RAW - Jpeg conversion

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by FocusClick, Aug 31, 2003.

  1. FocusClick

    FocusClick Guest

    I like to shoot in RAW quality unfortunately the photo labs in my area will
    only process JPEG format. I don't understand why but....... When I convert
    a RAW image to JPEG image in my editing software, how much quality is lost?.
     
    FocusClick, Aug 31, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. FocusClick

    Mark B. Guest

    "FocusClick" <> wrote in message
    news:cEl4b.10167$...
    > I like to shoot in RAW quality unfortunately the photo labs in my area

    will
    > only process JPEG format. I don't understand why but....... When I

    convert
    > a RAW image to JPEG image in my editing software, how much quality is

    lost?.
    >
    >


    That depends on the conversion software, and usually you can determine how
    much compression there is - high quality, medium quality, etc. or a number
    scale like 0-100. Better yet, convert to tiff if possible - then do your
    editing and make the last save in jpg.

    Mark
     
    Mark B., Aug 31, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. FocusClick

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 12:14:00 GMT, "FocusClick"
    <> wrote:

    >I like to shoot in RAW quality unfortunately the photo labs in my area will
    >only process JPEG format. I don't understand why but....... When I convert
    >a RAW image to JPEG image in my editing software, how much quality is lost?.



    There is nothing inherently wrong with JPG. When using JPG with
    low compression (i.e, at the highest quality settings) the losses are
    often invisible, either on screen or printed.

    The thing you don't want to do with JPG is save a file again and
    again in JPG format. Ie., JPG is appropriate if it is used as the
    final image format, but not for a work in progress.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Aug 31, 2003
    #3
  4. FocusClick

    HRosita Guest

    >"FocusClick"

    Wrote:>I like to shoot in RAW quality unfortunately the photo labs in my area
    will
    >only process JPEG format. I don't understand why but......


    Hi,

    RAW format is not standardized and each manufacturer has their own. I imagine
    the labs don't want to spend time determining with which camera the RAW image
    was taken.

    Like posters said JPG when used as the last format can be saved almost without
    loss depending on your software..

    Rosita
     
    HRosita, Aug 31, 2003
    #4
  5. FocusClick

    Tom Monego Guest


    > Is JPG lossy even if saved repeatedly with 100% quality (0%
    >compression)?


    As long as it compresses, it makes artifacts. Just converting to jpeg (low
    compression) for printing shouldn't be a problem at all. I would just wonder
    about a shop that won't take tif files.


    Tom
     
    Tom Monego, Aug 31, 2003
    #5
  6. FocusClick

    Hans Kruse Guest

    RAW format is dependent on the camera brand and even camera model and you
    need to determine the parameters for the conversion like WB, contrast etc.
    to get the right quality. If you don't waht to do this, you could as well
    shoot directly in JPG format. If you convert with the best JPG quality
    (minimum conpression) then you don't really loose quality, but if you want
    to be sure of no quality loss then convert to TIF format.

    "FocusClick" <> wrote in message
    news:cEl4b.10167$...
    > I like to shoot in RAW quality unfortunately the photo labs in my area

    will
    > only process JPEG format. I don't understand why but....... When I

    convert
    > a RAW image to JPEG image in my editing software, how much quality is

    lost?.
    >
    >
     
    Hans Kruse, Aug 31, 2003
    #6
  7. FocusClick

    Guest

    In message <cEl4b.10167$>,
    "FocusClick" <> wrote:

    >I like to shoot in RAW quality unfortunately the photo labs in my area will
    >only process JPEG format. I don't understand why but....... When I convert
    >a RAW image to JPEG image in my editing software, how much quality is lost?.


    JPEG files give 8 bits of color information for each channel (red,
    green, and blue), which is not enough precision for lots of
    manipulation, but is usually quite satisfactory for final output. Just
    do as much editing as possible in 16-bit mode, and convert to an 8-bit
    jpeg only at the last step, and choose the highest quality (lowest
    compression).
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Aug 31, 2003
    #7
  8. FocusClick

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Beowulf <> wrote:

    > Is JPG lossy even if saved repeatedly with 100% quality (0%
    >compression)?


    100% quality is a myth for plain old jpegs. They all have *some* lossy
    compression, although you may not necessarily be able to see it in a
    casual viewing.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Aug 31, 2003
    #8
  9. FocusClick

    Lucas Tam Guest

    Beowulf <> wrote in
    news:p:

    > Is JPG lossy even if saved repeatedly with 100% quality (0%
    > compression)?
    >


    Depends on the application (each JPEG implementation is different), but
    generally speaking yes, the file is recompressed every so slightly.

    --
    Lucas Tam ()
    Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
    http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
     
    Lucas Tam, Aug 31, 2003
    #9
  10. FocusClick

    Mike Graham Guest

    In article <cEl4b.10167$>, FocusClick wrote:

    > I like to shoot in RAW quality unfortunately the photo labs in my area will
    > only process JPEG format. I don't understand why but....... When I convert
    > a RAW image to JPEG image in my editing software, how much quality is lost?.


    I was just flying home from out of town this morning, and I bought a copy
    of the September 2003 issue of Outdoor Photographer to read on the plane.
    There is an article therein on "JPEG vs. RAW - The Battle Over Quality". I
    found it *highly* enlightening, and if I was to boil my answer to that
    question down to two words, based on what I read:

    "Not much."


    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Mike Graham | Metalworker, rustic, part-time zealot.
    |
    <http://www.metalmangler.com>| Caledon, Ontario, Canada

    Lousy photographer with a really nice camera - Olympus C3020Zoom.
    <http://www.metalmangler.com/photos/photos.htm>
     
    Mike Graham, Sep 1, 2003
    #10
  11. FocusClick

    Don Forsling Guest

    "Frank Ehrlich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Mark B." <> wrote in message

    news:<>...
    > > "FocusClick" <> wrote in message
    > > news:cEl4b.10167$...
    > > I like to shoot in RAW quality unfortunately the photo labs in my area
    > > will only process JPEG format. ...

    >
    >
    > Find a better lab.


    Oh, how helpful.

    I'm sure the original poster never thought of that.

    Perhaps you can suggest a shop that will handle whatever you walk in
    with--Canon RAW, Nikon RAW, Minolta RAW, whatever--any kind of RAW, all
    proprietary and all different and all requring different sofware to read..
    It's not always easy to find a lab that will PROCESS in RAW (anybody's
    RAW)--and by processing in RAW I mean I mean no conversion to TIFF or JPEG
    or anything else along the way to the print. There are several factors
    involved that result in the original poster's problem, and he deserves a
    better answer that "Find a better lab."

    Heck, I'd suggest that the poster do his gross manipulation (white balance,
    whatever) in whatever flavor of RAW his camera produces, convert the files
    to TIFF, do his more extensive and sophisticated manipulation in TIFF and
    take 'em to the lab for printing. End of problem.

    --

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --
    Don Forsling

    "Iowa--Gateway to Those Big Rectangular States"
     
    Don Forsling, Sep 1, 2003
    #11
  12. FocusClick

    Mike Graham Guest

    In article <>, wrote:

    > JPEG files give 8 bits of color information for each channel (red,
    > green, and blue), which is not enough precision for lots of
    > manipulation, but is usually quite satisfactory for final output. Just
    > do as much editing as possible in 16-bit mode, and convert to an 8-bit
    > jpeg only at the last step, and choose the highest quality (lowest
    > compression).


    How many bits are supplied by your CCD?

    I seriously doubt it's 16.

    12, perhaps?

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Mike Graham | Metalworker, rustic, part-time zealot.
    |
    <http://www.metalmangler.com>| Caledon, Ontario, Canada

    Lousy photographer with a really nice camera - Olympus C3020Zoom.
    <http://www.metalmangler.com/photos/photos.htm>
     
    Mike Graham, Sep 1, 2003
    #12
  13. FocusClick

    Mark B. Guest

    "Frank Ehrlich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Mark B." <> wrote in message

    news:<>...
    > > "FocusClick" <> wrote in message
    > > news:cEl4b.10167$...
    > > I like to shoot in RAW quality unfortunately the photo labs in my area
    > > will only process JPEG format. ...

    >
    >
    > Find a better lab.


    First, I don't know why you replied to my post. I didn't ask the original
    question. Second, that was lame advice anyway. Since raw formats are
    proprietary, unlike jpg and tiff, no lab is going to work with raw files.

    Mark
     
    Mark B., Sep 1, 2003
    #13
  14. "Mark B." <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > ....
    >
    > First, I don't know why you replied to my post. I didn't ask the original
    > question. Second, that was lame advice anyway. Since raw formats are
    > proprietary, unlike jpg and tiff, no lab is going to work with raw files.
    >
    > Mark



    Sorry Mark,

    I replied through the Google archives, and your post was the only one
    in the thread that had a working link for replying. I quoted the
    message to which I was responding as a reference.

    My reply was not intended to suggest the lab should work with raw
    files, but as a commentary to the shortcomings of labs that will
    *only* take JPEG files:
    > "...the photo labs in my area will only process JPEG format."


    If a lab can't handle TIFF, PSD or PDF files, it's a little behind
    the times or, in your terminology, lame.

    Frank
     
    Frank Ehrlich, Sep 4, 2003
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Buy-N-Sell

    TiFF to JPEG conversion

    Buy-N-Sell, Dec 7, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    1,078
    J. A. Mc.
    Dec 11, 2003
  2. nerd
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    817
  3. Amit
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,358
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)
    Mar 17, 2006
  4. ~^ beancounter ~^

    35mm slides to jpeg conversion....

    ~^ beancounter ~^, Oct 19, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,257
    Douglas Johnson
    Oct 23, 2007
  5. Trellis Management
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    510
    Wallace D.
    Oct 1, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page