Reliance on Manufacturer JPEG Styles Too Much Is a Crutch

[agentlossing]

I was perusing this article today, which is pretty alright, though it's very basic and hasn't told me anything I haven't seen before: Use the camera in your brain to master street photography I do like Valerie Jardin moderately well, I just sometimes think her vision is a bit samey for me. I can stand to learn a lot from her enthusiastic and prolific work habits though.

But what really got to me was this quote, in the "Post-Production" section of the article:

Suffice to say, she finds photo processing tools like Adobe's Lightroom to be a crutch. "I have the five-second rule. If a picture takes more than five seconds, it's gone. I don't even shoot RAW anymore," Jardin told me. "First, because I've been shooting Fujifilm and I can't replicate their film simulations with Adobe [Lightroom]. And it's really part of the creative process to make the decision in camera. I'm going to make the decision: It's going to be in Acros or in classic Chrome if it's in color. And both of those decisions I make before I press the shutter.

I find this to be ridiculous, on two levels. For one, shooting RAW is always worth it, even if you like in-camera results, because modern cameras let you process a JPEG from a RAW file with more control over the conversion in many respects. Limiting yourself to the camera's default interpretation of the scene in a lossy JPEG is just dumb.

But more so, calling Lightroom a crutch while simultaneously touting Fuji film simulations is a weird sort of elitist that I've been hearing more and more from Fuji users. Newsflash, Fuji colors get boring when everyone uses them as if they are a creative statement! They're so popular now that they don't say anything. So I say, Fuji Colors are a crutch! Crutches are for when you can't stand on your own; standing on your own in photographic terms means knowing how to make good images. Reliance on samey manufacturer JPEG styles is only meaningful if you aren't shooting the same style as everybody else.

Now, I admit that I frequently like manufacturer JPEG styles, particularly Panasonic L. Monochrome and Ricoh's Positive Film. But there are definitely times when I can't get the look I want for a particular image from the in-camera styles, and other times that I want to use the manufacturer style, but want to change some default parameters. Not capturing RAW would seriously interfere with that.

Thoughts?

 

[wjiang]

Just different perspectives.

I suspect it's partially because she's a street photographer, so to her the only creative aspect of photography is prior to and the moment of pressing the shutter. To her, PP is not part of the creative process - and that's true, for her and many others.

Others, like myself, consider PP and even print layout to be part of the creative process.

Calling anything a crutch in either case is oversimplifying. You could say that AF and AE are also crutches, why are we not using MF and manual exposure. ISO is a crutch, why are we not using creative lighting to light the subject or using a tripod to get a long enough exposure. Zoom lenses are a crutch, why are we not using the correct focal length prime in the first place. Panorama stitching is a crutch, why are we not using an UWA (ignoring the blatant issue that a panorama is a cylindrical projection, not rectilinear, and each projection has their own merits). The list is too long...

 

[Darin Berdinka]

She’s definitely saving herself from a lot of time staring at a screen though.

 

[Bidkev]

I've always shot RAW and although my PP skills are limited I would like to think that they are better than the in camera processing when shooting jpg. I think that I'm already processing when I compose/press the shutter as I tend to think (at that moment in time) as to what I can do with the image later in PP. Even more so since switching formats thereby limiting my DR as to previous formats.

My "crutch" is my vision, not necessarily as to what I see through the VF but how I see through the VF ....................what may not look so good through the VF, may look ok in my "mind's eye" and later look more like I envisioned via PP (IYKWIM?) First looks on opening image may not be self pleasing, but with a bit of PP play?...........................I guess a simplification would be that ACR provides a better Doctor's surgery for sickly patients than does in camera processing

I have a penf and have never had an inclination to use the creative dial (yet) I have Topaz Labs and Nik collection and they provide any creativity I require, especially silver efex pro for mono

 

[Bidkev]

She’s definitely saving herself from a lot of time staring at a screen though.

Perhaps she's missing out? For myself, there's a tremendous amount of satisfaction in PP'ing and the fact that there's software that can help me creatively in that regards, means that I shoot more and have more keepers that I otherwise would have were I totally ignorant of PP'ing

 

[demiro]

I think saying "crutch" is a bit more provocative than necessary. Relying on PP to the point where you are lazy and don't get the most out of the shot when you shoot it is a thing. I know I've done it. But I think you can say that about many things. No reason to be pejorative about LR.

 

[Bidkev]

I think saying "crutch" is a bit more provocative than necessary. Relying on PP to the point where you are lazy and don't get the most out of the shot when you shoot it is a thing. I know I've done it. But I think you can say that about many things. No reason to be pejorative about LR.

I don't know though? Isn't that "reliance" just another "skill factor"? Isn't it a personal asset in your creative library that you know that you can sort it later and a credit to your vision, no different than knowing the limitation of film, push/pull, and darkroom dodge/burn? Taking a shot in bright sunlight when you can clearly see burned highlights in the viewfinder and playing with exp comp doesn't do much but you take the shot anyway hoping/knowing that you can pull it off in PP later and if you do, is the result any less worthy than a minimally processed image taken in ideal conditions with good DR?

 

[Jonathan F/2]

I use a variety of cameras systems, sensor formats and lenses. The one strength of raw is that it can bring all those images into my own consistent vision regardless of what camera I used. I can argue that relying solely on jpegs from one camera brand is incredibly narrow and stifling.

I can shoot M43, 1" sensor, FF, APS-C and at the end of processing images from various formats, they will all have my signature look.

 

[agentlossing]

Calling anything a crutch in either case is oversimplifying. You could say that AF and AE are also crutches, why are we not using MF and manual exposure. ISO is a crutch, why are we not using creative lighting to light the subject or using a tripod to get a long enough exposure. Zoom lenses are a crutch, why are we not using the correct focal length prime in the first place. Panorama stitching is a crutch, why are we not using an UWA (ignoring the blatant issue that a panorama is a cylindrical projection, not rectilinear, and each projection has their own merits). The list is too long...

Totally get your point here, and I will say I think the writer of the Engadget piece, not Valerie, picked the word "crutch." But I do find it ironic that she is touting Fuji colors as much as she has (I've listened to her podcasts for a long time, she does sing the praises of Fuji a lot) while simultaneously not seeming to realize that she would need PP to emulate those results if she wasn't using the camera she is using. So, is PP bad, and any manufacturer's JPEGs good, or are Fuji's results good and if you don't get those you should PP until you do? Confusing stance to take.

 

[CWRailman]

First off, while I have watched a few of her Videos and do like some of Valerie's perspectives on a forum of photography I have never been good at however, it should be noted that in the field of street photography she is relatively new. In fact in one of her videos from about four years ago she discusses her conversion from either Nikon or Canon with the usual array of lenses and the type of photography in which she was employed to the Fuji X100 series. In addition while I also like Fuji, the X100 series she uses for street photography is very cliché as many "want to be street photographers" think that just picking up that camera makes them a street photographer. (DISCLAIMER Among my photographic tool box I also have a X100s and have previous published my experience with a X100 in my Blog entitled the "Experiment".)

While I am not sure what she means about Lightroom being a crutch, I believe she might be referencing the manner in which many photographers think of Lightroom as a cure for bad photographic technique on their part. No matter what bad decisions they make, or lack of, at the time of the shoot they can fix it in Lightroom. Some even come right out and say so. If that is what she meant then there is enough evidence to support that statement. However, as more and more professionals are shooting .jpeg and many magazines are taking slices of video for their media presentations while shooting RAW is not dead, it is not the mode relied upon by those who have to get their product to print or media in a timely manner. As far as the Fuji colors, I know many non Fuji shooters don't like having those colors constantly brought up for discussion but they have caused other manufactures to take a serious look at what they are offering in their .jpeg and in camera processing and some have stepped up their game in order to compete.

 

[agentlossing]

As far as the Fuji colors, I know many non Fuji shooters don't like having those colors constantly brought up for discussion but they have caused other manufactures to take a serious look at what they are offering in their .jpeg and in camera processing and some have stepped up their game in order to compete.

I think it's definitely true that the success Fuji has had in that area has spurred manufacturers towards more competitive JPEG styles, although you might say the industry was already headed in that direction, and since Olympus colors predate the X-Trans sensors and Fuji's new wave of success, you can't claim Fuji started this trend.

However, part of my thinking is that Fuji colors are pretty boring now. Early on, it was a "creative choice" to rely on the new high-quality JPEG files out of the early Fuji cameras, but there are just so many people now that use Fuji cameras (in the wannabe street photographer crowd and elsewhere) that I am personally starting to find classic chrome, for one, to be a rather suffocating "look" since I see so many people relying on it. That's the point where, referencing back to the title of the thread, I think people are using the JPEG 'movement' for lack of a better word as a crutch. It's as if everyone was using the same one or two film stocks, but having all their rolls developed in the same automat processing machine with no variation in finishing and printing!

 

[CWRailman]

I think it's definitely true that the success Fuji has had in that area has spurred manufacturers towards more competitive JPEG styles, although you might say the industry was already headed in that direction, and since Olympus colors predate the X-Trans sensors and Fuji's new wave of success, you can't claim Fuji started this trend.

However, part of my thinking is that Fuji colors are pretty boring now. Early on, it was a "creative choice" to rely on the new high-quality JPEG files out of the early Fuji cameras, but there are just so many people now that use Fuji cameras (in the wannabe street photographer crowd and elsewhere) that I am personally starting to find classic chrome, for one, to be a rather suffocating "look" since I see so many people relying on it. That's the point where, referencing back to the title of the thread, I think people are using the JPEG 'movement' for lack of a better word as a crutch. It's as if everyone was using the same one or two film stocks, but having all their rolls developed in the same automat processing machine with no variation in finishing and printing!

You need to understand that Fuji colors predate anything Olympus did with sensors by about forty years as the Fuji colors are based on the colors of their film based products and processing methods. Olympus had no such background in the color research and development arena and nobody was jumping up and down saying they wanted their digital cameras to produce the same colors as Olympus film cameras. In addition as an early Olympus shooter going back to the C2100, I recall no reviews where anybody raved about Olympus colors. At the time Nikon was the leader in the color production arena.

As photography in general attempts to keep up with the instant gratification now so prevalent in the world, at the same time that the printing of images is almost a non existent art, color options available in camera are of primary interest to photographers. While I also enjoy messing with post processing, like I said before, those who make a serious living at photography are less likely to spend time in post processing. You can also do a search of threads here in this forum where people have tried to get certain sensors to emulate the colors out of the Fuji sensors and it is not just here. I have seen the same on other forums. If you are "pretty bored" by Fuji colors you must get absolutely crazy when someone hands you green money which, at least here in the US, is always green.

 

[jimr.pdx]

I always customize my jpeg settings (gentle saturation, lower contrast and less NR) in every camera. This reduces the work I need to do for most of my images and often is sufficient for my liking. For big events I shoot raw and jpeg without hesitation. If life becomes more interesting again I'll shoot more raw - but for now when my time is needed elsewhere, the lessened workload is worth it.

 

[agentlossing]

You need to understand that Fuji colors predate anything Olympus did with sensors by about forty years as the Fuji colors are based on the colors of their film based products and processing methods. Olympus had no such background in the color research and development arena and nobody was jumping up and down saying they wanted their digital cameras to produce the same colors as Olympus film cameras. In addition as an early Olympus shooter going back to the C2100, I recall no reviews where anybody raved about Olympus colors. At the time Nikon was the leader in the color production arena

You can't really compare film emulsions to JPEG colors, though, and didn't Fuji produce plenty of consumer digital cameras before the X-Trans sensor and the colors that garnered so much praise? Where were those colors then, if it was somehow a heritage that seamlessly transitioned from film to digital?

I don't have enough experience to say for sure where Olympus was in the early days, but my ancient 2MP point and shoot I got in '02 or '03 produced nice punchy colors that I would say resembled later Oly colors pretty well, especially in the saturated blues and greens.

those who make a serious living at photography are less likely to spend time in post processing.

Huh? I doubt this.

 

[bahamot]

I consider post processing is part of photography's fun.

 

[CWRailman]

You can't really compare film emulsions to JPEG colors, though, and didn't Fuji produce plenty of consumer digital cameras before the X-Trans sensor and the colors that garnered so much praise? Where were those colors then, if it was somehow a heritage that seamlessly transitioned from film to digital?.

Yes Fuji did produce cameras before the X-Trans sensor and their attempts to emulate their film colors is what led to development of the XTrans sensor. (BTW this also coincides with a change in Fuji upper management and realization that if the company continued on the path it was on they would lose market share. As discussed in the book "Innovating Out of Crisis" by Shigetaka Komori, Chairman and CEO of Fujifilm) Going back to film days, Fuji colors always had a very slight green cast to them. This was quite unlike the blue cast of Ektachrome film or the reddish/yellow cast of Kodachrome (which was my personal favorite). In order to move the color of a sensor more toward those green tones so popular with their film Fuji had to increase the number of green sites on their sensor hence the Xtrans sensor pattern and hence the reason that try as they might, other sensors cannot be made to duplicate the Fuji colors.

As far as pro's using JPEG, my statement is based on statements on Youtube and on the Internet from professionals who are busy and actually making money with their photography. Not some self proclaimed "pro" who is married to someone of wealth or has to supplement his income from photography by flipping hamburgers at the local fast food franchise or depends on income from Youtube vlogs.

 

[agentlossing]

Right, the point I was making is that Fuji produced digital cameras for a long time before some design team decided to try and design an innovative sensor that replicated Fuji's film stocks (I do like Superia 400 a lot), whereas Olympus actually got top marks for their JPEG colors well before that with Four Thirds and M4/3 cameras.

I guess I'd be interested in learning what you mean by professional, because my impression is that most commercial and fine art photographers these days still use Photoshop, Lightroom and the rest, while only those "professionals" who are self-styled teachers rather than those whose income depends on putting out photographs for clients, are the ones who are championing JPEGs.

 

[Deleted member 20897]

You can't really compare film emulsions to JPEG colors, though, and didn't Fuji produce plenty of consumer digital cameras before the X-Trans sensor and the colors that garnered so much praise? Where were those colors then, if it was somehow a heritage that seamlessly transitioned from film to digital?

I don't have enough experience to say for sure where Olympus was in the early days, but my ancient 2MP point and shoot I got in '02 or '03 produced nice punchy colors that I would say resembled later Oly colors pretty well, especially in the saturated blues and greens.


Huh? I doubt this.

Back when Fuji made Nikon f-mount DSLRs, one of the things they were known for was their color response and JPGs. Just look at the articles and posts about the S1/S2/S3 Pro series of cameras. That was back in 2000-2005.

I often shoot JPG and do so gladly as to help speed up my post processing times. Clients do not know the difference, and they do not care. I always have a function button setup on all my cameras that allow me to jump into RAW if the situation demands it.

I think the problem with articles like this is that we no longer have "photographers" anymore. We have "influencers", "YouTubers", "Creatives". All they want is to make video content and make money by being argumentative with their clickbait like articles. There are very few true content providers out there that are actual working professionals that have great experience, knowledge and the ability to impart wisdom without having to be outrageous.

 

[agentlossing]

I think the problem with articles like this is that we no longer have "photographers" anymore. We have "influencers", "YouTubers", "Creatives". All they want is to make video content and make money by being argumentative with their clickbait like articles. There are very few true content providers out there that are actual working professionals that have great experience, knowledge and the ability to impart wisdom without having to be outrageous.

Is that ever the truth! It seems like the unfortunate evolution of the decline of the photo industry is that the main money-maker for photographers today is teaching it. Which results in a lot of really terrible "content" because not everyone is cut out to teach or to provide a constant stream of actually useful information. That is why I prefer a pure old-style photo blog with the photographer's personal experiences to any 'educational' piece. But the former is hard to find now.

 

[fader]

I was once an ardent disciple in the Church of Provia. I didn't think it was a crutch. I just didn't have my own darkroom (or the room for one) or ability to make prints. Big difference compared to now.

I think the problem with articles like this is that we no longer have "photographers" anymore. We have "influencers", "YouTubers", "Creatives". All they want is to make video content and make money by being argumentative with their clickbait like articles. There are very few true content providers out there that are actual working professionals that have great experience, knowledge and the ability to impart wisdom without having to be outrageous.

I agree - but I think we have to take a step back and not be so cynical. The market for print photography has evaporated, film or digital. If someone wants to support themselves in the era of YouTube they are forced to emulate TV from the 60's-80's and must have a strong multi-disciplinary skillset. Getting good B-Roll, color grading video, story boarding, producing, and hyper-targeting niche audiences are all requirements.

Sean Tucker is a good example. His piece on portraits is one of the best short films I've ever seen. It's a poignant, highly personal journey for him and the way he crafts these pieces is better than 70% of the !@#$ on Netflix right now. It's honestly a very moving piece and extremely well done.

I have no doubts that Tucker could've been the next Avedon, but when a thousand other people are armed with the same talent and the same reach to an immediate audience, you've really got to up your game if you want to make a living by it.