Similar: How do I choose which resolution (megapixel) and compression (normal, fine, superfine) to shoot in?

The Pentax K-5 has a JPEG quality setting called "Premium", denoted by four stars, which is not available in entry-level Pentax cameras. This setting extends beyond the "Best" (three stars) setting in my K-r which already offers very good image quality. Is there a significant advantage in using this setting, or is this not worth the larger file sizes (which can easily exceed 10 MB)? Should I choose RAW instead?

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I agree with Matt, but I usually skip the JPEG option and shoot only DNG with my K-5s since that gives me the best options. Since you can always convert in camera later, I don't see any reason to shoot only JPEG. \$\endgroup\$
    – Joanne C
    Commented Mar 25, 2012 at 21:49

2 Answers 2


I default to the three-star setting (out of four), but I always use RAW + JPEG so I can revisit the choice, because there are situations where yes, it makes a difference. Particularly, when there is strong contrast across color channels, like a tree with red leaves or flowers against a blue sky, JPEG compression artifacts can be surprisingly visible with the three-star setting.

For most cases, you won't be able to discern a difference in double-blind testing, but in the times when it's needed, it's nice to have.

And, if I get a shot I know is a keeper, I often go back in-camera and do a careful RAW conversion, tuning the white-balance and tone curve as well as saving in the top-quality JPEG. I don't mind paying the space price for my top few images, even if the image quality difference is imperceptible. This isn't as powerful or flexible as PC-based conversion, but I can do it on the subway or whereever and then use it instantly (rather than joining the backlog of hobby to-dos). If an all-RAW workflow is more your style, that's also a totally legitimate choice, and makes this meaningless — but if your approach is more like mine, it's a nice thing.

Here's some examples. There's no red leaves, so flowering trees will have to stand in. (The white in the background of the first sequence is bokeh, not clouds, by the way; it's the same white tree as in the second sequence, but from a different angle.)

Demonstration of Pentax's four JPEG quality levels, with red flowers Demonstration of Pentax's four JPEG quality levels, with white flowers

Each of the four samples is converted to JPEG in-camera from the same RAW file, and then cropped and saved as PNG for the demonstration here. These are 1:1 pixel-for-pixel views of the images from the camera.

I've done a number of things to exacerbate the JPEG compression artifacts. First, I cranked up the sliders on contrast and saturation to make the example more dramatic. And, I saved in 2 megapixel mode rather than using my camera's full resolution, which increases the relative size of the JPEG artifacts while hiding other types of artifacts. I didn't activate the noise reduction; maybe I should have even though these are at ISO 200.

It's pretty obvious that ★ is terrible, and there are definite artifacts at ★★. If you have a lower-model Pentax camera, I'd definitely stick to ★★★. The difference between ★★★ and ★★★★ is more subtle, but it is there if you look closely. The following images illustrate that, by showing the pixels at greater than their real size. (For the red, it's a detail of the above at 4×, and for the white it's the whole square doubled.)

200% view of crop red 200% view of crop white

You should be able to tell without me explaining that that's ★★★ on the left and ★★★★ on the right. I made the red one bigger because I wanted to draw attention to the posterization of the bokeh.

At this level, noise in the sky is apparent, and one could reasonably argue that the JPEG defects are literally lost in the noise, but the blocky artifacts are apparent in the sky immediately around the edges of the petals, and in the smoothness of the blurred white flowers behind. And if you go back to the 100% view and look closely, you'll see it now if you didn't before.

Here are the file sizes for the sample images at each level, with the averaged size reduction in %. These are the sizes of the whole image, not the crop. (Remember, these are two-megapixel images; scale up correspondingly for real-world use; I'd compare to the RAW file size or an uncompressed TIFF, except by starting by scaling down, I've made that pointless. The relative levels are useful in any case.)

Level    Red     White  
 ★        270k    280k    18%
 ★★       506k    497k    33%
 ★★★     1009k    937k    63%
 ★★★★    1537k   1530k   100%

To me, in special situations and for special photos, that's worth it (but you can see why I default to ★★★ most of the time).

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ For me, most shots are in JPEG, with a few select RAW images here and there. \$\endgroup\$
    – bwDraco
    Commented Mar 25, 2012 at 17:05
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Even in on my D3100, I can choose to convert a RAW to jpg in camera after the shot - surely the Pentax k-5 has this such that you can use your best instantly? \$\endgroup\$
    – rfusca
    Commented Mar 25, 2012 at 17:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ @rfusca, yes, in-camera RAW processing is supported in the K-5, with a few more options (including the Premium JPEG setting) than the K-r. \$\endgroup\$
    – bwDraco
    Commented Mar 25, 2012 at 17:09
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @rfusca: not sure what you're saying. The RAW+JPEG setting saves both file types instantly, but the JPEG uses whatever conversion settings are active. That's good for most cases, but for the special ones I often want to do something custom to that photo, so I use the after-the-fact conversion tools. \$\endgroup\$
    – mattdm
    Commented Mar 25, 2012 at 17:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ An example crop showing the difference would be great. \$\endgroup\$
    – Imre
    Commented Mar 25, 2012 at 19:36

This is very much personal preference.

JPEG to RAW can make a vast difference. But when comparing between top JPEG modes, for almost all situations the differences will be very small in practice.
Every now and then the very small difference may matter to you.
Weigh the relative merits and decide. Only you can tell.

Using RAW leaves all options open after the event. If you can tolerate the file sizes then RAW is best. RAW + JPEG gives you better in-camera post view and ease of quick processing after download. Factors which affect RAW choice include camera card capacity, write time, download time, storage, processing, possibly less in-camera image quality for post-view (depends on camera).

Do the differences matter to YOU?: If using only JPEG settings, find a scene that has high information content (detail, contrast, lighting levels) and take a series of photos at various JPEG settings and then "pixel peep" the end results. (I found that flower beds with many small and different flowers are quite good for this, but choose scenes that suit what you want to achieve.) Per comparison, crop selected parts of two nominally identical scenes and set up a "flicker comparator" to jump to and fro between the two - eg put the two in a folder by themselves and sequentially step between them so you get a two photo slide show. Manual step on lets you do this at speed of your choice. Step between the two repeatedly and compare differences, which will usually be minute.

If the differences you see matter to you more than the file size, use the best quality setting. If the differences are minute or irrelevant and you care more about storage capacity on disk or card and handling times, then use the lower setting. The "weighting" given to various factors varies by user. Of all the effects of file size, the one that probably matters most to me is the limits it places on the number of sequential photos I can take in a given time - affected by buffer size, card write speed and camera processing speed. "Bride walking up the aisle" or "first kiss", rally car yumping, surfer turning on a wave top, child running, pole vaulter at play, ... all are greatly affected by the ability to take bursts of multiple photos when needed. The sizeof RAW+JPEG compared to say JPEG fine / 3 stars / ... can be 2 or 3 times as many photos in a burst. In some case JPEG can be taken continually with RAW + JPEG only in short bursts. Some other quite different parameter may matter more to you. eg card capacity during a day out. (So far about 50 GB/day has been enough worst case for me. The latest cameras promise to up that :-().

  • \$\begingroup\$ I use a 16 GB SanDisk Extreme 30 MB/s card. The burst buffer depth of the K-5 is less affected by the file size and format setting than most cameras: the K-5 can shoot about 20 shots RAW+JPEG (Premium 16M) and about 30 shots JPEG only (Premium 16M), both at around 6-7 fps. \$\endgroup\$
    – bwDraco
    Commented Mar 25, 2012 at 22:17
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Note, also, that the K-5 has an in-camera image comparison feature, which allows one to zoom into and examine the details of two images side-by-side in playback mode. \$\endgroup\$
    – bwDraco
    Commented Mar 25, 2012 at 22:25

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.