all use slightly different algorithms to process the Raw image data files.
That's why all Adobe software that can edit Raw files (Elements, Lightroom, Photoshop) uses the same Raw converter - ACR - so they are all consistent with each other.

Image sensors are linear devices and have a gamma of 1.0. The analog image sensors in digital cameras also cannot record color.

The gamma of the Raw file image data has to be changed to a non-linear gamma of between 1.8 and 2.2 or so, which is what human eyes see.
Color is interpolated (demosaicing) in most DSLR's from the layout of a Bayer Array that is in front on the image sensor. Demosaicing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tone mapping is done. Some Raw converters also do some sharpening and noise reduction.

This isn't dated so....Understanding RAW Files Explained.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. It's what the sensor saw. You can spit about algorithms that the firmware uses to convert the data from linear to non linear gamma all day long, it doesn't matter. A non compressed RAW image contains the data nearest to the point of how it came directly from the sensor. The need to explain the technicality of that point is completely irrelevant, and unnecessary.

Also, the fact that an image sensor is a linear device has nothing to do with anything. The gamma range may be changed to MIMIC what the human eye sees. However, let us first remember that linear devices are only capable of depicting a linear result. Hence the fact that a photograph or image is only two dimensional, which is also a linear object. The eye interprets depth, where as a camera mimics it. A camera cannot see in the third dimension, the human eye can.

As said before, all of this is pointless conversation.

My original point still stands. RAW has more editing options because most of the data is still there, and it doesn't matter which mode you shoot in, as long as you get the settings right in camera.


Sometimes I think the members of this forum like to respond to stuff simply to see themselves type.

 

[peter27]

I thought the point of shooting jpg was to avoid the time spent editing later. That's not to suggest that jpg is inferior to raw, just that the advantage is the lack of editing and pp, which is part and parcel of shooting raw.

 

[bratkinson]

Shooting and editing with JPGs is somewhat different than shooting and editing raw as the JPGs have already been pre-processed by the in-camera firmware that made various decisions on how to handle noise, shadows, highlights, and color renditions such as white balance, how 'red' is red, etc. While post processing can be significantly shorter using JPGs, the capabilities of what can be done with JPGs is limited. For those times when I know my photographs don't have to be as perfect as I can make them (personal shots, for example), I shoot JPG and don't do much in post other than to correct my sometimes tilted camera, tweak the exposure, and crop to fit specific print sizes.

Shooting JPGs generally requires that the white balance be properly set in the camera before taking pictures in that lighting situation. While most cameras have fairly 'smart' auto white balance capabilities (AWB setting), there are times when the AWB gets completely fooled and pictures come out greenish, redish, purplish, any color of the rainbow. Even my Canon 5D3 produces oddball AWB results every now and then. While WB can be adjusted in post from JPG files, there isn't the 'full range' of colors to work with in a JPG image as, for example, color 123 and 125 on adjacent raw pixels were combined into 124 on the representative 1 JPG pixel. JPGs are like a small 'starter' box of Crayola Crayons with only 12 colors where raw corresponds to the 'super size' Crayola box with 100 colors (or whatever it is these days). JPGs have lots more than 12 colors available, but raw has a far larger number of colors it can represent.

The difficulty of setting specific, custom white balance is that each lighting situation must be individually identified and a grey card WB shot taken under those conditions. Although preset WB choices such as 'daylight' or 'incandescent' could be used, there's many situations where 'mixed' lighting is encountered which would make those settings be slightly wrong. Maybe the slight color shift wouldn't be noticable. Maybe it will. It's up to you to determine what is 'right' in post processing.

About a year ago, I shot a 20 person birthday party in a small banquet room that had a brick wall on one side, all glass windows to an adjoining room on side #2, large windows to the outside on wall #3, and a brick wall with one small window on wall #4. So I took 4 WB shots of my grey card, one from each wall. The 'trick' then became to re-set custom WB to one of the 4 shots - the correct one! - each time I changed directions when shooting. This required clicking 'forward' to frame 1,2,3,or 4 in the camera to select the correct image to set CWB with. A real pain in the butt. I finally gave up and figured I'd fix it in post...that's one of the advantages of shooting raw...more flexibility in post. Alternatively, taking a grey card shot, setting the CWB, then 2-10 shots or so in that direction, and repeating the process would probably save time, but asking someone to hold the grey card over and over has its limitations as well.

That said, I should note that I shot JPG exclusively until a little more than a year ago, as I didn't understand white balance yet. Once I learned that lesson the hard way (at my ex-stepdaughters wedding as guest/shooter), I've shot JPG + raw ever since and fix WB in post...frame by frame, if needed.

Bottom line, JPG works fine MOST of the time. So does AWB. But for those times it doesn't work, having the raw files to work from can literally 'save the day'.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I thought the point of shooting jpg was to avoid the time spent editing later. That's not to suggest that jpg is inferior to raw, just that the advantage is the lack of editing and pp, which is part and parcel of shooting raw.

^^^if the most you want is snapshots and phone cam quality picss with very limited post flexibility. "Rush job"

 

[480sparky]

I thought the point of shooting jpg was to avoid the time spent editing later. That's not to suggest that jpg is inferior to raw, just that the advantage is the lack of editing and pp, which is part and parcel of shooting raw.

That's just ONE advantage of JPEGs. Another is the universally acceptance of them..... they're ready to upload, email, share, print, etc. with the rest of the world. Raw files (with the exception of Adobe's .DNG format, which still isn't as universal as they'd like) are pretty much proprietary.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

I thought the point of shooting jpg was to avoid the time spent editing later. That's not to suggest that jpg is inferior to raw, just that the advantage is the lack of editing and pp, which is part and parcel of shooting raw.

That depends really on who you are, what you're experience is with, etc. Not to mention, RAW photos really don't take that long to edit, especially in LightRoom. However, they are so large in file size, it's harder on your computer hardware. So, it's not really the editing part that takes longer, just the loading part. The other thing about Jpeg, is that you don't have to load it into photoshop to preview the image. You can simply open the Jpeg files in a generic photo viewer to sort through the keepers vs non keepers.

Choosing which one is right for you is going to depend on experience. If your experience is in batch editing through a camera raw client, then shooting in RAW is probably going to be the fastest workflow environment. I come from graphic design background, and most of the time, I prefer to shoot in Jpeg, so that I can use pixel to pixel editing techniques instead of batch editing.

I still shoot in raw sometimes... but there are also times that I just refuse to shoot it. Shooting sports or a wedding is one of those things. You've never seen a headache until you take the time out to make a computer load 500 raw files from a wedding. Talk about a buzz kill.

 

[imagemaker46]

I thought the point of shooting jpg was to avoid the time spent editing later. That's not to suggest that jpg is inferior to raw, just that the advantage is the lack of editing and pp, which is part and parcel of shooting raw.

^^^if the most you want is snapshots and phone cam quality picss with very limited post flexibility. "Rush job"

So basically what you're saying is that if you shoot jpegs the quality you can expect is similar to having snapshots from a cell phone? The only reason someone would shoot jpegs is because they want to rush the job and quality isn't important?

 

[480sparky]

I thought the point of shooting jpg was to avoid the time spent editing later. That's not to suggest that jpg is inferior to raw, just that the advantage is the lack of editing and pp, which is part and parcel of shooting raw.

^^^if the most you want is snapshots and phone cam quality picss with very limited post flexibility. "Rush job"

So basically what you're saying is that if you shoot jpegs the quality you can expect is similar to having snapshots from a cell phone? The only reason someone would shoot jpegs is because they want to rush the job and quality isn't important?

I can see you're leading right up to your canned, "I'm a perfect photographer and I get it right every time because I'm that damned good" spiel.