Wahawk Loc: NE IA

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Very nicely done!

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

Learn what JPEG is. Learn what RAW is. (I'm gonna save this and post it every time this comes up. )

ALL IMAGES START OUT AS RAW. Your camera processes the image- per certain adjustments you may have set- such as white balance or compression amount... and drops the image from 12 or 14 bit to 8, and applies your settings- irreversibly to the final JPEG image. If you set the white balance wrong- you can improve the image- but you can't really get it like it would be if you had set it right at exposure.


All JPEG is... is a loss-full compression algorithm. Why people stick up for and defend an algorithm, and one that degrades the image on each successive save, is beyond me. It is a final destination, not the journey. You can polish the fart- but it is still a fart.

JPEG is the "VCR" of digital images. It is not the best but it is readily supported across software and output devices and services. That is the only reason it is still around- it offers no other advantages. Currently, JPEG works in 8 bit per channel depth, I have heard of a 12 or 14 bit depth version coming that will improve things I suppose- we'll have to see. JPEG compresses images in part by pixel averaging. ie; it takes pixels that are similar but slightly different from each other- (Detail) and simply makes them all the same, (thus loss of subtle detail) This simplifies the code needed to store the image electronically, and thus allows the image to be compressed in memory size. The slider you may come across - adjusts the size of an image in JPEG, it is in part- expanding the number of different, but similar colors to appear for all time thereafter- all the same, making the code even more simple.. Every time YOU SAVE a jpeg, it runs this pixel averaging algorithm all over again on the pixels it already averaged the last time(s)- (simply opening and closing does not) . Thus every time you open an image and save- more subtle detail is lost to future enhancements or adjustments... etc. It degrades- no matter how slight you have the jpeg settings set at.

RAW is loss-less format- what the camera sensor saw- no processing. Every pixel is perhaps a bit different across the image- this is subtle detail. Even in a jet black area- there is often LOTS of detail. (JPeg may make this all one color black...) IN the RAW, these differences usually remain intact- depends just how underexposed it is... . This pixel color is "Described" in a mathematical form in 12 - 14 bits. The larger the number- the more accurate the subtle diffence. So on a logarithmic scale- an 8 bit channel has 256 tones, vs a 14 bit which has 16,000. SO you work with the raw or lossless algorithm, leaving the RAW file just as captured, so you can return later and mess with it all over again- its all still there.

Your "expense" is a much larger file size- and the time you take to adjust it, computing power, memory- etc. . These are the downsides to RAW workflow size/time/capability


YOu can make jpegs from raw to your advantage- ie- work with the raw file, get everything just the way you want it, then save a copy as a JPEG. That's what you look at or send around to get printed. There is no advantage of turning a jpeg into raw or any other loss-less algorithm unless you count the further degradation factor from whatever you already lost. You can;t retrieve detail that was dumped.

Your eye may not be able to detect all these subtle differences. But your computer can see the differences, and you can bring them out, etc., whatever. SO your final save- the one you send to the printer, the one you upload to view- etc. for this... JPEG is perfect! OR if you are shooting in an environment that is not particularly challenging or a snap shot sort of situation- where you would not expect to want to spend time adjusting , etc., then shoot in JPEG!

I shoot in both- I dump all the NEF's if the jpegs look fine. I even adjust them a bit when needed. If someone picks one, then I turn to the raw version to work with. If Ihave captured something special- i save the NEF (Nikons RAW format) I have nothing against JPEG - I just understand what it is- and don't pretend it is something it isn't.

It is your final "destination" - some trips are long and some area quick- just around the corner... LOL.

8 bit vs 12-14 bit explained.
http://laurashoe.com/2011/08/09/8-versus-16-bit-what-does-it-really-mean/

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

:thumbup: :thumbup:

bigwolf40 Loc: Effort, Pa.

I am posting one line of what you said...(Every time YOU SAVE a jpeg, it runs this pixel averaging algorithm all over again on the pixels it already averaged the last time(s)- (simply opening and closing does not) . Thus every time you open an image and save- more subtle detail is lost to future enhancements or adjustments... etc. It degrades- no matter how slight you have the jpeg settings set at./.......
Were you say-(simply opening and closing does not.) That is the part that is important. Now let me try to explain what I mean. When you go to PP a Jpeg image the first thing you should do is make a copy this way you are not doing any PP on the original. Now the next thing you do is do your PP on the copy. After your done and are ready to save you click on "save as" and give this finished copy a different number such as the original was #123 you would name this one, the copy, #123-1. Now this would go into your folder right next to the original and as you said the original (simply opening and closing does not) change the original. This way you can open an close the original Jpeg a 100 or more times with no lose at all.... I hope I explained it in an understanding way.....Rich

NJFrank Loc: New Jersey

I agree it is always good to have options. You never know you may like PP in raw, if not you still have your jpeg image.

Jacksond Loc: Melbourne Australia

You don't need anyone's "permission" to stick to jpeg or to do the most elaborate PP imaginable if as long as you are pleased with the results. ;)

amehta Loc: Boston

But they might want to consider why so many people here are suggesting shooting at least raw+jpg. It's hard to know if they will be "pleased with the results" if they don't know what the capabilities are. That's the whole point of asking for advice from people who might know more about these things.

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I'm working with PSE 12 (a newbie to PP) and using "the missing manual" by Barbara Brundage and I seem to recall you can "duplicate" a jpeg image, and work on it to your hearts content.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

There's no reason to save an image to JPEG over and over again... simply save it to (loss-less) TIFF format and don't change it back to JPEG unless you need to email the image or upload it as a small file.

Certainly there are advantages in exporting an image from the camera to RAW for editing, but the differences are not nearly as overwhelmingly significant as you claim. By looking at an image, can you really tell if it initially came from JPEG or RAW export? Unless the image came from a highly compressed JPEG, I can't. I doubt many people can. There are plenty more important factors than discarded bits that will have an impact on how an image looks, such as sensor size, lens performance, amount of digital noise, selected exposure and amount of blur due to camera shake or inappropriate shutter speed. How the final image looks should be the primary concern, not numbers.

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

AND if you have your software set correctly, there would be very minor compression in the JPG files. Most programs, by default, are set for saving in approx the 1/2 way point in quality. Set that to MAXIMUM quality/MINIMUM compression and the resulting file will generally be larger than the original but will be preserving the detail that so many say you will lose!!

With Corel PSPx6 I took a random, recent image (taken with my SX50hs set for JPG-Fine) and opened it up. I did NO editing but did a SAVE-AS with Standard Encoding at the LOWEST compression (1) instead of the default (20) and the file size went from 5.70mb to 6.80mb. Then I took the SAME image and did a SAVE-AS with "Lossless" encoding and the file size went to 7.84mb. Therefore, IF you set your program correctly, you will see little to no image loss with each save. HOWEVER, if you leave your software to save at the 'standard' settings or the higher compression rates, then YES each successive save WILL degrade and lose parts of the image.

bigwolf40 Loc: Effort, Pa.

If you read my post above you will see how to do it and it is very simple.....Rich

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

Thanks Rich for the great information. The way it seems to work with me is once I open a jpeg and duplicate it, do all I want to the image I then simply save it. On my "grid" view, there is a very small arrow on the right of the processed image, with the original residing beneath the post processed image. Am I correct in assuming the non-processed image beneath the processed one still maintains it's integrity? Thanks for all the help.

bigwolf40 Loc: Effort, Pa.

To be honest I've never done it that way only the way I explained and I found the way I do it very easy and safe. I can keep making copies of each one I've PP and do more PP if I want to. I even do a Black & White one from one of the already PP photos, give it a certain number, save it and then go back to one of the colored ones and do more PP. Just remember that each time you do this to give each one a new number as I said like the original is Number 123 then next 123-1, 123-2, 123-3 and so on....Rich

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

I'm going to give your system a try. I just returned from Moab, UT with over 300 images, some I need to do some work on and practice my newly found PP. Thanks again Rich.

jorgecollins

Sure, why not. It all depends on personal taste and touch. A program like Adobe Lightroom makes the whole RAW processing and conversion so much easier and accurate. I think there are a lot of programs that will do it too.