rmalarz wrote:
Once you change a jpg, it's changed for good. Thus the reason for saving the copy. --Bob
But who does that. The object is to save the changed jpeg under a new name, and retain the original jpeg, so you can go back and do a substantially different change and save that new change as a new file.
In fact, I (and I know many others who) archive my originals before I do any other work on them. The originals as they came off the memory card are in a special folder, with subfolders, on my external drives. They are NOT mixed in with jpgs I have made changes.
The whole myth of RAWs being like negatives is frustrating. They are NOT negs, nothing like negs, and they retain their originally because the changes CANNOT be saved back to the RAW file. The programs that edit RAW can not write the changes back to the Original RAW format. RAW is simply non-destructible because of the limits put into the programs that edit them. You cannot save a RAW file as a RAW file.
JPG on the other hand is completely lost in it's original form by overwriting the files with the changes. If a person wanted to keep the originals, the process is VERY Simple. DO NOT overwrite the changes to the original file.
The safest way to prevent that is don't work with the originals, archive them, and work with copies to begin with.
You never have to lose your original shots... in fact it is near impossible to lose your original shots.
Likewise, while not impossible, it's difficult to lose your original Jpegs as long as you archive originals OR never overwrite your working jpgs with the changes you make, but give the new modified files different names like a sequence number.
Managing the Jpegs that are original or modified is not difficult. If you keep originals, and you keep the final modifieds, you will NOT use more storage space than you do by keeping RAW (big files) and edited Jpegs or TIFF files. TIFF are often bigger than RAW.
Summary...
1)RAW- changes and mods cannot be written back over the RAW. Changes and mods can only be saved in other formats, ie Jpeg, TIFF, etc. RAW has the safety factor of being indestructable by edits.
2)Jpeg- changes and mods can be written back over the original jpeg, losing the original. Common logic is to rename the file on the save, avoiding overwrite and loss of the original. Management can be done by sequential new names to avoid loss of the original.
3) TIFF- the essence of TIFF is that the same considerations for Jpeg apply, however TIFF is not a compression algorythm on the save. Jpeg cannot keep layers separate in most editing programs, while TIFF allows editing with the opportunity to return to the layers used in editing. TIFF's are often referred to as "Lossless" with no compression. (In reality, there are TIFF formats that WILL do compression, where you control the percentage of compression... Last time I looked there were well over 40 proprietary variations of TIFF, with many differences in scope and operation.)
RAW is of no value in terms of a file to send to others for review, as it takes a RAW editor to open it. Simplifying that statement, one would not send a RAW file to a service company for print. One would not generally send a RAW file to anyone for quick viewing, as it takes a RAW editor to view a RAW file. That's why the shooter edits a RAW file, and saves it to another usable or quick viewing format for general use.
The OP had the problem that most print services are NOT going to edit a RAW, just to make it printable/viewable. That is the responsibility of the original person to provide an image that can be simply worked with by the printers. THEY, DO NOT work with RAW for the most part.
Likewise you would not send Gramma a pic of the kids as a RAW file. Most likely Gramma does not have a raw editor and cannot show Grampa the Grandkid from a RAW file.
And finally, the first Jpeg that comes out of your camera is compressed, as are all Jpegs. It has already had some data discarded, so how can it possibly be referred to as a "negative" in the sense that a RAW is. It does not have as much data as the RAW, when you first start working on it.
That's about as inappropriate an analogy as the inappropriate analogy that RAW is like a Negative on film. Both analogies simply lead to confusion/frustration between trying to explain differences between film and digital.
RAW is simple the unadulterated capture of all the information that the sensor is capable of recording, into one file with more information, and prior to any compression of the data by the settings set up for Jpeg in the camera. Jpeg does NOT give you the totality of the recorded information in the capture that the sensor has the capacity to record in total. Jpeg is compressed. Compression is a function of discarding data from the file. RAW maintains all the data the sensor can record in a file.
What happens after, if you are shooting RAW Plus Jpeg is acquisition of two (2) files. One with all the data, one with less than all the data. The processing engine in the camera controls how much smaller the Jpeg (jpg) becomes.
Film is an analog variation of the digital process used in the digital camera.
In no way is it variable by differences in collection of the scene. Film uses a light sensitive chemical reaction based on emulsion, speed of light capture, etc. It is built into the file, one time. There are no variables of the camera other than shutter speed, or aperture, and possibly filters that can change the information collected by film. Added to that control is the ISO/ASA of film, which is fixed for each roll or sheet of film. All post capture manipulation of film is done in chemicals, and by variations of light, dodging, burning, etc. AFTER capture.
In addition, and again, in analog terms, the dynamic range is a function of each film type and emulsion. Where a digital camera has a dynamic range of the sensor, it is actually the film type, speed, and exposure characteristics of each roll or sheet of film that governs the Dynamic Range of film. A comparison would be if the memory cards you used controlled, speed, light gathering characteristics, etc. of the digital camera. That is not the case.
It is true Ansel Adams was a master in post capture manipulation of film, but it was analog with light control, filtering and little sticks with cardboard shapes attached to the end. In addition, he was a master at the differing chemical reactions, times of development or exposure to light.
Many postulate that Ansel would have had great fun with digital...???? Hmmm... perhaps not. The learning curve would not be totally lateral.
In addition, Ansel Adams was an extremely talented Concert Pianist. Many of his showings were set to his fingers manipulating the keys of a Concert Grand.
Have any here listened to his talent on the keyboard. I know ou've all seen "Sunrise over... whatever that town was". :thumbup: :hunf: