HEIF vs JPG Quality / Colors SOOC

adrianh · February 11, 2024, 07:37:31 AM

I was contemplating if HEIF might have better colors or sharpness SOOC. I know that the RAW format is way more versatile but with great colors coming out of my X2D, I would like sometimes to share pictures fast but with the best quality possible. Are there any noticable differences between the HEIF and the JPG files on the X2D other than the HEIF files being way smaller?
Thanks,
Adrian

fcarucci · February 11, 2024, 01:02:42 PM

HEIF is 10bit per component, so, yes, better color accuracy. But you don't want to shoot either. Shoot RAW, edit and then export to whatever format you prefer.

boojum · February 11, 2024, 03:58:28 PM

I understand the majority says to shoot and edit in RAW. But as most transfer and printing is done from JPG I wonder. HEIC can be edited and exported as JPG. RAW can also be edited and exported as JPG. In each case the ultimate image is an 8 bit file. And there are JPG editors which use a "sidecar" to store edits so that the original is pristine not degraded. So if the end-up is in almost all cases going to be 8 bit JPG and there are editors which can do non-destructive JPG edits what is the advantage? The color profiles from LR can be imported and used in some of these editors, too.

I can see progressing from Phocus which speaks lovingly to the 3FR format and has the HB tweaks and lens corrections. And the resultant TIFF file can be tweaked, yes. But as the X2D does a pretty good JPG export, . . .

JCM-Photos · February 11, 2024, 09:55:12 PM

I guess for direct online share of images, 10 bit color depth doesn't bring any advantage

fcarucci · February 12, 2024, 06:45:09 AM

Quote from: boojum on February 11, 2024, 03:58:28 PMI understand the majority says to shoot and edit in RAW. But as most transfer and printing is done from JPG I wonder. HEIC can be edited and exported as JPG. RAW can also be edited and exported as JPG. In each case the ultimate image is an 8 bit file. And there are JPG editors which use a "sidecar" to store edits so that the original is pristine not degraded. So if the end-up is in almost all cases going to be 8 bit JPG and there are editors which can do non-destructive JPG edits what is the advantage? The color profiles from LR can be imported and used in some of these editors, too.

I can see progressing from Phocus which speaks lovingly to the 3FR format and has the HB tweaks and lens corrections. And the resultant TIFF file can be tweaked, yes. But as the X2D does a pretty good JPG export, . . .

Heif is a delivery format (like jpg), definitely not a source format and not an editing format either. You lose a lot of flexibility for literally no gain on the Hasselblad. It's like driving a Ferrari in first gear and with breaks. Just shoot raw.

There is an argument for shooting heif/jpg for fast events (sport) photography where you need immediate delivery. I'd say it's not a use case for the X2D.

adrianh · February 12, 2024, 08:41:17 AM

I agree that JPG/HEIF are delivery formats. I also agree that RAW has the most flexibility. However... if you don't need to change anything SOOC, why bother with RAW at all?
I shoot RAW + JPG, and if I don't need to recover shadows or lost highlights and the colors are accurate, I should be good to go without any added hassle. If I need to make more adjustments, I will use the RAW for that.
Would a HEIF in a nearly optimum picture have better dynamic range or visible advantages to a JPG? I am completely Apple centric, so HEIFs are supported natively. The space saving is not relevant to me. With more and more cameras supporting HEIFs natively, I think it would be interesting to see real world test results.

fcarucci · February 12, 2024, 09:34:13 AM

Quote from: adrianh on February 12, 2024, 08:41:17 AMI agree that JPG/HEIF are delivery formats. I also agree that RAW has the most flexibility. However... if you don't need to change anything SOOC, why bother with RAW at all?
I shoot RAW + JPG, and if I don't need to recover shadows or lost highlights and the colors are accurate, I should be good to go without any added hassle. If I need to make more adjustments, I will use the RAW for that.
Would a HEIF in a nearly optimum picture have better dynamic range or visible advantages to a JPG? I am completely Apple centric, so HEIFs are supported natively. The space saving is not relevant to me. With more and more cameras supporting HEIFs natively, I think it would be interesting to see real world test results.

What's your use case? What are you trying to save exactly by not shooting RAW? Few seconds to press the export button in order to get a worst looking result? Does your business rely on having to deliver a SOOC image within seconds directly from the camera?

I honestly do not see the use case here.

MGrayson · February 12, 2024, 03:49:35 PM

Try it. See if it's a good enough workflow.

tenmangu81 · February 12, 2024, 11:41:22 PM

You'll have better colours and results if you develop your pictures by yourself from a RAW. What I mean by "better" is that you can choose the result, whereas SOOC JPEG or HEIF is chosen by the camera.

Anyway, if you like your SOOC pictures, then, IMHO, you won't get significantly better results using HEIF rather than JPEG.

adrianh · February 12, 2024, 11:43:47 PM

The professional workflow is RAW based, but for personal stuff, travel and family&friends I'd rather have something plug and play, import and share. I just happen to like more picking up the Hassi than my Sonys for private stuff and travel.
I'll do some tests myself as suggested as I only found some contradictory information on the net.

fcarucci · February 13, 2024, 05:00:37 AM

For personal stuff, travel and family&friend you can have an even more plug and play experience by... using your phone.

boojum · February 13, 2024, 11:36:41 AM

Quote from: tenmangu81 on February 12, 2024, 11:41:22 PMYou'll have better colours and results if you develop your pictures by yourself from a RAW. What I mean by "better" is that you can choose the result, whereas SOOC JPEG or HEIF is chosen by the camera.

Anyway, if you like your SOOC pictures, then, IMHO, you won't get significantly better results using HEIF rather than JPEG.

Here is the nubbin. Who knows better how to correct/enhance the photo, you or the engineers who built the camera and lens? Do you trust the AI, virtual or real, more than your own skills or less? Is it ego or actual skill?

I have had good luck with SOOC JPG. Am I not as fussy or am I more realistic about what is achievable or necessary? Granted I am a casual amateur shooter not a product or model studio shooter so my needs and goals are different. I do not think that "shoot RAW" is an iron bound rule. And in editing there can be a tendency to change reality into a staged and false representation of what was actually before the camera. As in RE editing, when the edits are obvious they are too much. Distortion of light source(s) is an obvious failing in editing.

Just my rambling thoughts. It's what you get for two cents. ;o)

fcarucci · February 13, 2024, 05:48:40 PM

QuoteHere is the nubbin. Who knows better how to correct/enhance the photo, you or the engineers who built the camera and lens? Do you trust the AI, virtual or real, more than your own skills or less? Is it ego or actual skill?

Me. By far. There's no way an engineer knows my esthetics, the message I'm trying to convey and the mood driving the editing choices of any of my photos. That's why I'm not letting an engineer develop my images. For _my_ images, _my_ choices are better.

Then we can start arguing about what "reality" is and what it means to "change reality", because there's not such a thing as objectively infinitely precisely measured reality. So the whole concept at the basis of the critique against photographers "changing reality" is baseless. Photography is by definition an interpretation of reality measured through a medium.

tenmangu81 · February 13, 2024, 11:52:24 PM

Quote from: boojum on February 13, 2024, 11:36:41 AM
Quote from: tenmangu81 on February 12, 2024, 11:41:22 PMYou'll have better colours and results if you develop your pictures by yourself from a RAW. What I mean by "better" is that you can choose the result, whereas SOOC JPEG or HEIF is chosen by the camera.

Anyway, if you like your SOOC pictures, then, IMHO, you won't get significantly better results using HEIF rather than JPEG.

Here is the nubbin. Who knows better how to correct/enhance the photo, you or the engineers who built the camera and lens? Do you trust the AI, virtual or real, more than your own skills or less? Is it ego or actual skill?

I have developed and enlarged films for years before switching to digital. In my opinion, at this time, development and enlargement were as important to photography as shooting, and today, with digital cameras, post-processing is as important as shooting. But it's me, and YMMV. I perfectly understand that other people could shoot JPEG or using smartphones. There are very good smartphone photographers.
There are wonderful pieces of music by Mozart, Beethoven,... The orchestra and its dirigent can make them awful or wonderful.

MGrayson · February 14, 2024, 03:04:26 AM

Buy a postcard. Obviously the professional who took and processed the postcard is much better than you are. I wouldn't even bring a camera to Yosemite. Ansel Adams posters are at a level I can never hope to achieve.

You don't have to be a photographer to have beautiful pictures any more than you need to be a pianist to listen to Beethoven Sonatas. If you don't want to play the piano, listen to recordings. No shame in that.

I am a photographer and a pianist because I *want* to do those things myself. Not because I expect to be better than Irving Penn or Sergei Rachmaninoff.