RAW + Jpeg (Page 2): Good thing I added that new 64 bit smell card to my desktop yesterday and installed Microsoft Scents 2014.

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

Morning Star wrote:

And here I was hoping for something like lavender or jasmine....

Good thing I added that new 64 bit smell card to my desktop yesterday and installed Microsoft Scents 2014.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

johneccles wrote:

My Olympus EPL-5 has a 16mp sensor, when I take photos in RAW they are usually around 14-15mb in size, the Jpeg photos however are around the 8mb size.
It may be a silly question bu why is there a difference.
Thanks, John.

When you shoot in Jpep, the camera is compressing and throwing out data that it feels it doesn't need. RAW is the entire digital negative and (using the proper post processing) can give you extremely superior results. Jpeg allows the camera software to make decisions about the shot that you might not choose or want where the Raw image is EXACTLY what the camera saw. Raw also allows for some error in exposure that can be recovered in post processing. (Note: RAW unprocessed images may look flatter and without as much snap as jpegs until you have processed them. This is because it has more data and is showing you everything.)

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

chiya wrote:

Jpeg compresses the files and you have some data lost.

:thumbup:

johneccles Loc: Leyland UK

Hello David, thanks for your reply, it confirmed what I had assumed. I usually shoot in RAW except last week while on a cruise I decided to shoot RAW + Jpeg now I am back home I regret selecting that option due to extra files it produces and extra space used on the memory card. The RAW images are very good pre PP so usually I need to do are very small amount of PPmto them.
Once again thanks for your help,
John.

Himat Loc: Toronto

If want better jpeg shooting in L (large) and fine it will give better quality pictures unless you only shoot in Raw hope this help

jeryh Loc: Oxfordshire UK

because the jpegs are compressed, and the raw images have all the information from the sensor; the camera processes the JPEGS, and with raw, it is up to you- hence the bigger size in mbits

technilen Loc: New Jersey

Thanks for the article link. I'm far from an expert but it seemed authoritative and I think I know more after reading it than I did before.

technilen Loc: New Jersey

But did you install the Barnyard extension? <g>

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

johneccles wrote:

Thanks for that, have just read the article and that explains why. I process RAW with Zoner Photo Studio and when converted to Jpeg they still remain around 11mp in size, but when I use PSE 11 the Jpeg size comes down to around 4mp another mystery to me.
Once again thanks for your help,
John.

The JPG size is determined by the amount of compression used. MOST programs that allow you to save in JPG format will also have a setting somewhere in the 'advanced' or 'custom' settings to set the compression for 'best quality' or 'smallest size'. Try using both ends of those settings and look at the huge difference in size of the files. Your Zoner Photo Studio is obviously set for a much lower compression rate than the PSE11 is, but you could probably set PSE11 to save with a lower compression as well. I know that Corel PSP and Picasa both have those compression rate settings.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

johneccles wrote:

Thanks for that, have just read the article and that explains why. I process RAW with Zoner Photo Studio and when converted to Jpeg they still remain around 11mp in size, but when I use PSE 11 the Jpeg size comes down to around 4mp another mystery to me.
Once again thanks for your help,
John.

There's no mystery to that. PSE 11 is simply compressing it more. When you save the finished image, make sure you check all the different options and use 100% or the highest number for the quality. The lower the percent/quality number used, the smaller the file will be and the lower the quality of image.

GaryS1964 Loc: Northern California

johneccles wrote:

Hello David, thanks for your reply, it confirmed what I had assumed. I usually shoot in RAW except last week while on a cruise I decided to shoot RAW + Jpeg now I am back home I regret selecting that option due to extra files it produces and extra space used on the memory card. The RAW images are very good pre PP so usually I need to do are very small amount of PPmto them.
Once again thanks for your help,
John.

I shoot RAW + JPEG. My goal is always to get the best possible JPEG out of the camera. Depending on the purpose of the photos I mostly get acceptable JPEGs but when I don't I have the RAW to use for tweaking in PP. Overall this saves me time as I don't have to do the RAW to JPEG conversion on all my images and I only have to do PP on a few.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

GaryS1964 wrote:

I shoot RAW + JPEG. My goal is always to get the best possible JPEG out of the camera. Depending on the purpose of the photos I mostly get acceptable JPEGs but when I don't I have the RAW to use for tweaking in PP. Overall this saves me time as I don't have to do the RAW to JPEG conversion on all my images and I only have to do PP on a few.

A lot of the Magazine and News Photogs shoot both. At the Playoffs, Olympics, etc. they have an FTP server that their cameras wirelessly upload the jpegs to. This gives the Mag editors a beginning group of images to start their layouts. Then they get the Raw files at the end of the event to go ahead and process. This also gives the editors a heads up on what images the photographer got in case they want something special.

zincgt Loc: Tucson AZ

Thanks Captain C I kinda thought the compression difference, was determined by the amount of "scenic" value in the frame. Then I guess the next logical question would be, how does a RAW shot converted to TIFF become 50-100 mb size from original of 20-24 mb RAW?

amehta Loc: Boston

zincgt wrote:

Thanks Captain C I kinda thought the compression difference, was determined by the amount of "scenic" value in the frame. Then I guess the next logical question would be, how does a RAW shot converted to TIFF become 50-100 mb size from original of 20-24 mb RAW?

The main reason for this is that the raw file has one piece of information for each pixel, while the tiff file has three. With the raw sensor data, the color of the pixel is determined by the specific color filter in front of the pixel. The raw converter takes this and produces red, green, and blue values for each pixel. These can be stored in the tiff file with either 8 bits or 16 bits for each color, so the 16-bit tiff file is twice as big as the 8-bit tiff file.

zincgt Loc: Tucson AZ

amehta wrote:

The main reason for this is that the raw file has one piece of information for each pixel, while the tiff file has three. With the raw sensor data, the color of the pixel is determined by the specific color filter in front of the pixel. The raw converter takes this and produces red, green, and blue values for each pixel. These can be stored in the tiff file with either 8 bits or 16 bits for each color, so the 16-bit tiff file is twice as big as the 8-bit tiff file.

Thanks... Gotcha. I was just having a hard time trying to figure out how there could be more data than the RAW file.