Humor: I shoot JPG

This 1 minute video by photographer Taylor Jackson deserves your attention. Enjoy!

[via PetaPixel]
  • Nisani

    JPEG shooter here too.

    Reason being:
    -no one where I work gives a frick if I shoot JPEG or RAW, but ppl want the pictures as fast as possible, therefore JPEG
    -upload needs to happen fast, usually wirelessly, so JPEG
    -my camera buffer is limitless in JPEG, it’s restricted in RAW
    -I like turning on CA and vignetting correction in-camera, which is only possible in JPEG
    -the format I shoot it needs to be as archival proof and widely supported as humanly possible, so JPEG

  • Wade Marks

    With the advent of digital, people are taking more photos than ever before. Ironically, with cameras getting faster frame rates, people will take even more photos. People don’t have the time or inclination to do a whole lot of post processing on RAWs.

    Then there’s the reality that most photos will never be printed but seen on glowing screens of smartphones, tablets and personal computers.

    I have read a few other D5 shooters…very serious photogs, who know how to process RAWs very well…who say the same thing…that one of the biggest advantages of the D5 is its OOC JPEGs.

    I think you’ll continue to see an emphasis by camera makers on getting the OOC JPEGs to look really really good, because that’s a huge benefit to end users. It’s very liberating to be able to take a picture and have it come out just looking great, ready for use.

  • canonwatch

    I am shooting raw only when setting or light are difficult. For most pf the time the JPGs coming out from my 80D are good enough. Spent a lot of time for postprocessing in the past and now have enough. When shooting with my 5D2 I still shoot more raw than JPG. The JPG engine in Canon cameras has always been good and went even better with recent models.

    • Hetzer

      Same here. Still shooting RAW and JPEG at the moment, but increasingly finding the JPEG is of a quality that the work involved in getting anything better from the RAW just doesn’t seem worthwhile.

  • Wade Marks

    In a few years time Fro will have to get a new slogan 🙂

    Actually, as I alluded to in a previous post, I do think it will become a big thing for all camera companies to crate a secret sauce whereby their jpeg’s come out of camera already looking terrific and ready for sharing. If Nikon is already doing that with its flagship $6500 pro camera, that tells you that this is something very important.

    There may come a time when reviewers will judge cameras in part by the quality of the jpegs OOC. People may start to buy cameras based on jpeg engines.

  • DaveHenson

    Shooting raw and firtling with it is more about the ego of the photographer than genuine quality of image. The phrase ‘best result’ actually means very little – it is all about what the photographer wants not what anyone else would produce. I would also venture that this guff about shooting raw is a hangover from when cameras were 6-8MP with 2MP jepgs offering limited opportunity for processing. JPEGs are now 5-8 MP and the image is far more amenable to processing than it used to be.

    Raw has its place and I shoot raw as a safety net but most of my image outputs are bulk processed images and I think that is the case for a vast majority of photographers (even professionals). So why not let the camera do the ‘bulk processing’ if the lighting conditions are not challenging (or you can modify them).

    You can create profiles in Canon cameras that will produce virtually whatever jpeg output you want regards sharpening, saturation, contrast etc (you can probably do that in Nikon as well) so you can ‘shoot jpeg’ in almost any style you want.