DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

Specifically, it appears that the search engine only searches in title lines.

Kiwi1 Loc: New Zealand

Hi JohnR,
Yes this was disussed the other day and I think it was Steve Perry and others that said opening and closing a Jpeg file does not result in lost data. So wherever that came from it is wrong. You may have a point about the size of the Jpeg file and the fact that the same amount of data is there but I seem to remember it is the compression process in making the Jpeg file means you cant reverse the compression process the data is locked if you like where as for RAW it remains able to be further manipulted. It would require a software engineer to better explain but it actually does not help as its not like we can do anything about it. It is what it is. Its a bit like saying why is the sky blue and when we know we cant make it any different.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Nicely done! And I agree 100%

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

That is a very nice 2002x3000 JPEG. I don't know what camera you used nor how much time you put in afterwards, but there is no way to prove that someone else, using either the same camera or another camera, could not take the same picture using the JPEG Straight Out Of Camera, and perhaps making minor edits, including cropping or downscaling to get that size.

JohnR Loc: The Gates of Hell

Hi. I shall simplify for those unable to decipher simple tables. I took 4 photographs of the same subject under the same lighting conditions using the same camera with the same exposure and the same ISO. Each of the 4 must therefore have exactly the same data recorded. First was a NEF file. Straight out of the camera this was 22k in size. 2nd was Jpeg Fine, this came out at 12k. Jpeg normal came in at 6k and Jpeg basic at 3K. Each was edited in exactly the same way and saved as a 100% Jpeg. The NEF file saved now as a Jpeg came to 18K - down from 22K. The Jpeg Fine edited and saved came to 19.5K up from its 12K ! The Jpeg normal edited came to 19K up from its original 6K and the last Jpeg basic also edited to 19K up from its original unedited size of 3K. I merely point out that the original files MUST have had the same data as each edited file came out at same size of 18 - 19K regardless of the size or type of the original. Simple logic says the original files must have contained the same information - if anything had been lost in the compression the final edited sizes would have varied proportionately. As I said editing, regardless of which program you use, can only change data. Adding text will add data to the files, cropping will reduce data.

Sure use RAW if thats what thrills you but don't try to kid others that its better - its not - its exactly the same but in a different format !

chaman

Your logic is flawed and you are wrong.

JohnR Loc: The Gates of Hell

You do yourself no favours responding in this fashion. You paint yourself with the colours of ignorance LOL indeed

Kiwi1 Loc: New Zealand

Well you contradict your own statement. Yes exactly we use RAW because it thrills us when we improve the image the way we want and we end up with a somewhat different file than if we tried to do the same with a Jpeg file..no brainer really!

chaman

You think so? And what color are you painting yourself with? Apart from that misguided arrogance and condescending bigotry? Your agenda is clear....as well as your ignorance.

Lets see real images from you! Educate the lot here.

JohnR Loc: The Gates of Hell

Your computer decompresses the file to display it on the screen. It decompresses it to the MP size of your screen not the original sensor MP size. It recompresses when you save. Of interest might be the fact that the majority of people use "full HD" displays at 1920 x 1080 to show anything up to 12000 x 6000 such as you get with a D850. (I think ? - I can't afford to hold a D850 in the shop let alone buy one !) At least a Retina iMac gives a 5K display so I can see the difference between 2MP shots and 14MP shots

JohnR Loc: The Gates of Hell

LOL LOL LOL

chaman

Images, where are them?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Sorry, but you have not uncovered the great RAW vs JPEG hoax ....

Compression can be of two types: lossless and lossy. In lossless compression, it is possible to reconstruct the original image from the compressed image because there is no information loss during compression. This is not the case in lossy compression i.e. data loss in lossy compression is irreversible. Lossy compression algorithms always have a superior compression ratio (the ratio of size of compressed image to original image) as compared to lossless compression. However, this compression ratio comes at a cost of reduced quality that becomes more evident after zooming in on the image. This noticeable reduction in quality or distortion of the image is called compression artifact.

JPEG is a lossy compression specification that takes advantage of human perception. It can achieve compression ratios of 1:10 without any perceivable difference in quality. Beyond this, the compression artifacts become more prominent. JPEG compression works by averaging out colors of nearby pixels (read Discrete Cosine Transform).

You have not decompressed the JPEGs from the camera and recovered all the compressed data from the RAW file. JPEG is a lossy compression. Every conclusion you've developed from this mistaken understanding is wrong. Your "logic" developed from the observation of file sizes from five (5) images and then used to determine how JPEG compression and edit software is ignorant of the facts as well as the very definition of JPEG. You haven't even provided the 5 actual images used to reach your conclusions that prove everyone (software engineers, camera manufactures, international standards organizations, aka everyone) to be wrong.

You're going to fit right in here ...

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I have done 'the experiment' numerous times, and never suffered from noticeable loss. The pictures I edit are often of stuff with tiny writing, railroad equipment, so I would notice loss because I inspect after each time {after I write out, I read back in and look - and, no, I don't have examples at hand, and this discussion isn't going to make me go look .... I have more important things going on in my life} I have nothing more to say.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

All I know is I shoot JPEG and have no significant problems .....that is the bottom line for me 8-) - and yes, I do also post process.....and mostly use current Sony cameras with EVF and in camera HDR. End of story.

..