Didn't see a specific thread on it, so thought it was worth discussing.
My main question is anybody actually using it happily?
I experimented with it and my takeaways are:
1) It does give notably more push-around room than a jpeg and at similar stored file size, +2
2) The work required to get it into a jpeg so it can be posted is literally the same as if I start with a raw, -2
3) It does not have the push room or latitude of a raw, -1
4) It isn't widely accepted (yet?) except in a few raw processors like LRc or ACR. -2
My conclusion is it simply isn't worth it, at least yet. If and when it is ever directly editable and upload-able to most websites, I will take another look. For me for now, I stick to raw...
I use darktable which doesn't (generally) provide a starting point that is based on whatever film simulation was used. For that reason I've experimented with HEIF, but only in situations where I get it as close to as I want it in camera. But then like you say that means it's still extra work to get the final JPEG, so is it really worth it? Probably not. Besides, I tend to always edit my photos anyway (unless I'm shooting in Acros in which case I'm usually happy with the SOOC results and can just use JPEG in the first place).
Since I rarely (essentially never) need to upload image directly from the camera, but instead run them though my ACR/Photoshop workflow in post, I don’t see the advantage in it for me at this point.
That could change in the future if it reliably replaces jpg on the web, but I don’t think we’re there yet.
Jack Flesher wrote:
Didn't see a specific thread on it, so thought it was worth discussing.
My main question is anybody actually using it happily?
I experimented with it and my takeaways are:
1) It does give notably more push-around room than a jpeg and at similar stored file size, +2
2) The work required to get it into a jpeg so it can be posted is literally the same as if I start with a raw, -2
3) It does not have the push room or latitude of a raw, -1
4) It isn't widely accepted (yet?) except in a few raw processors like LRc or ACR. -2
My conclusion is it simply isn't worth it, at least yet. If and when it is ever directly editable and upload-able to most websites, I will take another look. For me for now, I stick to raw... ...Show more →
In a discussion on a different board jpeg2000 got mentioned. Literally 25 years people corrected issues with jpegs!!
I think a platform like Fuji, having film sims, could be excellent. The major software doesn't hold on to the in camera film sims afaik. It takes less space and If people decided to edit later heif is better
Probably not that hard to convert heif -> jpeg and most of my internet posts (on here anyway) I did a proper sharpen & resize. Granted doing that on raw may not be much different. It's time to move up from jpeg though
Believe it or not, not everyone uses Apple products. There has actually been some recent forward momentum with JPEG XL: it's now the preferred image format for PDF files. Likely because of this decision, Google appears to be reversing their removal of JPEG XL support from Chromium/Chrome.
Open standards don't always win, but I'm hoping this one will.
mivadep wrote:
Believe it or not, not everyone uses Apple products. There has actually been some recent forward momentum with JPEG XL: it's now the preferred image format for PDF files. Likely because of this decision, Google appears to be reversing their removal of JPEG XL support from Chromium/Chrome.
Open standards don't always win, but I'm hoping this one will.
Ah, interesting. If Google is truly re-igniting, then JPEG-XL is the likely winner.
Jack Flesher wrote:
Didn't see a specific thread on it, so thought it was worth discussing.
My main question is anybody actually using it happily?
I experimented with it and my takeaways are:
1) It does give notably more push-around room than a jpeg and at similar stored file size, +2
2) The work required to get it into a jpeg so it can be posted is literally the same as if I start with a raw, -2
3) It does not have the push room or latitude of a raw, -1
4) It isn't widely accepted (yet?) except in a few raw processors like LRc or ACR. -2
My conclusion is it simply isn't worth it, at least yet. If and when it is ever directly editable and upload-able to most websites, I will take another look. For me for now, I stick to raw... ...Show more →
If you used LR or ACR, would it register a 0, or a +2...?
