Encouragement to shoot raw

[Golem]

Yes you can edit a JPEG and there's a lot you can do to improve a JPEG however you do not have all the same editing capabilities that are available working with raw files. That's not the case.

Load a JPEG into Adobe Camera Raw and increase the color temp value by 450 degrees K. You can't and it does matter.
You can't alter the input profile used to create a JPEG.
You can't alter the demosaicing algorithm used to create the JPEG.
You can't alter the lens distortion corrections used to create the JPEG.
You can't undo processes poorly applied when the JPEG was created.

You presented an impressive example of how access to a raw file can salvage a failed exposure. Consider that, working with most modern cameras, given access to a raw file and a good exposure for the camera JPEG I can always create from the raw file a final image with superior technical IQ than the JPEG created by the camera. There's a reason for this:

The software embedded in the camera processor that creates the camera JPEG is compromised. Over the years the engineers have worked very hard to minimize that compromise and to their credit they've done well, but ultimately they remain stuck between the classic rock and hard place. Every camera holds a gun to their head with the threat that at any time the user may press down the shutter release and hold it down. The expectation then is the camera will take a burst of photos very quickly. The camera's embedded JPEG processor has to keep up. To do that the engineers cut corners in the JPEG processing and it shows in that final image. They have no choice.

No camera manufacturer has yet attempted to offer a model camera advertised as; "get better quality SOOC JPEGs if you don't need to shoot X frames per second."

Here's an example. The OP has a Nikon D3500. I went to DPReview and the sample photos for the D3500 and selected an image that offered a low-light challenge: Nikon D3500 sample gallery ISO was raised to 2800.

The camera JPEG processing is pretty awful. I processed the raw file using DXO PL-6. Here's a link to that processed image at full res: d3500-raw.jpg

Below is a 100% crop comparing the two. I'm not using highly refined processing skills that took me years to learn. I'm just using better software. The D3500 isn't a poor camera it's typical. I can show you the same from my Z7. Could Nikon put better software into their cameras? Of course they can but that will come at a price they can't afford. The D3500 is rated at an impressive 5 frames per second continuous shooting. They'll have to give up.


View attachment 268078

Fuji has tried to address this problem recently and I'm not sure they're having much success. Here's a recent question that popped up at DPReview: X-H2: Question about clarity setting: Fujifilm X System / SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review about the new X-H2 slowing down when the JPEG clarity setting is used. Fuji added a couple JPEG features to their newest cameras and then put warning notices in the manual that using those features will slow the processor down. Users aren't seeing the notices in the manual they just think their cameras aren't working -- rock and a hard place.

To see notices in the user manual one must read the manual. Since reading the manual is actually more work than editing a raw file the typical SOOC shooter is doing neither.

 

[smoke665]

This in my opinion is where many folks go astray. The temptation or intention is to enhance the natural beauty of that wall. But the sun does not shine at two angles at once. This pops into my view quickly.

You see this happen in exterior portrait photography with supplemental lighting frequently. Sun backlighting an overly brite face, subject shadow falling in the same direction as the sun, or variances in color temperature when mixing ambient and artificial light, in both cases it's easy to get tunnel vision concentrating on one area and forgetting about the other. Unfortunately the eye will unconsciously snap to the smallest incongruity in an image.

In your other comment you mention the use of an older uncalibrated monitor. When I made the transition from film to digital, I had no clue as to how different an image would be when viewed on my monitor, vs someone else. I erroneously assumed I could process by eye on any old monitor and everyone else would see my creation as I was seeing it. Not only was I dealing with equipment issues, but prior to cataract surgery my whites were yellow tinted. Now I calibrate every month, (unless it's a casual) use Color Checker to tone map, verify luminosity values by the numbers, and embed my profile in the image.

 

[AlanKlein]

Yep, and I don't agree that it's too bright.

Maybe differences in our monitors account for the way we each see it.

You see this happen in exterior portrait photography with supplemental lighting frequently. Sun backlighting an overly brite face, subject shadow falling in the same direction as the sun, or variances in color temperature when mixing ambient and artificial light, in both cases it's easy to get tunnel vision concentrating on one area and forgetting about the other. Unfortunately the eye will unconsciously snap to the smallest incongruity in an image.

In your other comment you mention the use of an older uncalibrated monitor. When I made the transition from film to digital, I had no clue as to how different an image would be when viewed on my monitor, vs someone else. I erroneously assumed I could process by eye on any old monitor and everyone else would see my creation as I was seeing it. Not only was I dealing with equipment issues, but prior to cataract surgery my whites were yellow tinted. Now I calibrate every month, (unless it's a casual) use Color Checker to tone map, verify luminosity values by the numbers, and embed my profile in the image.

Although my monitor is calibrated, other monitors on the web may not be. Colors, contrast, brightness, etc can look different because of calibration or lack thereof. Plus ambient lighting conditions can also affect how we see the relative brightness of screens, even between two calibrated monitors.

 

[smoke665]

@AlanKlein DING, DING DING and we have a winner! All the things mentioned used to drive me crazy, but there's more. I would send beautiful images (on my calibrated monitor) to the printer, and get back prints that didn't match. I tried paying extra for color calibration which was better but still not what I was seeing in my original. That's when I started soft proofing images going to the printer using the ICC profile supplied by the lab for the product ordered. The first time I soft proofed it looked horrible on my screen, especially in the over gamut areas, but when the print came back it was a match to my vision.

 

[21limited]

These days all my images are for a 4k 55” TV. I have no issues going from post processing to display. I used to print my own images in my craft show days, it’s an art in itself. One I now avoid, however, when we do print, once or twice a year, I can’t say I’ve noticed any images I thought were spoiled. But then, I odn’t care if it looks exactly like the original, as long as it looks as good or better than the original.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

I would like to have a nickel for all the hours I spent getting the perfect B&W picture on my monitor, only to have my printer's output pale in comparison. I even loaded images onto a disc and had them "professionally" processed, but to no avail.

Finally, I realized that it was silly to expect an image from a backlit monitor, to look exactly like the same image viewed by reflected light from a print, or the same image from a different processing source. I was comparing different mediums. I might as well have been comparing a fine watercolor painting to an oil on canvas.

What really make this odd is, I usually judge a picture by its subject and what it is trying to tell me. The craftsmanship of the finish product is interesting, but a distance third.

I may run a print in Black and White and also in Sepia to see which was better. Occasionally, I will find that neither is better. They are just different.

So, it does not surprise me that we can consume 10 sections of opinions on Jpeg and Raw processing.

 

[21limited]

The black and white analogue process produces more contrast than inkjet printers.

 

[Ysarex]

The black and white analogue process produces more contrast than inkjet printers.

Actually it's the opposite. An inkjet print can achieve a greater DMAX than a traditional silver print -- got to use the right paper and inks and then blacker blacks = more contrast.

 

[smoke665]

Actually it's the opposite. An inkjet print can achieve a greater DMAX than a traditional silver print -- got to use the right paper and inks and then blacker blacks = more contrast.

But the half tone printing method used by inkjet printers, cannot fully replicate the tonal range of an analog prints, especially in the micro transitions. High-end inkjet printers, designed for fine art printing, can achieve better subtle tonal variations, with pigment-based inks and multiple shades of black ink, but still not fully equal a quality analog print. Especially when you consider the added loss of data that occurs during Demosaicing in a RAW file and the inevitable loss of data during conversion to a JPEG vs printing analog from a negative.

The term "contrast", is somewhat subjective. One of the complaints commonly heard on digital vs analog is digital is to sharp. Part of that I believe can be attributed to the difference in tonal gradation, creating sharper edge between same.

 

[Ysarex]

But the half tone printing method used by inkjet printers, cannot fully replicate the tonal range of an analog prints, especially in the micro transitions. High-end inkjet printers, designed for fine art printing, can achieve better subtle tonal variations, with pigment-based inks and multiple shades of black ink, but still not fully equal a quality analog print.

I don't agree. The best inkjet printers can equal the quality of an analog print. In fact often produce superior results because of superior control provided by processing software. There's a practical aspect involved; not only is it immensely easier and immensely more precise to apply local adjustments to a digital image as opposed to burning and dodging at an enlarger, but more overall can be done digitally. You're making a silver print with grade 2 paper but the image would really benefit from a grade 4 response in the lighter shadows. Trivial to do digitally.

Especially when you consider the added loss of data that occurs during Demosaicing in a RAW file and the inevitable loss of data during conversion to a JPEG vs printing analog from a negative.

JPEG doesn't have to be involved in the process at all. The option exists to use a monochrome sensor camera and more than equal the resolution of all but big sheets of film.

The term "contrast", is somewhat subjective.

In terms of a user's preference for tone response yes, but we can use measurement tools to check things like the brightness of paper white or DMAX and in those tests inkjet printers using the right inks and papers can clearly produce a greater contrast range black to white than silver prints.

One of the complaints commonly heard on digital vs analog is digital is to sharp.

Even after a raw file has suffered the loss due to demosaicing?

Part of that I believe can be attributed to the difference in tonal gradation, creating sharper edge between same.

 

[smoke665]

I don't agree. The best inkjet printers can equal the quality of an analog print. I

Wouldn't expect you to. LOL However in simple terms, a digital data file and a fim negative aren't the same in terms of information contained. While film might be non-linear in terms of response to light in the shadows and highlights the transition from one to the other contains a greater level of micro transition from one to another. In a digital file demosaicing algorithms use the spatial correlation of pixels to assume similar values within a small region of an image. Information between the pixels may or may not be exactly the same or may be discarded entirely. Not only does it show up in the micro transitions but is highly visible where you have sharp transitions on things like lettering or drawings. Digital images of these typically have a loss of resolution and edge artifacts.

In terms of a user's preference for tone response yes, but we can use measurement tools to check things like the brightness of paper white or DMAX and in those tests inkjet printers using the right inks and papers can clearly produce a greater contrast range black to white than silver prints.

Define your definition of contrast

 

[Ysarex]

Wouldn't expect you to. LOL However in simple terms, a digital data file and a fim negative aren't the same in terms of information contained. While film might be non-linear in terms of response to light in the shadows and highlights the transition from one to the other contains a greater level of micro transition from one to another. In a digital file demosaicing algorithms use the spatial correlation of pixels to assume similar values within a small region of an image. Information between the pixels may or may not be exactly the same or may be discarded entirely. Not only does it show up in the micro transitions but is highly visible where you have sharp transitions on things like lettering or drawings.

No, possibly visible when you view a print very inappropriately, otherwise not at all visible along with being user adjustable. Here's some lettering rendered two different ways by adjusting the demosaicing algorithm. One should never be looking at a print from so close that the difference I created would be a visible issue. You're talking about stuff that doesn't matter if you view a print normally and properly.

Digital images of these typically have a loss of resolution and edge artifacts.


Define your definition of contrast

The range of brightness from dark to light in an image and the difference in brightness between different parts of an image. Inkjet prints are capable of a greater range of dark to light than silver prints.

 

[AlanKlein]

@AlanKlein DING, DING DING and we have a winner! All the things mentioned used to drive me crazy, but there's more. I would send beautiful images (on my calibrated monitor) to the printer, and get back prints that didn't match. I tried paying extra for color calibration which was better but still not what I was seeing in my original. That's when I started soft proofing images going to the printer using the ICC profile supplied by the lab for the product ordered. The first time I soft proofed it looked horrible on my screen, especially in the over gamut areas, but when the print came back it was a match to my vision.

How do you know when the colors are right on the monitor if everything looks bad when you're soft proofing?

 

[smoke665]

possibly visible when you view a print very inappropriately, otherwise not at all

Micro transitions ARE what makes a portrait, especially those shot close, and the letter edges I was referring to are those used in graphic arts, not something shot from far away, 9 years as a newspaper publisher and commercial printer, so yes it makes a difference.

The range of brightness from dark to light in an image and the difference in brightness between different parts of an image. Inkjet prints are capable of a greater range of dark to light than silver prints.

Luminance is the objective, numerical measurement in lumens over a certain area, "Brightness" however is a a measure of the total amount of perceived light in an image. So comparison of the "contrast" based on visual observation to one person could vary considerably from one person to another.

 

[smoke665]

How do you know when the colors are right on the monitor if everything looks bad when you're soft proofing?

By watching the out of gamut indicators.