Of course not... :-) I didn't mean to imply the .jpg quality setting in the camera (although that would obviously have a bearing). I meant the color, contrast, lighting, etc., of the subject to be captured.
All I'm saying is that assuming all .jpgs are lossy, to any degree, and knowing that I don't necessarialy understand, nor can predict what the algorithm will do, I chose to shoot .tiffs, based on the fact that storage is relatively inexpensive. Tom C. >From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> >To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <pdml@pdml.net> >Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode >Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:32:17 -0400 > > >it all depends on the photo and the .jpg quality one is saving at. > >I've never shot JPEG at anything but the highest quality level. > >Kenneth Waller > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode > > > >I have but it all depends on the photo and the .jpg quality one is saving > > at. I must admit I saw it really fast when using a Sony Mavica. I > > preferred > > .tiffs over .jpgs for this reason and because by their nature .jpgs are > > lossy compression. I felt I was truly getting a '1st gen' image with > > .tiffs, where with .jpgs out of camera, I already had an image that may > > not > > contain everything that was shot. > > > > This may be a little simplistic or a splitting of hairs, but it made >sense > > to me. > > > > > > Tom C. > > > > > > > > > > > >>From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> > >>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <pdml@pdml.net> > >>Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode > >>Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:09:28 -0400 > >> > >> > No quality losses when saving the first JPEG after editing. > >> > >>I guess I knew that but haven't observed the difference. Has anybody? > >> > >>Kenneth Waller > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode > >> > >> > >> > No quality losses when saving the first JPEG after editing. > >> > > >> > -Adam > >> > > >> > > >> > Kenneth Waller wrote: > >> >> I guess I don't see the advantage of shooting TIFF over highest > >> >> quality > >> >> JPEG. What's to be gained? > >> >> > >> >> Kenneth Waller > >> >> > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> >> From: "Don Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >> Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> I have yet to shoot a single picture in JPG. I've had the camera >since > >> >> last year and started shooting TIFF because I had to learn how to >use > >> >> the camera and hadn't a clue about handling RAW files anyway. I had > >>only > >> >> one card for months -- a 512 Kingston and it was enough. But I work > >> >> mainly indoors and can unload a card without trouble. I did venture > >> >> out > >> >> with the small card once or twice and didn't have trouble. I now >have > >> >> three cards ) 1/2, 1 and 2 gig) and don't really need so many. But > >> >> like > >> >> all electronic things they can fail, so having several is good > >>planning. > >> >> I shoot only RAW now and am perfectly satisfied with the results. > >> >> > >> >> Don W > >> >> > >> >> Shel Belinkoff wrote: > >> >> > >> >>>I really don't see getting more photos on a card as an issue. That > >>would > >> >>>be the least of my concerns. 2GB of space will net about 185 pics in > >>RAW > >> >>>using the DS - that's certainly a fair number of pics for a day. >Cards > >> >>>are > >> >>>cheap now - a 1gb card can be purchased for less than the cost of a > >>roll > >> >>>of > >> >>>film and processing with prints. After all, if I'm going to do > >> >>>photography, > >> >>>I'd want the best possible results, and if shooting raw will provide > >> >>>that, > >> >>>then raw it is. If JPEG will provide appropriate quality, then > >> >>>there's > >> >>>nothing wrong with shooting in that format. > >> >>> > >> >>>Perhaps it's just me being irksome, but it seems odd that you'd go >out > >>to > >> >>>make photographs and just dump what could be good pictures because >you > >> >>>don't want to take the time to learn a few simple techniques to >shoot > >>in > >> >>>a > >> >>>manner that's appropriate to the scene and situation. Why waste >your > >> >>>time > >> >>>making photos then? You took the time to learn how to use film > >> >>>cameras > >> >>>appropriately, learned what film choices to make, sought out good >labs > >> >>>and > >> >>>processing ... > >> >>> > >> >>>Are you really "using up" the room on your card? The files get >dumped > >> >>>into > >> >>>the computer at some point, and the space is reusable. Of course, >if > >> >>>you're using a single card with 512mb or less space, well, maybe >your > >> >>>point > >> >>>has merit. > >> >>> > >> >>>Shel > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>>>And another is that you can get more photos on a card :) > >> >>>> > >> >>>>I did a bit of RAW shooting but 95% of the time I'm shooting > >> >>>>jpg and happily so. > >> >>>>IF I don't see what I like in my jpgs I just dump 'em.. I > >> >>>>think I'm probably not > >> >>>>really understanding the process well enough to make it work > >> >>>>for me. But if the > >> >>>>light is right, and you could have nailed it with a slide, > >> >>>>the extra room you > >> >>>>are using up on your card shooting raw doesnt seem worth it. > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> > PDML@pdml.net > >> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> > >> > >>-- > >>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>PDML@pdml.net > >>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
