Shooting in RAW: I used to shoot photos in RAW format recently and have to convert them in JPEG in PP and again need to reduce the size of the photos to be able to post them in order...

farrokh Loc: Iran

I used to shoot photos in RAW format recently and have to convert them in JPEG in PP and again need to reduce the size of the photos to be able to post them in order to shorten upload time. Is there a better way both to preserve the quality of images along with faster time of upload ?
Many thanks in advance.

Searcher Loc: Kent, England

Why not shoot raw + jpg, use Lightroom to manage them all. process (at leisure) the raw files, and store the raw files on an external hard drive.

henk33 Loc: Netherlands

Use Lightroom. All the pictures stay in high quality. With one export command you export a set of pictures in a chosen format and a chosen size. As often as you want.

Yesterday a made a serie of 600 photographs of a swimrun. In a few hours I did some corrections, horizon equal, dark shadows enlighten etc. After that an export to my sport photo site. Very easy

Gr, henk

Rongnongno Loc: FL

farrokh wrote:

I used to shoot photos in RAW format recently and have to convert them in JPEG in PP and again need to reduce the size of the photos to be able to post them in order to shorten upload time. Is there a better way both to preserve the quality of images along with faster time of upload ?
Many thanks in advance.

Yes and no.

Yes: Better quality
Reduce the size and then save for WEB as PNG. You need not to keep the resized pictures since you can redo that any number of times from the original.
Doing so (use of PNG format) you get an outstanding quality superior to JPG (no compression), the opportunity to have a transparent background and you are compliant with the WEB. Limitations in color depth (8 bits) and dynamic range (2) are the same.
This format is the replacement to JPG and has suppressed all of its drawback relative to additive losses (edit/compression).
In addition, UHH allows for up to 20MB PNG file to be uploaded.

No: PNG are significantly larger then JPG

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

farrokh wrote:

I used to shoot photos in RAW format recently and have to convert them in JPEG in PP and again need to reduce the size of the photos to be able to post them in order to shorten upload time. Is there a better way both to preserve the quality of images along with faster time of upload ?
Many thanks in advance.

When you load an image into an image editor, save the result in an intermediate file format such as TIFF (or a non-destructive save of the editing steps).

Then for each and every different use of the image, do three things. First resize the pixel dimensions appropriately. Next sharpen it for that pixel dimension. Then save it to an output file format, such as PNG or JPEG.

PNG has virtually no advantages over JPEG, other than being able to include an alpha channel for transparency. As for quality, if JPEG is set to 100% it is just as good as PNG. PNG cannot be set to 80% or less though, which won't make any difference for viewing, but will prevent someone from stealing the image off the internet and printing it a larger size, and of course thar also greatly reduces the file size.

Hence it depends greatly on what use is made of the final product.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Apaflo wrote:

When you load an image into an image editor, save ... (show quote)

And another who has no clue. JPD creates artifacts that are cumulative when edits are saved over each other. There are banding when saving the first time. None of that appear in PNG. I long ago made a thread over the difference ON THE FIRST SAVE.

So, saying JPG is 'just a good' is intellectually dishonest and a disservice to the community at large.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Rongnongno wrote:

And another who has no clue. JPD creates artifacts that are cumulative when edits are saved over each other. There are banding when saving the first time. None of that appear in PNG. I long ago made a thread over the difference ON THE FIRST SAVE.

So, saying JPG is 'just a good' is intellectually dishonest and a disservice to the community at large.

JPEG, for certain uses, has advantages over PNG. Specifically for web use it is usually an advantage to use JPEG. For certain other uses PNG is a better choice. It depends on what the image is used for.

A commercial photographer selling images on the Internet would be very ill advised to post images for customer selection using PNG.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

JPG has only one advantage that is also its greatest failure: Compression.

That the WWW gods selected PNG as a new WEB standard to replace both GIF and JPG should tell you something but no.

Funny how WE cling to old idea and concepts. If I do not here, I most certainly do on others things... Like not wanting even a cell phone that I consider like a slaver's leash. Yet it is convenient, available most of the time (coverage). Now that the cell phones have mutated onto multimedia internet tied gadget I am growing more and more hostile as I see a distinct degradation in social interaction as well as a growing tendency of being expected to be 'on line' all the time to answer inane messages or even work.

So, no, you are not the only one who gets hangups but when a hang up prevents other folks to see the real advantages of a new standard, I point it out. Not as a diplomat thought so I apologize to the aggressive tone of the initial post.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Rongnongno wrote:

JPG has only one advantage that is also its greatest failure: Compression.

That the WWW gods selected PNG as a new WEB standard to replace both GIF and JPG should tell you something but no.

PNG was designed to replace GIF, not JPEG. It is definitely better for text and line drawings, but not for camera generated photography images.

If you don't want web viewers to avoid your site because it is slow, JPEG is almost always better than PNG. If you'd like to post quality images that are okay for people to view but want to discourage downloading to print or other wise use, JPEG is vastly better than PNG.

These differences may not be necessary for your particular needs, but that doesn't make them less than very significant.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Apaflo wrote:

PNG was designed to replace GIF, not JPEG. It is ... (show quote)

Check again. It is as replacement for both.

amehta Loc: Boston

farrokh wrote:

I used to shoot photos in RAW format recently and have to convert them in JPEG in PP and again need to reduce the size of the photos to be able to post them in order to shorten upload time. Is there a better way both to preserve the quality of images along with faster time of upload ?
Many thanks in advance.

I don't mind having four copies of an image for four different purposes:
1. original raw file, available for future processing attempts
2. processed dng for further editing with different software
3. high resolution jpeg for printing
4. low resolution jpeg for uploading

It takes up more room on my hard drives, but each image is a good choice for its purpose. Hard drive space is cheap compared to almost anything else having to do with photography for me.

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

Apaflo wrote:

PNG was designed to replace GIF, not JPEG. It is ... (show quote)

Your right on this one.

PNG files are ruffly twice the size of JPE. People with dial up or slower speed internet, even with limits on GIGS per month and in some cases limited to daily usage, will not wait for a PNG file to down load.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Apaflo, Bill, Amehta, etc - you guys are absolutely correct.

farrokh Loc: Iran

My special thanks goes to all you guys who taught me a lot and shared, though, yet, I like to know more.

amehta Loc: Boston

farrokh wrote:

My special thanks goes to all you guys who taught me a lot and shared, though, yet, I like to know more.

Keep asking questions, you'll learn a lot, especially as you have to sift through some conflicting answers. :-D