RAW vs JPEG (JPG) - The Visual Guide: As this keeps coming up I thought I would post it as a new thread so it would be easy to find in the future. Probably more than you wanted to...

gdwsr Loc: Northern California

As this keeps coming up I thought I would post it as a new thread so it would be easy to find in the future. Probably more than you wanted to know.

http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg-jpg-the-ultimate-visual-guide

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

gdwsr wrote:

As this keeps coming up I thought I would post it as a new thread so it would be easy to find in the future. Probably more than you wanted to know.

http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg-jpg-the-ultimate-visual-guide

An outstanding study of the differences between raw and jpg. I don't see, though, where it addresses my primary concern about jpg. If you open Image0001.jpg, edit it (or not), and save it in the same location as Image0001.jpg - and continue to do so time after time, the quality of the image will begin to deteriorate. By saving under a different file name such as Image0001_1.jpg, you create a completely new file that, if not saved over itself repeatedly, will maintain the integrity of both files. If I am wrong in my logic, please explain how and/or why I am wrong.

By the way, I have bookmarked your study as a permanent resource. Thank you for all your work.

gdwsr Loc: Northern California

yeah Bill. He didn't mention a couple of things. Jpeg noise wasn't mentioned either. I've been taught that Jpeg is "lousy" in that repeated saving degrades. But if I understand it correctly, Jpeg 2000 and Jpeg LS are lossless.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Bill41 wrote:

quote=gdwsr As this keeps coming up I thought I w... (show quote)

You are correct.

You are saving a "copy" of the original JPG file each time....it doesn't degrade the JPG to be opened and closed repeatedly.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Thank you for your feedback. I will begin researching JPEG 2000 & LS immediately.

It's really nice to write something and have the people who disagree offer alternatives.

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Thank you

alibelle Loc: london

I save a copy of my best photos in TIFF (lossless)

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

If I want to preserve the original I also use "save as". If I want the original amended for ever, I use "save" Bye the way, CaptureNX2, when using "Save as" converts the JPEG to the Nikon NEF (raw) format

richnash46 Loc: Texas

gdwsr wrote:

As this keeps coming up I thought I would post it as a new thread so it would be easy to find in the future. Probably more than you wanted to know.

http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg-jpg-the-ultimate-visual-guide

That is some of the absolutely best information explaining RAW vs JPEG that I have seen, both visually and textually! The clear, concise explanations reinforced through the visual imagery is outstanding! Many thanks for posting this to the HOG, I too have bookmarked it!

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

gdwsr wrote:

As this keeps coming up I thought I would post it as a new thread so it would be easy to find in the future. Probably more than you wanted to know.

http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg-jpg-the-ultimate-visual-guide

This article was very well prepared and presented. Thanks for sharing.

One piece he did not discuss was workflow. Raw files are not processed, and must be before they can be used. How the photographer gets from the click of the shutter to the printing of the image is called workflow. I'm anal about organizing my photos, so this workflow is extremely important to me. My usual recommendation to anyone who has decided to shoot raw format is to first sit down and (literally) write down your workflow. Then, set up your editing/organizational software to support that workflow. This goes hand-in-hand with shooting raw, in my opinion.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Bill41 wrote:

quote=gdwsr As this keeps coming up I thought I w... (show quote)

Sorry but you logic is wrong about saving jpg's using a different name. Every single time you save a jpg, it re-compresses the image and you loose some data. Even if you give it a new name. Yes, every time. Not with RAW, Not with PSD, and not with TIFF.

naturepics43 Loc: Hocking Co. Ohio - USA

gdwsr wrote:

As this keeps coming up I thought I would post it as a new thread so it would be easy to find in the future. Probably more than you wanted to know.

http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg-jpg-the-ultimate-visual-guide

Thanks for sharing this info. It's exactly what I needed. Plain, easy to understand explaination of the difference. As they say " A picture is worth a thousand words"
Thanks again!

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

jeep_daddy wrote:

quote=Bill41 quote=gdwsr As this keeps coming up... (show quote)

The work flow is:
modify - then use "Save As" to save it with a new name
Close the original file - do NOT save it, thus it remains unchanged.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

BboH wrote:

quote=jeep_daddy quote=Bill41 quote=gdwsr As th... (show quote)

Now I see what you guys are saying. Sorry, I didn't read the second half of Bills statement thouroughly. The original jpg image will be preserved if opened, modified and then "saved as" a different jpg and then closed. But in theory, the newly created image will have some loss compared to the original. Sometimes the new image will be larger (more megabites) caused by post processing, such as increasing ppi of the image.

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

jeep_daddy wrote:

quote=BboH quote=jeep_daddy quote=Bill41 quote... (show quote)

Yes!