If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
RAW OR JPEG FILES ....
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
RAW OR JPEG FILES ....
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
RAW OR JPEG FILES ....
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" wrote in message ... : 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. : : |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
RAW OR JPEG FILES ....
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
RAW OR JPEG FILES ....
"chesham" wrote in message ... 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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
RAW OR JPEG FILES ....
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Playback of JPEG files | Ron Bradley | Digital Photography | 8 | January 23rd 05 04:33 PM |
Thumbnail Software? | Dave | Digital Photography | 40 | September 23rd 04 06:28 AM |
A short study on digicam's fixed jpeg compression ratio | Heikki Siltala | Digital Photography | 23 | July 28th 04 08:49 AM |
Creating Slide Shows using a DVD Player and JPEG Files | Ray | Digital Photography | 5 | July 8th 04 12:49 AM |
JPEG Questions: Loss In Quality When "Saving" | Xtx99 | General Photography Techniques | 3 | April 8th 04 04:25 PM |