Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Discarding jpegs due to multiple edits?
Page <<first <prev 6 of 9 next> last>>
Apr 4, 2019 11:16:35   #
suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ
 
My personal experience supports that this is true IF you are editing and re-editing a Jpeg multiple times and using destructive edits rather than applying filters. Opening and closing a Jpeg and making a few edits here and there won't make a noticeable difference.

Reply
Apr 4, 2019 11:20:29   #
Fredrick Loc: Former NYC, now San Francisco Bay Area
 
Dragonophile wrote:
PLEASE, I DO NOT WANT A RAW VRS JPEG DISCUSSION. I have seen enough of those. You don't like jpeg, fine. But this is NOT the thread to explain to me and others why we should avoid jpeg.

My question is about real world experiences of those WHO DO USE JPEG in the area of degradation. I am asking if jpeg users have ever had to discard formerly good photos because they saw too much degradation after multiple edits. If so, how many edits? Were they saved at highest quality or compressed more each time?
PLEASE, I DO NOT WANT A RAW VRS JPEG DISCUSSION. I... (show quote)


I’ve never had to discard jpegs because of too much degradation. When I first started editing, I might have edited the same jpeg up to ten times ... but then I don’t recall blowing them up to large prints. Small prints up to 8 x 10 were always fine.

Then I read where there was degradation with multiple edits. So, now I do my initial edits with the master and save it under another name. If I like my newly edited file and want to make other edits for myriad reasons, I save it to a different VERSION of that initially edited file (all in jpeg.) V2, V3, V4, etc. In this way, I only edit a given jpeg file ever once.

This gives me the advantage of comparing different versions to see which one might be my final version. Once I decide, I simply delete the other versions.

This may seem unnecessary to other folks, and there could be other simpler techniques (maybe with layers?) but it works for me. Large prints (I’ve printed up to 24 X 36) look great.

Reply
Apr 4, 2019 11:21:41   #
AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire
 
danersmiff wrote:
The TIFF file routine is one way...---

But the way I understand jpeg files work...
Simply opening them, and closing them is no loss.
Loss comes after repeatedly "saving"...
So then, to edit, open the original, make a copy, and close the original.
Edit away on the copy, save it once, and done.
To tell the difference, the copy will usually be saved with a (-2) after the original file name.


The problem with re-editing the JPEG is that you always have to go back to the original image to avoid loss. If you finally get Aunt Millie’s skin tone right and her hair edited into place, you can’t just carry on from there unless you’ve switched the image to TIFF or PSD.

It’s a lot too much work IMHO, but that may be because I don’t always have a solid hour or two to work on a really special image. It’s just so much easier to start with RAW and go back and forth as your vision of the shot develops.

That’s the main reason I don’t even try to edit JPEGs in their native format.

Andy

Reply
 
 
Apr 4, 2019 11:32:19   #
R.G. Loc: Scotland
 
The degradation varies depending on the content of the image. Areas with gradations of light or colour are susceptible to banding and blockiness. Areas with fine texture or lots of small detail are susceptible to becoming mushy due to loss of fine detail. Mushiness can be limited to one specific area and can be caused by over-editing of that particular area even within just one edit, but apart from that specific effect it's not the editing that causes degradation - it's repeatedly saving as jpeg that causes problems.

Opening a jpeg just to view it doesn't cause degradation provided it doesn't have to be re-saved, but saving as a jpeg does cause degradation due to the compression process that's applied in the "save" process. If there's any possibility that a jpeg may have to be edited in the future it should be saved in a lossless format such as tiff or png.

Reply
Apr 4, 2019 12:21:33   #
Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA
 
I do a lot of screen pulls from 10 bt Sony AVCHQ video files. I use them as jpgs
for clients and friends for PR and event shots use. I have a simple approach to
enhance the photos in Photoshop and I get good reviews on the shots.
And plenty of excitement because I do if right away.
Next week I will do a running event production and will load the footage
that allows me to blow up the viewer in Final Cut Pro X and grab some jpg's
For serious still shooting I use raw. I like my jpg results from a color sat.
a little sharpening etc in PS.
As far as jpgs I know the deal about saving loss etc and it has never been
enough for me to see any problem. For serous art photography I use raw.

Reply
Apr 4, 2019 12:27:56   #
duane klipping Loc: Bristow iowa
 
Dragonophile wrote:
I have read/been told that every time you edit a jpeg file you lose some information. I am not questioning this fact. However, some people imply this is a problem; others say no big deal. When I save my jpegs, I do so at the highest quality the program allows.

My question: are there Hoggers who have discarded formerly good jpeg pictures because they became degraded over time with multiple edits? I am curious if this is a real world problem or more a theoretical concern. If you have lost pictures, can you estimate the number of discrete editing sessions they underwent.

I assume the degradation becomes more noticeable as the print size increases, correct?
I have read/been told that every time you edit a j... (show quote)


Never save over an original and you will always have the unedited version to start with if you need to.

Reply
Apr 4, 2019 12:33:56   #
mschenkman908 Loc: Arlington, VA
 
Yes, it becomes more noticeable at print size. To see what is happening check the file size before and after the JPEG edit. That is the information you are losing. With the file size you can get an idea how large a print you can make. It is okay to print an 8x12 from a file of a few megabites but when it goes down to 500KB you might have a problem.

Reply
 
 
Apr 4, 2019 12:40:34   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
Dragonophile wrote:
I have read/been told that every time you edit a jpeg file you lose some information. I am not questioning this fact. However, some people imply this is a problem; others say no big deal. When I save my jpegs, I do so at the highest quality the program allows.

My question: are there Hoggers who have discarded formerly good jpeg pictures because they became degraded over time with multiple edits? I am curious if this is a real world problem or more a theoretical concern. If you have lost pictures, can you estimate the number of discrete editing sessions they underwent.

I assume the degradation becomes more noticeable as the print size increases, correct?
I have read/been told that every time you edit a j... (show quote)


I discard all of my jpegs once they have been posted/delivered.

I only keep raw captures and the 16 bit psd or Tiff file use for editing.

Reply
Apr 4, 2019 13:00:27   #
dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia
 
Here is an interesting video on loss over 500 saves. The first example is flif (Free Lossless Image Format)
then three other formats are shown over 500 saves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=32&v=IheZzcYUV9w

Reply
Apr 4, 2019 13:00:42   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
Blenheim Orange wrote:
Why intentionally degrade images to any degree?

Why edit JPEG files? Serious question.

Mike


For some professionals, JPEGs are an absolute necessity. We take precautions to ensure accurate exposure and white balance, and we take advantage of all the menu settings we’ve tested, with one goal: to maximize adjustment latitude by minimizing the NEED for it.

Then, minimal adjustment does little damage, and minimal compression leaves few or no visible artifacts.

Obviously, raw capture can provide far more adjustment latitude. What it can’t do is add value in situations where time to end use and labor costs must be minimized. There are MANY such situations.

I use both raw and JPEG capture. I have very well-defined use cases for each, and no snobbery regarding which is “better.” Both serve a purpose. Use the right tool for the job...

Reply
Apr 4, 2019 13:36:35   #
Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan
 
Picture Taker wrote:
I have a a external hard drive that I save all my pictures AS TAKEN by date (190404 year month day) This allows me to have all my pictures to do as I see fit years after they were taken as well as a complete back up


But do you have any Sebewaing Brewery collectibles?

Mike

Reply
 
 
Apr 4, 2019 13:40:33   #
Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan
 
burkphoto wrote:
For some professionals, JPEGs are an absolute necessity. We take precautions to ensure accurate exposure and white balance, and we take advantage of all the menu settings we’ve tested, with one goal: to maximize adjustment latitude by minimizing the NEED for it.

Then, minimal adjustment does little damage, and minimal compression leaves few or no visible artifacts.

Obviously, raw capture can provide far more adjustment latitude. What it can’t do is add value in situations where time to end use and labor costs must be minimized. There are MANY such situations.

I use both raw and JPEG capture. I have very well-defined use cases for each, and no snobbery regarding which is “better.” Both serve a purpose. Use the right tool for the job...
For some professionals, JPEGs are an absolute nece... (show quote)


Of course, Bill. Understood. I would never argue otherwise.

Mike

Reply
Apr 4, 2019 13:53:49   #
davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.
 
burkphoto wrote:
For some professionals, JPEGs are an absolute necessity. We take precautions to ensure accurate exposure and white balance, and we take advantage of all the menu settings we’ve tested, with one goal: to maximize adjustment latitude by minimizing the NEED for it.

Then, minimal adjustment does little damage, and minimal compression leaves few or no visible artifacts.

Obviously, raw capture can provide far more adjustment latitude. What it can’t do is add value in situations where time to end use and labor costs must be minimized. There are MANY such situations.

I use both raw and JPEG capture. I have very well-defined use cases for each, and no snobbery regarding which is “better.” Both serve a purpose. Use the right tool for the job...
For some professionals, JPEGs are an absolute nece... (show quote)


Praise the Lord!👍

Reply
Apr 4, 2019 14:25:09   #
bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada
 
Dragonophile wrote:
I have read/been told that every time you edit a jpeg file you lose some information. I am not questioning this fact. However, some people imply this is a problem; others say no big deal. When I save my jpegs, I do so at the highest quality the program allows.

My question: are there Hoggers who have discarded formerly good jpeg pictures because they became degraded over time with multiple edits? I am curious if this is a real world problem or more a theoretical concern. If you have lost pictures, can you estimate the number of discrete editing sessions they underwent.

I assume the degradation becomes more noticeable as the print size increases, correct?
I have read/been told that every time you edit a j... (show quote)

If you must edit JPG images, save them as 16bit TIF and do your multiple edits/saves/loads etc. in TIF format. Then save the final result back to JPG.

However, the above said, one or two edits of a JPG with 100% quality saves is not going to seriously degrade a JPG image. It all depends on what you consider 'seriously degraded' to be...

bwa

Reply
Apr 4, 2019 16:08:10   #
hassighedgehog Loc: Corona, CA
 
I always have the original JPG because I always use "SAVE AS" for my edited versions. No possibility of having to delete except for bad copies.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 6 of 9 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.