Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
RAW and JPEG question
Page <<first <prev 8 of 10 next> last>>
Jun 14, 2019 05:47:26   #
BebuLamar
 
John_F wrote:
Do you happen to know the name of the mathematical algorithm that compresses a Raw file from X bits to X-Y bits. And is that compression standardized across the photo industry.


I think the uncompressed RAW use 16 bit to store 14 bit thus there are 2 unused bits for every value.

Reply
Jun 14, 2019 08:47:58   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
DirtFarmer wrote:
I think you are missing something and that we raw people don't exaggerate all that much. Yes, you can do a lot with a jpg, but I'd put that number at 90% instead of 99%. There are times when the extra dynamic range of the raw file is worth it.

In my opinion even if raw is worth it only 1% of the time, it's worth shooting raw all the time, since I never know which photo is going to require that little extra and that might include that one nonrepeatable photo I really want. Look on it as insurance.
I think you are missing something and that we raw ... (show quote)

My experience is raw shooters exaggerate enormously. Worse, is they are quite often flat out wrong about what they are claiming. I'll give you the 90% vs 99% number, but that would greatly depend on many factors. Also, I have no argument with shooting raw if the 1% or 5% of the time raw is useful and your pictures are that important to you, then indeed, slap on the RAW T-Shirt.

There certainly are reasons to shoot raw, but most, at least 90% to 99% of the hoggers seem to have no reason at all to shoot raw, based on what I see. Many photo's are just bad (including mine) and raw won't do a thing. Some are fantastic, and raw not needed. For most of us that just like taking pictures and more importantly editing them, jpg is just fine, and if raw is the only way to save your lousy pic, the DELETE button is probably a better friend.

Reply
Jun 14, 2019 08:56:40   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
Kaib795 wrote:
A agree. Years ago I'd work on a jpeg file and save it and it's a done deal, you cannot go back.

The editors I've used all allow you to "go back. PS has .psd files, Affinity has .afphoto files. ACDsee has .acdsee files and so on. These formats are also lossless, so that's another false issue.

What editor are you using that edits raw files that doesn't have a developer format that saves edits of a jpg file in lossless format?.

Reply
 
 
Jun 14, 2019 09:02:51   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
davyboy wrote:
One of the best responses I’ve read in a long time!

Thanks. I don't hear that much around here.

Reply
Jun 14, 2019 10:10:39   #
Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb
 
I love photography been doing it seriously since the early 50's (stationed in Libya). I shoot for a newspaper and I sell pictures, some to other Pro photographers. I am not the best (will keep trying to be)but I can take a good picture in JPG print it on canvas in 24X36 or 39X40 and get $200.00 each at a show and sell them for less in quantities of 6 to stores that re sell them. I don't care about most of the point we have been talking about. Yes I know most of the details we have been picking over. Just enjoy your time taking pictures and improve you vision of the shot.

Reply
Jun 14, 2019 10:10:39   #
Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb
 
I love photography been doing it seriously since the early 50's (stationed in Libya). I shoot for a newspaper and I sell pictures, some to other Pro photographers. I am not the best (will keep trying to be)but I can take a good picture in JPG print it on canvas in 24X36 or 39X40 and get $200.00 each at a show and sell them for less in quantities of 6 to stores that re sell them. I don't care about most of the point we have been talking about. Yes I know most of the details we have been picking over. Just enjoy your time taking pictures and improve you vision of the shot.

Reply
Jun 14, 2019 13:58:51   #
John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN
 
I once conducted a raw image experiment in which a raw 6,000x4,000 pixel image having 24,000,000 pixels was saved in a SSD card and read in computer. At 16 bits per pixel the filed would have to exceed 48,000,000 bytes (the excess for file header data). In fact, the Mac reported a file size of a bit over 25,000,000 bytes. Bottom line is the 24 Mp could not have over an 8 bit depth. Where did the other claimed 8 bits go? Is this whole debate a dreamland.

Reply
 
 
Jun 14, 2019 14:11:57   #
BebuLamar
 
John_F wrote:
I once conducted a raw image experiment in which a raw 6,000x4,000 pixel image having 24,000,000 pixels was saved in a SSD card and read in computer. At 16 bits per pixel the filed would have to exceed 48,000,000 bytes (the excess for file header data). In fact, the Mac reported a file size of a bit over 25,000,000 bytes. Bottom line is the 24 Mp could not have over an 8 bit depth. Where did the other claimed 8 bits go? Is this whole debate a dreamland.


My uncompressed RAW from a 16MP is 34.3 Mb.

Reply
Jun 14, 2019 16:44:55   #
smf85 Loc: Freeport, IL
 
My lossless compressed files for a 48MP camera run from 50MB to 67MB.

Reply
Jun 14, 2019 17:15:59   #
John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN
 
John_F wrote:
I once conducted a raw image experiment in which a raw 6,000x4,000 pixel image having 24,000,000 pixels was saved in a SSD card and read in computer. At 16 bits per pixel the filed would have to exceed 48,000,000 bytes (the excess for file header data). In fact, the Mac reported a file size of a bit over 25,000,000 bytes. Bottom line is the 24 Mp could not have over an 8 bit depth. Where did the other claimed 8 bits go? Is this whole debate a dreamland.


I should have mentioned my camera was the Sony α6300. Different cameras different results as one reply reported.

Reply
Jun 15, 2019 07:55:48   #
Streets Loc: Euless, TX.
 
I wonder when this topic will be covering the sub-atomic physics level of raw vs. jpeg. We appear to be getting close. Just shoot jpeg and use the extra time you have by enjoying the outdoors.

Reply
 
 
Jun 15, 2019 08:54:32   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
BebuLamar wrote:
My uncompressed RAW from a 16MP is 34.3 Mb.

That doesn't sound right to me. A 16 MP file should be around 16Mb, a little more for file overhead. My 24MP NEF files are around 24Mb, some a bit more, some a bit less, plus the small sidecar file that contains the edits. Curious why yours would be 2x larger than the data they contain? What camera is making your raw files?

On that note, some of my 24mp raw files are less than 24mb, and that doesn't make sense to me either?

I know some of my PSD files can get really, really huge, but not the raw file. I have no idea what all Adobe puts in a PSD file to get it super large, some almost 400Mb, others just over a meg.

Reply
Jun 15, 2019 10:09:24   #
BebuLamar
 
BigDaddy wrote:
That doesn't sound right to me. A 16 MP file should be around 16Mb, a little more for file overhead. My 24MP NEF files are around 24Mb, some a bit more, some a bit less, plus the small sidecar file that contains the edits. Curious why yours would be 2x larger than the data they contain? What camera is making your raw files?

On that note, some of my 24mp raw files are less than 24mb, and that doesn't make sense to me either?

I know some of my PSD files can get really, really huge, but not the raw file. I have no idea what all Adobe puts in a PSD file to get it super large, some almost 400Mb, others just over a meg.
That doesn't sound right to me. A 16 MP file shou... (show quote)


That is about right for the Lossless Compressed RAW but with Uncompressed 14 bit RAW it's 34MB.

I attached a NEF file just to show you. I seriously don't think it make any significant different in quality but I would rather use more storage space than compromise anything

Sorry the UHH limit is 20MB
The file is 34256KB.

Reply
Jun 15, 2019 11:50:19   #
LiamRowan Loc: Michigan
 
Streets wrote:
I wonder when this topic will be covering the sub-atomic physics level of raw vs. jpeg. We appear to be getting close. Just shoot jpeg and use the extra time you have by enjoying the outdoors.


Streets, I don't agree with on this topic, but sure enjoy your witty comments!

Reply
Jun 15, 2019 13:30:29   #
PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA
 
BigDaddy wrote:
That doesn't sound right to me. A 16 MP file should be around 16Mb, a little more for file overhead. My 24MP NEF files are around 24Mb, some a bit more, some a bit less, plus the small sidecar file that contains the edits. Curious why yours would be 2x larger than the data they contain? What camera is making your raw files?

On that note, some of my 24mp raw files are less than 24mb, and that doesn't make sense to me either?

I know some of my PSD files can get really, really huge, but not the raw file. I have no idea what all Adobe puts in a PSD file to get it super large, some almost 400Mb, others just over a meg.
That doesn't sound right to me. A 16 MP file shou... (show quote)


By your way ot thinking each pixel puts out only 1 bit! What a lame A/D that would be.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 8 of 10 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.