RE: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
I have it on good authority that it will NOT be a free upgrade for existing owners. Sorry to bring bad news. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Lou Billing [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm waiting to see if Pentax allows us to upgrade to Photo Lab 3 when it's released with the SP engine. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Well, I was planning on buying a K10D, anyway. So as long as it can handle the PEFs from my existing *ist-D I'll probably be OK. On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 12:54:00PM -0400, Aaron Reynolds wrote: I have it on good authority that it will NOT be a free upgrade for existing owners. Sorry to bring bad news. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Lou Billing [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm waiting to see if Pentax allows us to upgrade to Photo Lab 3 when it's released with the SP engine. -- 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
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
John Francis wrote: That's one of the major complaints about TIFF - there are so many little extra little features, etc., that it's just about impossible to write software that can read an arbitrary TIFF-compliant file. Not impossible, just time consuming. ;-) That's both the beauty and the curse of software, as you well know. You can do almost anything, if you're willing to invest the time and resources. [...] claims to support TIFF *must* handle everything that baseline TIFF can contain (I don't belive that includes compression). That's a nice theory, but there are plenty of TIFF readers out there that are deficient in various ways, that still claim baseline compliance. Rarely occurs in popular commercial software, but I've bumped into quite a few in lesser known commercial software and shareware and freeware. Open source code often is better about this, probably because someone downloads the software and it won't digest one of their files, so they fix it or send the file to someone who can. :-) -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
In a message dated 6/15/2006 6:23:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My degree is in Mathematics; I taught the subject as part of my college course work for two years. But I think I got a lot of practice explaining complex topics like this during the years I spent doing engineering support to the third party development community at Apple Developer Relations. Godfrey === This thread went like, totally over my head man, but I think you probably gave as good and as clear explanation as I will read anywhere. When I have more time I am going to print out your stuff and read it over and see if I can get my head around it. So adding my thanks too, Godfrey. Marnie aka Doe The definitely math challenged. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/06/15 Thu PM 07:59:08 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode Tom, I think you're right that there is a very slight difference between the Tiff and jpg saving for 1st generation. The bigger problem that I see is that both of them are 8 bit while the sensor is 12 bit. So you are throwing a lot more not shooting raw than you are between jpg and Tiff. I guess I'm saying that if you are willing to throw away 4 bits by not using raw, the remaining difference between Tiff and jpg right out of the camera are probably not worth the bother. Tiff is giving you the storage requirements of raw and the clipping of data of jpg. In some ways, the worst of both worlds. Thoughts? -- Bruce On the DL2, there is no option to save as Tiff but the converter gives you the option of changing the RAW file to either 8 or 12 bit Tiffs. m Thursday, June 15, 2006, 12:48:32 PM, you wrote: TC Of course not... :-) I didn't mean to imply the .jpg quality setting in the TC camera (although that would obviously have a bearing). I meant the color, TC contrast, lighting, etc., of the subject to be captured. TC All I'm saying is that assuming all .jpgs are lossy, to any degree, and TC knowing that I don't necessarialy understand, nor can predict what the TC algorithm will do, I chose to shoot .tiffs, based on the fact that storage TC is relatively inexpensive. TC 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
Re: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/06/15 Thu PM 11:37:55 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode This has been a lively and educational discussion. I shot quite a few JPEGs today and have decided that I'll probably stick to raw for 98.76% of the photography I do. You just made that up. - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/06/16 Fri AM 07:53:18 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/06/15 Thu PM 07:59:08 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode Tom, I think you're right that there is a very slight difference between the Tiff and jpg saving for 1st generation. The bigger problem that I see is that both of them are 8 bit while the sensor is 12 bit. So you are throwing a lot more not shooting raw than you are between jpg and Tiff. I guess I'm saying that if you are willing to throw away 4 bits by not using raw, the remaining difference between Tiff and jpg right out of the camera are probably not worth the bother. Tiff is giving you the storage requirements of raw and the clipping of data of jpg. In some ways, the worst of both worlds. Thoughts? -- Bruce On the DL2, there is no option to save as Tiff but the converter gives you the option of changing the RAW file to either 8 or 12 bit Tiffs. m 16bit Tiffs. Thursday, June 15, 2006, 12:48:32 PM, you wrote: TC Of course not... :-) I didn't mean to imply the .jpg quality setting in the TC camera (although that would obviously have a bearing). I meant the color, TC contrast, lighting, etc., of the subject to be captured. TC All I'm saying is that assuming all .jpgs are lossy, to any degree, and TC knowing that I don't necessarialy understand, nor can predict what the TC algorithm will do, I chose to shoot .tiffs, based on the fact that storage TC is relatively inexpensive. TC 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
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: LOL ... That's exactly what I said in the first response to this thread .. :-) Godfrey On Jun 15, 2006, at 7:55 AM, Lon Williamson wrote: Try shooting jpg as if you were shooting slide film. In my experience, they're quite similar. Yeah, I know that now. Usually I read through responses, see my position covered, and then don't post at all. I didn't read through things yesterday. Lon -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Kenneth Waller wrote: You know, I hate to be picky about this, but...nothing is actually LOST, per se, on initial capture of a jpeg image. What's there is there, as your lens/camera system captures it and delivers it to the sensor. Just because you have chosen to capture an image as a jpeg doesn't mean you've selected an inferior image format Not my understanding. LOST as compared to some non lossy capture modes. JPEG compresses file size by selectively discarding data.. The file is compressed relative to other possible file formats. Kenneth Waller I misspoke, didn't I. A jpeg automatically compresses the image data. That's the nature of the beast. Even the least compression means you actually lose some data, but I'm not sure we'd see it under normal circumstances. As you tell the camera to reduce the image size, you lose more and more. And that is before you start fooling around with it! Thanks for reminding me of that. keith -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Tom C wrote: I hate to be picky too because I readily admit that you could easily show me the results of a raw, .tif, and .jpg out of camera and 99 times out a 100, I probably could not tell the difference. I agree with that. However, given the vast difference in size between the file formats, knowing that .jpg is by nature lossy, I still believe something IS being lost, besides just the bytes saved due to compression. It's just that our eyes may not readily perceive it. I recognize that it's the same number of pixels captured in a raw file vs. a .jpg. I will happily accept being wrong on this issue. My manual tells me that with its highest level of resolution, which is 3264 X 2448, the camera saves the images as RAW, TIFF or one of two levels of jpegs. All the remaining levels of resolution, decreasing to 640 X 480, are saved as either TIFF or JPEG. With film it was easy. A transparency from the film in camera was a 1st generation image. A negative was too, but to readily view it, it needed to be made positive (usually a print) which was a 2nd generation image. For that matter a print or projection of a slide was second generation as well, as is of course, any photo we view online or in print. So it can get pretty silly. For me it was about having the best 1st gen image to work from. Raw surely must be the best, with .tif coming in second, and .jpg 3rd. Yes, I can understand that, having spent untold hours looking up at a negative in an enlarger... getting a crick in my back! g I was obsessed at how beautiful a negative was, such detail that would never be captured on a print... The problem I have, in principle only, with shooting .jpgs is that I don't view them as a 1st gen image. One can believe that they are, because that's what the camera spits out, but are they? Tom C. I guess RAW is the best one has, isn't it. I can't speak to .tiff images, because I haven't figured out what it's good for yet. That's MY problem. One day I'll look into that. So far as jpegs are concerned, I think the original high pixel count images are *very* good quality, at least they are in my camera, and most of us will never need more quality than they give. Usually. Of course, there are always exceptions. But for the bulk of any work I do, a high quality jpeg will do very well. I do minimum manipulation of my images, and I always keep the original jpeg in it's own file, using copies for manipulation purposes. Therein lies another discussion, for another time... keith -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
John Francis wrote: On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 02:09:02PM -0700, keith_w wrote: The image captured as a tiff or a jpeg is converted by the camera's internal firmware (I suppose ?) to be what it is. Same with RAW. Any losses that occur to any image captured and saved happen after the photog grabs hold of the image and messes around with it! Not really. The original capture, as registered on the sensor, has 12-bit data. That level of precision is retained in a RAW file, but in a TIFF or JPEG low-order bits are thrown away. It's not quite as simple as saying the bottom-most four bits are lost, because there are also some non-linear processing steps involved, but there is no way to store twelve bits of information in only eight bits. Okay. Re TIFF images, my manual says the tiff images are non-compressed. That's just a gratuitous comment, as I don't know that much about tiff images, except that they are way too large! grin But, by definition, jpegs are always compressed, from a little bit to a lot, depending on the file size you set. I had not addressed that truth in my previous statement because I was thinking of how a jpeg image increasingly deteriorates the more times you manipulate the image and save it. So, my mind got stuck on that aspect of it. You're right, of course. Thanks, keith -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Tom C wrote: Thanks for that concised rendering of what happens during conversion from senor to file format. I think most of us have a fuzzy to semi-sharp idea of what's going on. In my case I read it and quickly forget the finer details. Tom C. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] What the camera captures on the sensor is RAW data, a 12bit deep intensity map in an RGB mosaic with one value for each photosite. [...] I totally agree with Tom...concise and to the point. In fact, I saved it to read again and possibly absorb some of it this time thru! Thanks, Godfrey! keith -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
keith_w wrote: Re TIFF images, my manual says the tiff images are non-compressed. That's just a gratuitous comment, as I don't know that much about tiff images, except that they are way too large! grin The manual is correct for your camera, or maybe even all cameras, but that's not a true statement about TIFF in general. The image data stored inside a TIFF format file can be uncompressed or compressed, depending on the settings used to save the TIFF file. In fact, a TIFF file can even contain an image compressed in JPEG format (or several other compression formats/methods). -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 09:43:00AM -0400, Doug Franklin wrote: keith_w wrote: Re TIFF images, my manual says the tiff images are non-compressed. That's just a gratuitous comment, as I don't know that much about tiff images, except that they are way too large! grin The manual is correct for your camera, or maybe even all cameras, but that's not a true statement about TIFF in general. The image data stored inside a TIFF format file can be uncompressed or compressed, depending on the settings used to save the TIFF file. In fact, a TIFF file can even contain an image compressed in JPEG format (or several other compression formats/methods). That's one of the major complaints about TIFF - there are so many little extra little features, etc., that it's just about impossible to write software that can read an arbitrary TIFF-compliant file. Fortunately there's a defined subset, baseline TIFF, that suffices for most users, and anything that claims to support TIFF *must* handle everything that baseline TIFF can contain (I don't belive that includes compression). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Thanks Shel. I was just curious. Those seem like very good reasons for RAW IMHO. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode Hi, Ken ... Sure ... I'm often shooting in changing light, going from dark to light situations, sometimes grab a shot or two without thinking about exposure or ISO, sometimes shooting with older lenses, sometimes with newer lenses, sometimes I previsualize a photo's result, which means that I may want over or under exposure compared to the meter, and I'll see the final image with certain adjustments in mind, which means I need latitude and flexibility that JPEG can't give me. Also, I like the idea of being able to use the raw file in other ways later on - maybe changing the interpretation of a photo. I suppose I've spent too many years in the darkroom where a lot of adjustments can be made. Never cared much for slide film, so shooting with the transparency state of mind is odd for me - plus I like to do BW conversions and I believe RAW allows greater opportinities for that as well. Not that it can't be done with JPEG, but there seems to be greater flexibility with raw. Shel [Original Message] From: Kenneth Waller RAW works best for my style of photography and for my temperament. Care to elaborate Shel? -- 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
RE: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Concerning RAW converters, I've been fooling around with SilyPix for the last few weeks and am just amazed at its performance. All the normal tweaks, plus superior sharpening, noise reduction, curves, cropping, fine rotation, perspective correction (they call it Digital Shift because it emulates a shift lens) and probably more that I haven't found yet. The full version eliminates the need for an outside editor for the most part. The crippled version is free forever, full version is $140US (ouch), and you can activate a two week trial of the full version in the startup dialog. I'm waiting to see if Pentax allows us to upgrade to Photo Lab 3 when it's released with the SP engine. The screenshots of the interface on the web now seem to show similar controls and functions, but the text is Japanese so I can't tell for sure. You can try the freebie here: http://www.silkypix.com Lou -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
LOL ... That's exactly what I said in the first response to this thread .. :-) Godfrey On Jun 15, 2006, at 7:55 AM, Lon Williamson wrote: Try shooting jpg as if you were shooting slide film. In my experience, they're quite similar. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
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. -- Dr E D F Williams www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/ http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/ 41660 TOIVAKKA – Finland - +358400706616 -- 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
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
And to think I could have used RAW. Or you could have hired a pro to get it right! ;-} Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list PDML@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 3:02 AM Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode On 14/6/06, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: 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 ... Shel's absolutely right. I mean, look at this terrible example of a jpeg shot with burned out highlights and clogged up blacks. What a mess! Warning - no Pentax content in photo: http://www.cottysnaps.com/ And to think I could have used RAW. ;-) -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- 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
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Everyone shoots under controlled lighting - you control it by pressing or not pressing the shutter release, no? Sorry - Couldn't resist :) Someone made a point about what equipment you are using having a lot to do with these choices - Basically, the quality of light that I see without the camera is at least 50% of what makes me bring the camera to my face to shoot. I definitely shoot digital as if I were shooting with a film camera for anything beyond product photography - stuff I shoot for my ebay sales - shooting stuff just for information. The raw convert I have came with the Canon powershot pro-1 (which is still, alas, at Canon being repaired for it's drowning) I made sure when I bought it last year that it was a camera that shot raw... I really thought I needed it. So far all Ive done is convert the raw file to Tiff and then put the tiff in Photoshop Elements, which doesn't accept raw. I really do have to watch every penny, and the cards were expensive - I have a 1 gb a 512 gb and a 256 gb the last of which I bought on the road last year because even my tightly edited cards were running low on space. And then there is a space consideration on my hard drive I know when it comes to the technology for all this stuff I'm way behind practically everyone on the list - I don't even understand the buzzwords - can't wrap my brain around curves for instance. I'm babbling - ignore me - But I have not yet seen that the quality of images of people shooting raw , from an aesthetic viewpoint, is any better than those who are shooting jpgs or film - and that is what I care most about. Ann Shel Belinkoff wrote: Aaron, I don't shoot under controlled lighting. Yes, indeed, exposure on the high side definitely quiets down those images shot at 1600 and 3200. Shel [Original Message] From: Aaron Reynolds Most of what I shoot is under controlled lighting conditions, and my way of making an exposure reflect that. Starting with the meter reading that the camera gives me, I shoot, check histogram, alter contrast settings, re-shoot, re-check histogram, repeat until I have what I'm looking for -- a nice lookin' histogram and the whitest whites just peaking the teeniest bit. Then I lock that in and run with it. Under artificial light at the stadium, that seems to be with the contrast up one point above the medium setting and with the exposure 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop over what the meter tells me. That gives me a bright, crisp white that still has detail (if you've seen my baseball pictures, the whites that are peaking so that they've lost detail are generally the buttons on the jersey and the highlight at the top of the shoulder). Unless your lighting conditions are changing, I suggest fooling around with this method. One benefit I noticed was that the over-exposure yielded a reduction in visible noise at ISO 1600. -- 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
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Bingo! I think this should be etched in electrons someplace prominently. PDML is a gear list, so the discussions focus on equipment, but this is exactly what I've noticed in the time I've followed the list (and every other photo discussion group). I have seen no correlation between equipment and image quality -- virtually every camera and lens, old and new, has produced both wonderful and terrible photographs. I am preaching to myself here, since I have to remind myself all the time that it's not the gear that is keeping me from making better photos. *Unca Mikey --- Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I have not yet seen that the quality of images of people shooting raw , from an aesthetic viewpoint, is any better than those who are shooting jpgs or film - and that is what I care most about. Ann __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
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
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Just think of how much better it would have been if you had shot it in RAW... Cotty wrote: On 14/6/06, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: 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 ... Shel's absolutely right. I mean, look at this terrible example of a jpeg shot with burned out highlights and clogged up blacks. What a mess! Warning - no Pentax content in photo: http://www.cottysnaps.com/ And to think I could have used RAW. ;-) -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
I recently attended a photo outing at Nyhavn (Denmark). I didn't wnat to bother changing cards all the time or loading the stuff into my Flash Trax, so I shot JPEGs exclusivly. Man, that was a mistake. Shooting in the sun in the evening (8-10 PM) provided very harsh ligting conditions. The JPEGs left me with very few options to correct not perfect exposures. What a waste. Most of the images looked like old fifties colour film or film from USSR-occupied countries ;-( From now on I'll go back to shooting RAW - as I did for the past year exclusively - when ever that is possible (small buffer/slow write speed). Regards. Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af UncaMikey Sendt: 15. juni 2006 18:33 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode Bingo! I think this should be etched in electrons someplace prominently. PDML is a gear list, so the discussions focus on equipment, but this is exactly what I've noticed in the time I've followed the list (and every other photo discussion group). I have seen no correlation between equipment and image quality -- virtually every camera and lens, old and new, has produced both wonderful and terrible photographs. I am preaching to myself here, since I have to remind myself all the time that it's not the gear that is keeping me from making better photos. *Unca Mikey --- Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I have not yet seen that the quality of images of people shooting raw , from an aesthetic viewpoint, is any better than those who are shooting jpgs or film - and that is what I care most about. Ann __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/366 - Release Date: 06/15/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/366 - Release Date: 06/15/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
it's not the gear that is keeping me from making better photos. BINGO ! ;-} Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: UncaMikey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 12:32 PM Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode Bingo! I think this should be etched in electrons someplace prominently. PDML is a gear list, so the discussions focus on equipment, but this is exactly what I've noticed in the time I've followed the list (and every other photo discussion group). I have seen no correlation between equipment and image quality -- virtually every camera and lens, old and new, has produced both wonderful and terrible photographs. I am preaching to myself here, since I have to remind myself all the time that it's not the gear that is keeping me from making better photos. *Unca Mikey --- Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I have not yet seen that the quality of images of people shooting raw , from an aesthetic viewpoint, is any better than those who are shooting jpgs or film - and that is what I care most about. Ann __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- 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
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
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
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
On Jun 15, 2006, at 10:09 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote: No quality losses when saving the first JPEG after editing. I guess I knew that but haven't observed the difference. Has anybody? I've tested TIFF output against JPEG highest-quality on four different cameras. There are differences, certainly, but insignificant to image quality. I see absolutely no point to saving TIFF files in-camera. They're huge, they are just 8bit RGB rendering (same as JPEG), they take forever to save, and they don't provide anything useful over JPEG highest-quality. When you open JPEG files for editing, immediately save them as .PSD or .TIF for editing purposes. Only resave to JPEG when you're done editing. You will not see any noticeable increase in noise or artifacts that way, even at maximum size prints. I worked with cameras that don't have RAW format capture options quite a bit (Sony F707/717, Panasonic FZ10). I made many thousands of excellent exposures with them and did a lot of editing with them too. The results are very good if you've got the JPEG parameters set up correctly. Making prints from them is not too big a deal, if the scene dynamics fit into the JPEG dynamic range. But it's a heck of a lot easier to work with tricky lighting situations using RAW format capture ... you have more dynamic range to work with and don't have to keep on top of white balance, contrast, saturation parameters to quite the same degree since these are all set in the RAW conversion phase of the workflow rather than in the camera. I don't find this additional step much of an issue, it's basically a matter of setting all the RAW parameters and then batch-converting the files to .PSD 16bit RGB or .JPG 8bit RGB depending upon what I need as output. 100-300 exposures usually takes about 10 minutes to get to that point. I'd rather have the ability to adjust things and the additional dynamic range than have to fiddle so much with the camera and bracket so much. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
The sentiment has been etched in electrons a bazillion times. Technical quality is different from aesthetic quality. Sometimes an aesthetically pleasing result is awful technically. And vice versa. RAW format's added dynamic range and ease of use *while shooting* makes it more likely that I will get the results I want, technically. It's larger size and additional processing requirements puts a burden on storage devices and processing power, but I'm willing to accept those disadvantages for the advantages it offers. None of that affects whether I can see photographs, from an aesthetic standpoint. But if what I see cannot be captured with the dynamic range and settings I have at my disposal using JPEG storage, then it's compromising my ability to render those aesthetic qualities. I do agree with: it's not the gear that is keeping me from making better photos. The capabilities of even the least capable DSLR available today are generally beyond the abilities of most photographers to exploit them all the way, except for specific features targeted at various niche needs (like fast sequences for racing work) or convenience desires. That's why I have no problems using the low end Pentax DS bodies to produce my work. Nobody has complained about the technical quality of the prints I've shown. Godfrey On Jun 15, 2006, at 9:32 AM, UncaMikey wrote: Bingo! I think this should be etched in electrons someplace prominently. PDML is a gear list, so the discussions focus on equipment, but this is exactly what I've noticed in the time I've followed the list (and every other photo discussion group). I have seen no correlation between equipment and image quality -- virtually every camera and lens, old and new, has produced both wonderful and terrible photographs. I am preaching to myself here, since I have to remind myself all the time that it's not the gear that is keeping me from making better photos. *Unca Mikey --- Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I have not yet seen that the quality of images of people shooting raw , from an aesthetic viewpoint, is any better than those who are shooting jpgs or film - and that is what I care most about. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Very eloquently put, Godfrey. You have a way with words. -- Bruce Thursday, June 15, 2006, 11:18:53 AM, you wrote: GD The sentiment has been etched in electrons a bazillion times. GD Technical quality is different from aesthetic quality. Sometimes an GD aesthetically pleasing result is awful technically. And vice versa. GD RAW format's added dynamic range and ease of use *while shooting* GD makes it more likely that I will get the results I want, technically. GD It's larger size and additional processing requirements puts a burden GD on storage devices and processing power, but I'm willing to accept GD those disadvantages for the advantages it offers. GD None of that affects whether I can see photographs, from an aesthetic GD standpoint. But if what I see cannot be captured with the dynamic GD range and settings I have at my disposal using JPEG storage, then GD it's compromising my ability to render those aesthetic qualities. GD I do agree with: it's not the gear that is keeping me from making GD better photos. The capabilities of even the least capable DSLR GD available today are generally beyond the abilities of most GD photographers to exploit them all the way, except for specific GD features targeted at various niche needs (like fast sequences for GD racing work) or convenience desires. That's why I have no problems GD using the low end Pentax DS bodies to produce my work. Nobody has GD complained about the technical quality of the prints I've shown. GD Godfrey GD On Jun 15, 2006, at 9:32 AM, UncaMikey wrote: Bingo! I think this should be etched in electrons someplace prominently. PDML is a gear list, so the discussions focus on equipment, but this is exactly what I've noticed in the time I've followed the list (and every other photo discussion group). I have seen no correlation between equipment and image quality -- virtually every camera and lens, old and new, has produced both wonderful and terrible photographs. I am preaching to myself here, since I have to remind myself all the time that it's not the gear that is keeping me from making better photos. *Unca Mikey --- Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I have not yet seen that the quality of images of people shooting raw , from an aesthetic viewpoint, is any better than those who are shooting jpgs or film - and that is what I care most about. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [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 11:08:06 -0700 On Jun 15, 2006, at 10:09 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote: No quality losses when saving the first JPEG after editing. I guess I knew that but haven't observed the difference. Has anybody? I've tested TIFF output against JPEG highest-quality on four different cameras. There are differences, certainly, but insignificant to image quality. I see absolutely no point to saving TIFF files in-camera. They're huge, they are just 8bit RGB rendering (same as JPEG), they take forever to save, and they don't provide anything useful over JPEG highest-quality. There are not losses of data when saving any .jpg? Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
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
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Quoting Godfrey DiGiorgi - I've tested TIFF output against JPEG highest-quality on four different cameras. There are differences, certainly, but insignificant to image quality Thanks for the input. This has been my understanding but I've never taken the time to quantify. When you open JPEG files for editing, immediately save them as .PSD or .TIF for editing purposes. Only resave to JPEG when you're done editing. You will not see any noticeable increase in noise or artifacts that way, even at maximum size prints. Pretty much my mode with JPEGs, except I very seldom ever resave them to JPEG. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 2:08 PM Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode On Jun 15, 2006, at 10:09 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote: No quality losses when saving the first JPEG after editing. I guess I knew that but haven't observed the difference. Has anybody? I've tested TIFF output against JPEG highest-quality on four different cameras. There are differences, certainly, but insignificant to image quality. I see absolutely no point to saving TIFF files in-camera. They're huge, they are just 8bit RGB rendering (same as JPEG), they take forever to save, and they don't provide anything useful over JPEG highest-quality. When you open JPEG files for editing, immediately save them as .PSD or .TIF for editing purposes. Only resave to JPEG when you're done editing. You will not see any noticeable increase in noise or artifacts that way, even at maximum size prints. I worked with cameras that don't have RAW format capture options quite a bit (Sony F707/717, Panasonic FZ10). I made many thousands of excellent exposures with them and did a lot of editing with them too. The results are very good if you've got the JPEG parameters set up correctly. Making prints from them is not too big a deal, if the scene dynamics fit into the JPEG dynamic range. But it's a heck of a lot easier to work with tricky lighting situations using RAW format capture ... you have more dynamic range to work with and don't have to keep on top of white balance, contrast, saturation parameters to quite the same degree since these are all set in the RAW conversion phase of the workflow rather than in the camera. I don't find this additional step much of an issue, it's basically a matter of setting all the RAW parameters and then batch-converting the files to .PSD 16bit RGB or .JPG 8bit RGB depending upon what I need as output. 100-300 exposures usually takes about 10 minutes to get to that point. I'd rather have the ability to adjust things and the additional dynamic range than have to fiddle so much with the camera and bracket so much. Godfrey -- 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
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 11:18:53AM -0700, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I do agree with: it's not the gear that is keeping me from making better photos. The capabilities of even the least capable DSLR available today are generally beyond the abilities of most photographers to exploit them all the way . . . I'd agree with that - in a lot of cases the choice of gear is at best a matter of convenience. The one place where I'd disagree is in the selection of lenses - when I switched from my original M 80-200 or later FA 100-300 to an A* 200/f2.8 for some of my motorsports shots the improvement was, sadly, all too visible. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
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
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
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
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Tom, I think you're right that there is a very slight difference between the Tiff and jpg saving for 1st generation. The bigger problem that I see is that both of them are 8 bit while the sensor is 12 bit. So you are throwing a lot more not shooting raw than you are between jpg and Tiff. I guess I'm saying that if you are willing to throw away 4 bits by not using raw, the remaining difference between Tiff and jpg right out of the camera are probably not worth the bother. Tiff is giving you the storage requirements of raw and the clipping of data of jpg. In some ways, the worst of both worlds. Thoughts? -- Bruce Thursday, June 15, 2006, 12:48:32 PM, you wrote: TC Of course not... :-) I didn't mean to imply the .jpg quality setting in the TC camera (although that would obviously have a bearing). I meant the color, TC contrast, lighting, etc., of the subject to be captured. TC All I'm saying is that assuming all .jpgs are lossy, to any degree, and TC knowing that I don't necessarialy understand, nor can predict what the TC algorithm will do, I chose to shoot .tiffs, based on the fact that storage TC is relatively inexpensive. TC 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
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
On Jun 15, 2006, at 12:17 PM, Tom C wrote: I've tested TIFF output against JPEG highest-quality on four different cameras. There are differences, certainly, but insignificant to image quality. I see absolutely no point to saving TIFF files in-camera. They're huge, they are just 8bit RGB rendering (same as JPEG), they take forever to save, and they don't provide anything useful over JPEG highest-quality. There are not losses of data when saving any .jpg? As I said, there are differences between the out-of-camera TIFF and JPEG highest quality, in all the cameras I did the comparisons with, but they're not significant. You can see how the JPEG compression changes pixel by pixel values slightly if you examine the pixels individually, but the differences are quite small and not significant. Technically, JPEG-2000 compression algorithms include lossless compression, if desired, but JPEG-2000 has not been broadly adopted. JPEG is, however, a scalable compression standard. Take a JPEG file, make a simple change (like selecting a block and erasing it) to force Photoshop to recompress it, then Save As that file to several JPEG versions from minimum quality to maximum quality. If you then open each of the files and do a calculation against the original (subtraction or difference), you will begin to see artifacts and changes to detail around JPEG quality '4' or lower. Above that, the losses are so small as to be insignificant. I find Photoshop's JPEG output at quality '5' or '6' to be perfectly suitable for high quality photographic rendering in all but the most sensitive areas, like very subtle tonal variations in the sky and clouds. Then I have to bump the quality up to 8 or 10 to eliminate tonal blocking. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Tom Given that something is lost on the initial jpeg capture, everything I been taught tells me that its only after numerous jpeg resavings, that the continued losses become evident. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode 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
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Kenneth Waller wrote: Tom Given that something is lost on the initial jpeg capture, You know, I hate to be picky about this, but...nothing is actually LOST, per se, on initial capture of a jpeg image. What's there is there, as your lens/camera system captures it and delivers it to the sensor. Just because you have chosen to capture an image as a jpeg doesn't mean you've selected an inferior image format. Whatever the sensor passes along by way of the camera's internal software, which apparently identifies it as a jpeg, or tiff or raw image, is what it is. How can any of that be classified as a loss? The image captured as a tiff or a jpeg is converted by the camera's internal firmware (I suppose ?) to be what it is. Same with RAW. Any losses that occur to any image captured and saved happen after the photog grabs hold of the image and messes around with it! ...everything I been taught tells me that its only after numerous jpeg re-savings, that the continued losses become evident. Kenneth Waller That's as I understand it. However, as *I* understand it, just opening it and viewing it, and closing it again does NOT bring about a deterioration. You have to save it time after time for the degradation to take place. keith whaley -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Tom, I think you're right that there is a very slight difference between the Tiff and jpg saving for 1st generation. The bigger problem that I see is that both of them are 8 bit while the sensor is 12 bit. So you are throwing a lot more not shooting raw than you are between jpg and Tiff. I guess I'm saying that if you are willing to throw away 4 bits by not using raw, the remaining difference between Tiff and jpg right out of the camera are probably not worth the bother. Tiff is giving you the storage requirements of raw and the clipping of data of jpg. In some ways, the worst of both worlds. Thoughts? -- Bruce Of course you're correct regarding the 8 and 12 bit. To tell the truth though, I haven't perceived a visual difference in image quality when converting a 16(12)-bit image to 8-bit for saving as a .jpg. I was always pretty satisfied with my 8-bit Minolta Dimage Scan Dual with transparency film. The 16-bit IV version of the scanner is better, however. BTW, I am shooting raw. JPG is doing more than compressing a 12-bit image to 8-bit. It's losing other image data, as well (which of course you know). I readily accept that this loss may, in most if not all cases, be imperceptible, just as the loss of the 4 bits may not be readily visible. It seems akin to having a duplicate transparency made. The duplicate will never be as good as the original, though it may not be readily apparent except under very excting scrutiny. As usual with things of a digital/technical nature, so much a splitting of hairs. I would never throw away an original slide in favor of it's duplicate, which to me at least seems what shooting .jpg is like. The same can be said of .tifs, as you point out, because of the loss of the 4 bits, assuming a 12-bit sensor. A complicated world in which we live. Oh for the days of film, projectors. viewers, and albums. :-) Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
You know, I hate to be picky about this, but...nothing is actually LOST, per se, on initial capture of a jpeg image. What's there is there, as your lens/camera system captures it and delivers it to the sensor. Just because you have chosen to capture an image as a jpeg doesn't mean you've selected an inferior image format Not my understanding. LOST as compared to some non lossy capture modes. JPEG compresses file size by selectively discarding data.. The file is compressed relative to other possible file formats. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: keith_w [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode Kenneth Waller wrote: Tom Given that something is lost on the initial jpeg capture, You know, I hate to be picky about this, but...nothing is actually LOST, per se, on initial capture of a jpeg image. What's there is there, as your lens/camera system captures it and delivers it to the sensor. Just because you have chosen to capture an image as a jpeg doesn't mean you've selected an inferior image format. Whatever the sensor passes along by way of the camera's internal software, which apparently identifies it as a jpeg, or tiff or raw image, is what it is. How can any of that be classified as a loss? The image captured as a tiff or a jpeg is converted by the camera's internal firmware (I suppose ?) to be what it is. Same with RAW. Any losses that occur to any image captured and saved happen after the photog grabs hold of the image and messes around with it! ...everything I been taught tells me that its only after numerous jpeg re-savings, that the continued losses become evident. Kenneth Waller That's as I understand it. However, as *I* understand it, just opening it and viewing it, and closing it again does NOT bring about a deterioration. You have to save it time after time for the degradation to take place. keith whaley -- 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
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
I hate to be picky too because I readily admit that you could easily show me the results of a raw, .tif, and .jpg out of camera and 99 times out a 100, I probably could not tell the difference. However, given the vast difference in size between the file formats, knowing that .jpg is by nature lossy, I still believe something IS being lost, besides just the bytes saved due to compression. It's just that our eyes may not readily perceive it. I recognize that it's the same number of pixels captured in a raw file vs. a .jpg. I will happily accept being wrong on this issue. With film it was easy. A transparency from the film in camera was a 1st generation image. A negative was too, but to readily view it, it needed to be made positive (usually a print) which was a 2nd generation image. For that matter a print or projection of a slide was second generation as well, as is of course, any photo we view online or in print. So it can get pretty silly. For me it was about having the best 1st gen image to work from. Raw surely must be the best, with .tif coming in second, and .jpg 3rd. The problem I have, in principle only, with shooting .jpgs is that I don't view them as a 1st gen image. One can believe that they are, because that's what the camera spits out, but are they? Tom C. From: keith_w [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 14:09:02 -0700 Kenneth Waller wrote: Tom Given that something is lost on the initial jpeg capture, You know, I hate to be picky about this, but...nothing is actually LOST, per se, on initial capture of a jpeg image. What's there is there, as your lens/camera system captures it and delivers it to the sensor. Just because you have chosen to capture an image as a jpeg doesn't mean you've selected an inferior image format. Whatever the sensor passes along by way of the camera's internal software, which apparently identifies it as a jpeg, or tiff or raw image, is what it is. How can any of that be classified as a loss? The image captured as a tiff or a jpeg is converted by the camera's internal firmware (I suppose ?) to be what it is. Same with RAW. Any losses that occur to any image captured and saved happen after the photog grabs hold of the image and messes around with it! ...everything I been taught tells me that its only after numerous jpeg re-savings, that the continued losses become evident. Kenneth Waller That's as I understand it. However, as *I* understand it, just opening it and viewing it, and closing it again does NOT bring about a deterioration. You have to save it time after time for the degradation to take place. keith whaley -- 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
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Tom C wrote: ... As usual with things of a digital/technical nature, so much a splitting of hairs. I would never throw away an original slide in favor of it's duplicate, which to me at least seems what shooting .jpg is like. The same can be said of .tifs, as you point out, because of the loss of the 4 bits, assuming a 12-bit sensor. A complicated world in which we live. Oh for the days of film, projectors. viewers, and albums. :-) I think people trivialize just how complicated film, projectors, viewers and albums are because we are so familiar with them, and find the messy discussions that go on about the differences between RAW and TIFF, TIFF and JPEG complex because they are dealing with new concepts. Film and its processing mechanisms are a very complex thing which took 200 years of development to produce to the current quality standards... Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
I can agree with that, even though I made the statement regarding complication. :-) With film though, we all (I presume to speak for many) had a 'show me the picture mentality'. We turned in our film for developing and waited to get it back. This is aside from those who developed their own film. With digital, raw, scanners, and photo-processing tools readily at hand on home computers, all of the sudden there are a lot more variables involved, a lot more choices, and a lot more power in the hands of the individual. Tom C. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [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 14:43:57 -0700 On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Tom C wrote: ... As usual with things of a digital/technical nature, so much a splitting of hairs. I would never throw away an original slide in favor of it's duplicate, which to me at least seems what shooting .jpg is like. The same can be said of .tifs, as you point out, because of the loss of the 4 bits, assuming a 12-bit sensor. A complicated world in which we live. Oh for the days of film, projectors. viewers, and albums. :-) I think people trivialize just how complicated film, projectors, viewers and albums are because we are so familiar with them, and find the messy discussions that go on about the differences between RAW and TIFF, TIFF and JPEG complex because they are dealing with new concepts. Film and its processing mechanisms are a very complex thing which took 200 years of development to produce to the current quality standards... Godfrey -- 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
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:09 PM, keith_w wrote: Given that something is lost on the initial jpeg capture, You know, I hate to be picky about this, but...nothing is actually LOST, per se, on initial capture of a jpeg image. What's there is there, as your lens/camera system captures it and delivers it to the sensor. Just because you have chosen to capture an image as a jpeg doesn't mean you've selected an inferior image format. Whatever the sensor passes along by way of the camera's internal software, which apparently identifies it as a jpeg, or tiff or raw image, is what it is. How can any of that be classified as a loss? The image captured as a tiff or a jpeg is converted by the camera's internal firmware (I suppose ?) to be what it is. Same with RAW. This is incorrect. What the camera captures on the sensor is RAW data, a 12bit deep intensity map in an RGB mosaic with one value for each photosite. When you instruct the camera to save that data as RAW format, it writes it to a file on the camera's storage card, structured with the settings you had made to the camera's rendering engine (sharpness, contrast, saturation, colorspace, etc) as metadata. The camera performs none to little processing on RAW data itself, other than (for some cameras) doing lossless compression. It also renders a thumbnail and a preview image in highly compressed forms and includes that in the structured file. When you tell the camera to save the data in TIFF format, the camera takes the RAW data and applies those settings, performs gamma conversion and chroma interpolation, and then interpolates the resulting RGB intensity map down to 8bits per channel. This is RAW conversion rendering to an 8bit RGB representation. It writes the resulting data out to a file in structured TIFF format. RAW conversion itself loses significant amounts of data through the gamma correction function, then the interpolation to [EMAIL PROTECTED] loses even more data. The result cuts the dynamic range by anywhere from 3-4 stops. When you tell the camera to save the data in JPEG format, it does everything it does for TIFF format and then applies a JPEG compression algorithm afterwards. Depending upon the subject matter, the implementation of the JPEG algorithm, the chosen quality level, and the data itself, this compression can lose very little to quite a bit over the TIFF. In general, comparing TIFF to JPEG highest quality format files, the difference is small and not significant to image quality. Comparing TIFF to highest compression JPEG format, the difference is substantial. A conservative estimate is that the conversion from RAW to TIFF or JPEG high quality in-camera represents between 40-50% data loss over the original RAW sensor capture. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 02:09:02PM -0700, keith_w wrote: The image captured as a tiff or a jpeg is converted by the camera's internal firmware (I suppose ?) to be what it is. Same with RAW. Any losses that occur to any image captured and saved happen after the photog grabs hold of the image and messes around with it! Not really. The original capture, as registered on the sensor, has 12-bit data. That level of precision is retained in a RAW file, but in a TIFF or JPEG low-order bits are thrown away. It's not quite as simple as saying the bottom-most four bits are lost, because there are also some non-linear processing steps involved, but there is no way to store twelve bits of information in only eight bits. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Thanks for that concised rendering of what happens during conversion from senor to file format. I think most of us have a fuzzy to semi-sharp idea of what's going on. In my case I read it and quickly forget the finer details. Tom C. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] What the camera captures on the sensor is RAW data, a 12bit deep intensity map in an RGB mosaic with one value for each photosite. When you instruct the camera to save that data as RAW format, it writes it to a file on the camera's storage card, structured with the settings you had made to the camera's rendering engine (sharpness, contrast, saturation, colorspace, etc) as metadata. The camera performs none to little processing on RAW data itself, other than (for some cameras) doing lossless compression. It also renders a thumbnail and a preview image in highly compressed forms and includes that in the structured file. When you tell the camera to save the data in TIFF format, the camera takes the RAW data and applies those settings, performs gamma conversion and chroma interpolation, and then interpolates the resulting RGB intensity map down to 8bits per channel. This is RAW conversion rendering to an 8bit RGB representation. It writes the resulting data out to a file in structured TIFF format. RAW conversion itself loses significant amounts of data through the gamma correction function, then the interpolation to [EMAIL PROTECTED] loses even more data. The result cuts the dynamic range by anywhere from 3-4 stops. When you tell the camera to save the data in JPEG format, it does everything it does for TIFF format and then applies a JPEG compression algorithm afterwards. Depending upon the subject matter, the implementation of the JPEG algorithm, the chosen quality level, and the data itself, this compression can lose very little to quite a bit over the TIFF. In general, comparing TIFF to JPEG highest quality format files, the difference is small and not significant to image quality. Comparing TIFF to highest compression JPEG format, the difference is substantial. A conservative estimate is that the conversion from RAW to TIFF or JPEG high quality in-camera represents between 40-50% data loss over the original RAW sensor capture. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:37 PM, Kenneth Waller wrote: LOST as compared to some non lossy capture modes. JPEG compresses file size by selectively discarding data.. The file is compressed relative to other possible file formats. Data loss in the context of image processing jargon means a combinaton of two things: - Some of the tonal resolution acquired by the capture device is changed in a non-reversible manner by processing operations. - Some of the spatial resolution acquired by the capture device is changed in a non-reversible manner by processing operations. (Following is a more complete yet still simplistic picture of what's going on when you save exposures in a digital camera with regards to the data representation ...) The sensor is a linear gamma device. Each photosite simply counts how many photons hit it in the exposure time and reports that number. If there were no RGB filter mosaic in front of the sensor, you would have an intensity map in [x,y] coordinates with numbers from 0 to 4096 in discrete integer values. The human eye does not see light in linear terms like this. To correct the data in that map to correspond to what the human eye sees, you need to compress the high values together and spread the low values apart in a curve described by a gamma function. The process of doing this gamma correction function is tonally lossy: it throws away some of the tonal values in the highs and stretches some of the values in the lows to achieve its goal. The result, however, looks normal to the human eye. Spatial resolution is not lost but the map of intensities is irreversibly altered. Now consider the RGB mosaic. Chroma interpolation is a matter of looking at the values of the pixels according to how the R, G and B pixels are deployed and interpolating a chroma value for each pixel position in the three channels based upon the relationships of the values in an [NxN] unit cell. Again, the process is tonally lossy because the values are not exactly what was captured and that which was captured cannot be retrieved exactly. This process can be spatially lossy as well, but generally the spatial losses with current algorithms are very small. The result of this process, without downsampling to 8bit, would be pixel positions in [x,y] space with three numbers, each 0-4096, as values. But TIFF files produced in camera are 8bit per channel output, so the values in 0-4096 space are interpolated to best fit in the scale from 0-256. This process is again tonally lossy and spatially neutral. That's what happens (simplistically) going from RAW to TIFF. Going from TIFF to JPEG applies the scalable JPEG compression algorithm, which sorts and changes representations of values to reduce data size. JPEG compress, depending upon the quality setting, implementation and the data itself, can be lossy both tonally and spatially from virtually nil significance to quite a lot. hope that helps... ;-) Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Tom C wrote: ... With digital, raw, scanners, and photo-processing tools readily at hand on home computers, all of the sudden there are a lot more variables involved, a lot more choices, and a lot more power in the hands of the individual. Personally, I find this a good thing. ! Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Some of us can ONLY shoot jpeg. Lower end Optios spring to mind 'cause I gots one. I think jpeg is kinda neat; makes me think about exposure much more than using neg film in a real camera. Thank heavens for manual exposure in the SV. Makes balancing the flash and ambient much easier. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
It is in many ways. I just wish that an extra 24 hours were added to each week at the same time. Back in the old days, especially the days before getting a film scanner and photoshop, and especially before the *ist D, it was as simple as editing the slides I had returned and taking a few occasional ones down to The Slide Printer for 4x6 or 5x7 proofs. I'm not counting the time it took me to deliver and pickup the film... Tom C. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [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 15:18:05 -0700 On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Tom C wrote: ... With digital, raw, scanners, and photo-processing tools readily at hand on home computers, all of the sudden there are a lot more variables involved, a lot more choices, and a lot more power in the hands of the individual. Personally, I find this a good thing. ! Godfrey -- 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
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Godfrey that's a great explanation, I understood most of it! Could you simply define spatial resolution for me? Don On 6/15/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:37 PM, Kenneth Waller wrote: LOST as compared to some non lossy capture modes. JPEG compresses file size by selectively discarding data.. The file is compressed relative to other possible file formats. Data loss in the context of image processing jargon means a combinaton of two things: - Some of the tonal resolution acquired by the capture device is changed in a non-reversible manner by processing operations. - Some of the spatial resolution acquired by the capture device is changed in a non-reversible manner by processing operations. snip Godfrey -- 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
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
This has been a lively and educational discussion. I shot quite a few JPEGs today and have decided that I'll probably stick to raw for 98.76% of the photography I do. JPEG has some advantages in some situations, but for day to day shooting, out in the real world, RAW works best for my style of photography and for my temperament. Shel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
On Jun 15, 2006, at 4:29 PM, Don Sanderson wrote: Godfrey that's a great explanation, I understood most of it! Could you simply define spatial resolution for me? Thank you for the compliment, Don. While the subject matter is rich in details and can be quite complex to understand in implementation, I believe that the basic concepts are not all that difficult when explained clearly. Much less so for me than understanding the mechanics of chemistry ... I'm a Mathematician, not a Chemist. ;-) :-) ... Spatial resolution in this context is the [x,y] pixel coordinate position of the photosites relative to the subject target that they recorded. Larger shifts in relative pixel position usually only occur with resampling (aka: resizing of the pixel grid for different resolutions) because you're interpolating discrete pixel positions in the [x,y] grid to new positions [x',y'] through some typically Real- valued function, which causes round off error. JPEG compression, when set to high compression/low quality, can create artifacts due to the way the algorithm works on [NxN] blocks of pixels. These artifacts influence spatial resolution not so much through intentionally moving pixels relative to one another but by changing the tonal values to where the original pixel data altered spatially. Chroma interpolation can affect spatial resolution in a similar way but by a different mechanism. (As an aside, This is one reason the Fovean folks make such a big deal of how each photosite in a Fovean chip captures all three colors ... they claimed gains in spatial resolution for the same [x,y] grid. However, in practical terms, the spatial resolution degradation caused by chroma interpolation is pretty minimal. What the Fovean sensor theoretically provides is more accurate RGB tonal capture, but this has not worked out quite as well in practical terms as the hype would lead you to believe.) Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Thanks, that's what I _thought_ it meant! ;-) Visual acuity, or, the amount of visible detail in a photo would be practical terms for it. Now I have a new term to banter about. You're explanations are very good, even though complex for a novice. Have you taught mathmatics somewhere? Don On 6/15/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 15, 2006, at 4:29 PM, Don Sanderson wrote: Godfrey that's a great explanation, I understood most of it! Could you simply define spatial resolution for me? Thank you for the compliment, Don. While the subject matter is rich in details and can be quite complex to understand in implementation, I believe that the basic concepts are not all that difficult when explained clearly. Much less so for me than understanding the mechanics of chemistry ... I'm a Mathematician, not a Chemist. ;-) :-) ... Spatial resolution in this context is the [x,y] pixel coordinate position of the photosites relative to the subject target that they recorded. Larger shifts in relative pixel position usually only occur with resampling (aka: resizing of the pixel grid for different resolutions) because you're interpolating discrete pixel positions in the [x,y] grid to new positions [x',y'] through some typically Real- valued function, which causes round off error. JPEG compression, when set to high compression/low quality, can create artifacts due to the way the algorithm works on [NxN] blocks of pixels. These artifacts influence spatial resolution not so much through intentionally moving pixels relative to one another but by changing the tonal values to where the original pixel data altered spatially. Chroma interpolation can affect spatial resolution in a similar way but by a different mechanism. (As an aside, This is one reason the Fovean folks make such a big deal of how each photosite in a Fovean chip captures all three colors ... they claimed gains in spatial resolution for the same [x,y] grid. However, in practical terms, the spatial resolution degradation caused by chroma interpolation is pretty minimal. What the Fovean sensor theoretically provides is more accurate RGB tonal capture, but this has not worked out quite as well in practical terms as the hype would lead you to believe.) Godfrey -- 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
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
On Jun 15, 2006, at 5:21 PM, Don Sanderson wrote: Thanks, that's what I _thought_ it meant! ;-) Visual acuity, or, the amount of visible detail in a photo would be practical terms for it. Well, spatial resolution is certainly related to visual acuity (acutance more precisely, I think) but SR is an image property independent of perception and VA has to take perception into account. A lot of seeming sharpness in a photography comes from how well our eye/brain recognizes and follows edges, not from actual resolution. You're explanations are very good, even though complex for a novice. Have you taught mathmatics somewhere? My degree is in Mathematics; I taught the subject as part of my college course work for two years. But I think I got a lot of practice explaining complex topics like this during the years I spent doing engineering support to the third party development community at Apple Developer Relations. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
RAW works best for my style of photography and for my temperament. Care to elaborate Shel? Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 7:37 PM Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode This has been a lively and educational discussion. I shot quite a few JPEGs today and have decided that I'll probably stick to raw for 98.76% of the photography I do. JPEG has some advantages in some situations, but for day to day shooting, out in the real world, RAW works best for my style of photography and for my temperament. Shel -- 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
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Hi, Ken ... Sure ... I'm often shooting in changing light, going from dark to light situations, sometimes grab a shot or two without thinking about exposure or ISO, sometimes shooting with older lenses, sometimes with newer lenses, sometimes I previsualize a photo's result, which means that I may want over or under exposure compared to the meter, and I'll see the final image with certain adjustments in mind, which means I need latitude and flexibility that JPEG can't give me. Also, I like the idea of being able to use the raw file in other ways later on - maybe changing the interpretation of a photo. I suppose I've spent too many years in the darkroom where a lot of adjustments can be made. Never cared much for slide film, so shooting with the transparency state of mind is odd for me - plus I like to do BW conversions and I believe RAW allows greater opportinities for that as well. Not that it can't be done with JPEG, but there seems to be greater flexibility with raw. Shel [Original Message] From: Kenneth Waller RAW works best for my style of photography and for my temperament. Care to elaborate Shel? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
