Photagraphy pros....

[BlueZero]

Re: Photagraphy pros....

Bunky hit it pretty good!

RAW records all of the available information where as JPG records just the way you have the camera set up.

What software are you using to convert your RAW files?

Edit: Nick give this a read... Understanding Raw Files

[Nick Chapman]

Re: Photagraphy pros....

I guess I understand now. When the camera converts the picture to JPG, it compresses the file and that changes image quality, and when you shoot in RAW there is no compression, so the shot looks better?

Scott, I just use the program that came with the XSI, called Digital Photo Professional. I used to use Photoshop CS(version 8), but my copy now has some problems, and won't open for some reason. So I just started using the DPP that came with the camera. I actually like it a bit more for what I'm doing. Simple and to the point. Photoshop can get really confusing.

[Bunky]

Re: Photagraphy pros....

Are you comparing two JPG's: one created by camera vs one created from RAW? When you create a jpq you lose information since there is only so much "data" that can be stored (brightness levels, color levels, etc) in the file format.

[Nick Chapman]

Re: Photagraphy pros....

Are you comparing two JPG's: one created by camera vs one created from RAW? When you create a jpq you lose information since there is only so much "data" that can be stored (brightness levels, color levels, etc) in the file format.

Yes sir, one JPG was created in the camera on the L setting then resized. The other JPG file was shot in RAW, then converted to JPG when I resized the picture. No other post processing was done. Just resized and converted to JPG.

[RaskyR1]

Re: Photagraphy pros....

Good info guys...I've been playing around with my RAW files using the same software Nick has. Pretty cool that you can adjust the images after capturing the pic like that.

[RogueGypsy]

Re: Photagraphy pros....

Couple more tricks to save image quality. RAW has been defined pretty well, It's all the info resulting in a huge file. JPEG compresses that information, so in simple terms.

If you had 12 pixels of blue information:
RAW would store "BBBBBBBBBBBB"
JPEG would store "B12"
or the binary equivalent.

Aside from the in camera precessing, were this makes the biggest difference is when JPEG is saved. Every time you save a JPEG it re-interprets and compresses that information, which results in loss. It's like taking a pic from a film camera and having it developed. Then taking a picture of the picture and having it developed, then taking a picture of that picture and having it developed............etc, each time it is saved. To see how much info your loosing with each 'save', take one of your pics and save it in JPEG. Then open that file and save it again, just add a 1 to the end of the file name, then again and add a 2, then again and add a 3, then again and add a 4. Now open the original and #4 side by side and compare. Things are minor at 1 and 2, but by 4, 5 or 6, it's very noticeable.

To avoid the loss and save space on your hard drive. After editing your photos to the size, white balance, sharp, color correction that you want. Save them in TIFF instead of JPEG. TIFF is still a compressed file like JPEG, but unlike JPEG, it doesn't re-compress and interpret information every time you save.

Another option is using Irfan View, it's an easy, lite editing program that allows you to select how much compression you want and has a Lossless-JPEG option as well. It's free and has plug-ins for editing in RAW.

http://www.download.com/IrfanView/3000-2192_4-10021962.html?tag=mncol;pop

If you like something more advanced, try Gimp2.

http://www.download.com/GIMP/3000-2192_4-10073935.html?tag=mncol

Both are free, I've used Fastone, Picassa and paint.net too, I like Irfan the best and Gimp for more advanced stuff.

Brock

[Mark McGuire]

Re: Photagraphy pros....

Man, that's all over my head.

[ColonelCash]

Re: Photagraphy pros....

Couple more tricks to save image quality. RAW has been defined pretty well, It's all the info resulting in a huge file. JPEG compresses that information, so in simple terms.

If you had 12 pixels of blue information:
RAW would store "BBBBBBBBBBBB"
JPEG would store "B12"
or the binary equivalent.

Aside from the in camera precessing, were this makes the biggest difference is when JPEG is saved. Every time you save a JPEG it re-interprets and compresses that information, which results in loss. It's like taking a pic from a film camera and having it developed. Then taking a picture of the picture and having it developed, then taking a picture of that picture and having it developed............etc, each time it is saved. To see how much info your loosing with each 'save', take one of your pics and save it in JPEG. Then open that file and save it again, just add a 1 to the end of the file name, then again and add a 2, then again and add a 3, then again and add a 4. Now open the original and #4 side by side and compare. Things are minor at 1 and 2, but by 4, 5 or 6, it's very noticeable.

To avoid the loss and save space on your hard drive. After editing your photos to the size, white balance, sharp, color correction that you want. Save them in TIFF instead of JPEG. TIFF is still a compressed file like JPEG, but unlike JPEG, it doesn't re-compress and interpret information every time you save.

Another option is using Irfan View, it's an easy, lite editing program that allows you to select how much compression you want and has a Lossless-JPEG option as well. It's free and has plug-ins for editing in RAW.

http://www.download.com/IrfanView/3000-2192_4-10021962.html?tag=mncol;pop

If you like something more advanced, try Gimp2.

http://www.download.com/GIMP/3000-2192_4-10073935.html?tag=mncol

Both are free, I've used Fastone, Picassa and paint.net too, I like Irfan the best and Gimp for more advanced stuff.

Brock

I dig this...maybe I'm a nerd...
Nice summary.

[Bunky]

Re: Photagraphy pros....

Couple more tricks to save image quality. RAW has been defined pretty well, It's all the info resulting in a huge file. JPEG compresses that information, so in simple terms.

If you had 12 pixels of blue information:
RAW would store "BBBBBBBBBBBB"
JPEG would store "B12"
or the binary equivalent.

Brock

The net is there is less digital information to define an image so the quality is going to be less despite housekeeping shortcuts to save file size. The links about differences between RAW and JPG is a better explanation. It is not simply the same info in a smaller size. A lot has to do with how much compression (image detail loss there is) to get a smaller JPG. It is not 12 blues into 12B. it is like the JPG has on 8B. Which info that gets removed is part of creating the JPG..some products are better at this "art" than others.

The concept of constantly editing and saving is nice for many to know but not Nick's issue. Photoshop and other software take care of this for you by retaining revision history and do not allow you to save over an existing file easily so you always preserve.

In Nick's case, he should try to tune his incamera processing (if possible) or shoot raw and then create jpg's using the software that does a better job of generating a higher quality image.

[TKDDAD]

Re: Photagraphy pros....

Man, that's all over my head.

I'm with you...my camera shoots the pictures out of the bottom of the camera and then you have to shake them to dry them...it's cool

[BlueZero]

Re: Photagraphy pros....

I'm with you...my camera shoots the pictures out of the bottom of the camera and then you have to shake them to dry them...it's cool

Typically what I do with my photos is start with RAW, then convert to a TIFF file. Do any photoshopping that was required and save the finished photo as a TIFF and a JPG.

The method of going from your camera to a final print is referred to as the "digital workflow". If you google that term you will find articles that might help you. Here's one from the same site as the other link I provided... Digital Workflow. It's a great site.

[RogueGypsy]

Re: Photagraphy pros....

The net is there is less digital information to define an image so the quality is going to be less despite housekeeping shortcuts to save file size. The links about differences between RAW and JPG is a better explanation. It is not simply the same info in a smaller size. A lot has to do with how much compression (image detail loss there is) to get a smaller JPG. It is not 12 blues into 12B. it is like the JPG has on 8B. Which info that gets removed is part of creating the JPG..some products are better at this "art" than others.

The concept of constantly editing and saving is nice for many to know but not Nick's issue. Photoshop and other software take care of this for you by retaining revision history and do not allow you to save over an existing file easily so you always preserve.

In Nick's case, he should try to tune his incamera processing (if possible) or shoot raw and then create jpg's using the software that does a better job of generating a higher quality image.

Yep, I just tried to make it simple for others as well. I didn't think getting into the algorithms used to determine what information a manufacture thinks will produce the best end result for your photos would be helpful, thus the over simplification. Of course, there is much more too it than simply changing 12 blue dots into one blue dot with a value. I may be wrong, others may want to know this. Nick's issues seemed to be well covered in previous posts. I also wanted to give others some options in photo editing software, without dropping $200 on software they will not fully utilize.

And I completely agree that Nick's best option for quick clean pics with little outside processing is to create a user-preset. If I recall, the XSI also has the option of recording RAW+JPEG. Nice to have and use while working out the details in the user-preset.

Brock

[RogueGypsy]

Re: Photagraphy pros....

I dig this...maybe I'm a nerd...
Nice summary.

Nerd, schmerd. LOL If we didn't want to know stuff others could care less about, none of us would be here on MOL.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm

That link should really appeal the your inner-nerd.


Thanks,
Brock

[BlueZero]

Re: Photagraphy pros....

Nerd, schmerd. LOL If we didn't want to know stuff others could care less about, none of us would be here on MOL.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm

That link should really appeal the your inner-nerd.


Thanks,
Brock

Thanks Brock!

I bookmarked it! Yes, I am a nerd!