Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > RAW OR JPEG FILES ....

Reply
Thread Tools

RAW OR JPEG FILES ....

 
 
chesham
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-12-2006
Hello to you all!

I am now getting some reasonable results with my SONY F-828 camera ... but
recently encountered problems at the photo printers!

I had moved to using RAW files ... rather than 5 million pixel JPEG files
.... and it turned out that the RAW files were encoded! This meant that I
could only view the shots at home on my computer with my SONY editing
program! However, JPEG files are readily viewable!

Can anyone tell me if there really is a drastic difference of photo quality
with a 5 million pixel JPEG?

Regards,

Jon


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-12-2006
Hi,

There is a small problem with RAW files and that is that they are not
all compatible between different manufactures of camera's and even
between different models of cameras made by same manufacturer. This
creates difficulty opening those files by image editing software.

Quality difference is not really an issues in your case, as you are
taking it to printers and the result for standard photo print out like
10x15 would be the same. On the other hand if you are blowing up the
images to rather large scale the jpeg compression artifacts might show
up on the photo so the uncompressed RAW images that you created would
produce a better result.

Why not shot in RAW and then convert the files to TIFF format so
printers can open it. If you are worried about quality being lost with
jpegs.


chesham wrote:
> Hello to you all!
>
> I am now getting some reasonable results with my SONY F-828 camera ... but
> recently encountered problems at the photo printers!
>
> I had moved to using RAW files ... rather than 5 million pixel JPEG files
> ... and it turned out that the RAW files were encoded! This meant that I
> could only view the shots at home on my computer with my SONY editing
> program! However, JPEG files are readily viewable!
>
> Can anyone tell me if there really is a drastic difference of photo quality
> with a 5 million pixel JPEG?
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Joan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-12-2006
I did just that a couple of weeks ago. The TIFF files were each about
35MB and getting 18 files off the CD into the AGFA system took about
20 minutes. The guy behind the counter kept looking over to see what
was happening.

--
Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

"Dan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:443cdaac$0$205$(E-Mail Removed)...
: Hi,
:
: There is a small problem with RAW files and that is that they are
not
: all compatible between different manufactures of camera's and even
: between different models of cameras made by same manufacturer. This
: creates difficulty opening those files by image editing software.
:
: Quality difference is not really an issues in your case, as you are
: taking it to printers and the result for standard photo print out
like
: 10x15 would be the same. On the other hand if you are blowing up
the
: images to rather large scale the jpeg compression artifacts might
show
: up on the photo so the uncompressed RAW images that you created
would
: produce a better result.
:
: Why not shot in RAW and then convert the files to TIFF format so
: printers can open it. If you are worried about quality being lost
with
: jpegs.
:
:


 
Reply With Quote
 
Gisle Hannemyr
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-12-2006
"chesham" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> I am now getting some reasonable results with my SONY F-828 camera
> ... but recently encountered problems at the photo printers!
>
> I had moved to using RAW files ... rather than 5 million pixel JPEG
> files ... and it turned out that the RAW files were encoded! This
> meant that I could only view the shots at home on my computer with
> my SONY editing program! However, JPEG files are readily viewable!


The RAW file is not for printing or viewing. It doesn'r even contain
pixels! Your Sony editing program will silently convert the RAW file
to something else to show it to you on your home computer.

The idea behind a RAW file is that having access to the RAW sensor
data gives you greater leeway in post processing. Put for printing or
viewing, the file need to be saved in some standard image format
(e.g. JPEG, TIFF or PNG) after you have finished tweaking with the
RAW data.

If you don't postprocess your images, and have no plans of ever doing
saw, there is no point in shooting RAW. You should instead set your
camera to save directly in JPEG. Use highest JPEG quality.

> Can anyone tell me if there really is a drastic difference of photo
> quality with a 5 million pixel JPEG?


Why 5 million? The Sony F-828 let you save 8 million pixel JPEG.
Having more pixels let you print bigger, or crop,

As for RAW vs. JPEG: If you don't post-process, there should be no
perceptible difference. (In theory, JPEG introduces tiny colour
artefacts, but if you the use highest JPEG quality of the camera,
they can not be detected by human vision.)

Here is what happens: You camera will always record in RAW. It has 8
million photosites, so the RAW data will consist of 8 million 12 bit
sensor readings. If your camera is set to save as JPEG, these RAW
data will be converted in camera into 8 million 24 bit RGB pixels and
saved as a JPEG file. If you set your camera to save in RAW, the
sensor data is stored, and to create am RGB image, they need to be
processed. The whole point of doing the convertion from RAW to JPEG
yourself - instead of letting the camera do it, is that this allows
you to use use software that gives you some control over the
conversion process. If you're not interested in excerising that
control, there is no point doing it yourself, just let the camera
take care of things.

There a bit more to this, such as 48 bit RGB, colour management, and
the use of non-lossy formats such as TIFF - but I won't go into this
because it doesn't matter unless you use a professional lab to print
your photographs,

If you use typical consumer over the counter printing (e.g. WalMart),
you should give the printer standard JPEG files optimized for sRGB
colour space. This is what your camera will give you if you set
ut to save in JPEG. Use highest resolution (8 Mpx) and highest
JPEG quality.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gisle Hannemyr
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-12-2006
Dan <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Why not shot in RAW and then convert the files to TIFF format so
> printers can open it. If you are worried about quality being lost
> with jpegs.


Most consumer oriented minilabs make a mess out of TIFF. I don't know
why - the machines they use (e.g. Fuji Frontier) can handle it - but
maybe the clerks in these places don't know how to deal with TIFF or
colour profiles.

My experience is that for good results from consumer labs, JPEG
optimized for sRGB is the only way to go.

Btw.: If one don't post-process (i.e. making edits and iterative
savings of the JPEG file), there is no dicernable difference in
quality between low compression JPEG (>= 10 in PhotoShop) and TIFF.
IMHO, the notion that quality is lost with JPEG in this scenario
is a bit of a red herring. Only people that post-process need to
worry about JPEG quality.

Of course, if you print at a professional lab, or do your own
printing, colour managed TIFFs is a better option. But the OP
is obviously not doing this.

===============
> chesham wrote:
>> I am now getting some reasonable results with my SONY F-828 camera
>> ... but recently encountered problems at the photo printers! I had
>> moved to using RAW files ... rather than 5 million pixel JPEG files
>> ... and it turned out that the RAW files were encoded! This meant
>> that I could only view the shots at home on my computer with my
>> SONY editing program! However, JPEG files are readily viewable!
>> Can anyone tell me if there really is a drastic difference of photo
>> quality with a 5 million pixel JPEG? Regards, Jon
>>


--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jim Townsend
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-12-2006
chesham wrote:

> Hello to you all!
>
> I am now getting some reasonable results with my SONY F-828 camera ... but
> recently encountered problems at the photo printers!
>
> I had moved to using RAW files ... rather than 5 million pixel JPEG files
> ... and it turned out that the RAW files were encoded! This meant that I
> could only view the shots at home on my computer with my SONY editing
> program! However, JPEG files are readily viewable!
>
> Can anyone tell me if there really is a drastic difference of photo quality
> with a 5 million pixel JPEG?


If you're using full size JPEG, then it doesn't matter what format you
use. You ALWAYS have 5 million pixels in your image. You don't get
more pixels shooting RAW.

As others have mentioned, RAW isn't an image format. It's the raw data
from your camera sensor. It has to be processed further using software
designed for the task and THEN converted into a recognizable image format
(TIFF, JPEG etc). There is no standard for RAW, so most printers don't
want to see it.

Unless you're printing wall sized posters, JPEG will do just fine.


 
Reply With Quote
 
bmoag
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-12-2006
You need to understand what RAW is and then the peculiarities of shooting
RAW with the 828.
Unless you are shooting in a studio and/or have significant time between
exposures the 828 is difficult to use in RAW format because of the slow
write time to compact/flash memory card. This is partly because the 828 RAW
files are recorded with no compression, unlike dSLR RAW files.
You should also make a series of test exposures using color charts or a
subject with a wide range of color and tonal values using the 828 in jpeg
and RAW and see if there is a significant quality improvement with shooting
in RAW.
My experience with this camera is that if I turn down the sharpening using
jpeg (I prefer to sharpen myself) there is little diference in color
fidelity between jpeg and RAW modes with the 828. This is decidedly not the
case with, for example, the Nikon D70 where the color differences between
jpeg and RAW can be startling. Also the sensor in this camera lacks even the
exposure latitude of sensors in dSLRs (which is only fractions of an f-stop
anyway) so that shooting in RAW mode, even applying tricks like deliberate
underexposure (a la the Nikon D70) does not yield images with more usable
detail than shooting in JPEG with the 828.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jim
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-12-2006

"chesham" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hello to you all!
>
> I am now getting some reasonable results with my SONY F-828 camera ... but
> recently encountered problems at the photo printers!
>
> I had moved to using RAW files ... rather than 5 million pixel JPEG files
> ... and it turned out that the RAW files were encoded! This meant that I
> could only view the shots at home on my computer with my SONY editing
> program! However, JPEG files are readily viewable!
>
> Can anyone tell me if there really is a drastic difference of photo
> quality
> with a 5 million pixel JPEG?
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon
>
>

There are the same number of pixels in either JPEG or TIFF. The difference
is the degree of compression.
Every time that you save a file in JPEG format, some information is lost.
Eventually that loss becomes evident.
It does take more than a few saves for the loss in information becomes
serious, but remember that the loss is permanent.
Jim


 
Reply With Quote
 
Gary Hendricks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-13-2006
Hi Jon

With regards to your questions, here are my opinions:

1) If you're an average digital camera user, then just shoot in JPG and
be done with it. If you're shooting and just printing photos at a print
lab, then I think JPG will do - but make sure you use high quality JPG.

2) The RAW image format offers you the purest possible pictures, ready
for your editing on the computer. The RAW format is proprietary and
each manufacturer (Canon, Nikon, Olympus and the like) use their own
version. When you take a picture in RAW format, the camera does nothing
to the photo. There is no adjustment at all - the picture is purely
what is recorded by the image sensor on the camera.

3) The JPEG file format is the most popular image file format in the
world today. It's very popular because it saves a lot of hard drive
space. A high-resolution picture with 25MB of color information can be
shrunk down to about 1MB using JPEG compression.

The downside of JPEG? Well, bear in mind that each time you edit and
save a JPEG image, you're losing image quality. Some photographers
who want maximum image quality will avoid using JPEG totally.

4) The TIFF image format is the reverse of the JPEG format. A TIFF
image consumes a huge amount of disk space. We're talking about 6MB
to 18MB for a typical TIFF images. That'll eat up your hard disk in
no time. However, TIFF images are of extremely high quality - there
is no data discarded when you work with or save a TIFF file.


If you want to learn more, then check out these articles about image
formats:
http://www.basic-digital-photography...mpression.html
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm


Best Regards
Gary Hendricks
http://www.basic-digital-photography.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
XDepth Raw: a jpeg-compatible Raw compressed format for digitalcameras Trellis Management Digital Photography 6 10-01-2008 01:02 PM
Deleting RAW & jpeg files Tim Digital Photography 34 12-12-2006 01:28 AM
Nikon D70 RAW converted to JPEG - jpeg file size 3MB ? 5 MB? Amit Digital Photography 3 03-17-2006 10:40 AM
EOS 1d saves both jpeg and raw files? Mr.Will Digital Photography 10 09-29-2005 11:26 PM
huge jpeg files show as very small thumbnails (canon 300d, JPEG) kl Digital Photography 6 11-12-2003 08:11 PM



Advertisments