Lens Diaries Go Now
Glamour, Beauty, Nude, Models, Photographers

*    |  Register  


 
Go Back   Garage Glamour™ > Garage Glamour™ Main Forums > Tech Talk Forum
 

Tech Talk Forum Photography & Technical Related Only!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Just curious,
Old 12-01-2004, 01:37 PM   #1 (permalink)
Free Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Member GG#: 37072
Posts: 119
Comments: 0

bchan3rdi is offline IP: 24.227.43.182
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

I know this is one persons opinion but, give this a read on jpg vs raw. Whats your opinions? (sorry if its an old rehashed topic)

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

it's kinda lengthy but I found it of interest.

Hope everyones got a good start on the holiday shopping.

Brian
  View Public Profile Send a private message to bchan3rdi Find More Posts by bchan3rdi
 
Re: Just curious,
Old 12-01-2004, 03:07 PM   #2 (permalink)
Lifetime Photographer

 
DavidMoyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Member GG#: 36994
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 1,802
Comments: 0

DavidMoyle is offline IP: 64.164.73.93
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

The only problem I see is that, say I want the highest quality image possible to make a .tif out of so I can use it for design work or to make a large poster out of. And, he's assuming I even want a j-peg at all. J-peg is a lossy form of compression and serves absolutely no purpose for good quality print design, regardless of what seems to be a new trend with graphic designers providing j-pegs for print ads. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
  View Public Profile Send a private message to DavidMoyle Visit DavidMoyle's homepage! Find More Posts by DavidMoyle
 
JPG Shooter
Old 12-01-2004, 03:14 PM   #3 (permalink)
Lifetime Photographer
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Member GG#: 35195
Posts: 440
Comments: 0

rjwarren is offline IP: 24.160.124.193
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Brian

I'm a jpg shooter -- for many of the reasons stated in the article. You get an immediately usable file and many more of them per storage device. A good compromise.

I found much of what was written in the article to be more opinion than fact. The idea that a jpg viewed immediately after capture vs a RAW immediately after capture would look better -- well, no kidding. The RAW file has had no post processing. The idea that RAW was for bit-twiddlers that manipulate each image is bogus - the writer must not know how to write batch actions in PhotoShop. I have a couple of RAW-shooting friends that bring in the first image in a series, tweak it, save the action, then apply it to the rest of the shoot (as appropriate). The article's conclusion isn't bad -- that jpgs are probably more useful and universal than RAW -- but the facts and the logic are flawed.

Bob

  View Public Profile Send a private message to rjwarren Visit rjwarren's homepage! Find More Posts by rjwarren
 
no purpose?
Old 12-01-2004, 06:50 PM   #4 (permalink)
Lifetime Photographer

 
StuHaluski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Member GG#: 36068
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 350
Comments: 1

StuHaluski is offline IP: 24.98.10.76
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

A photo with any camera any format is lossy. a picture taken with film or digital capture is a compressed version of what you saw as you took the photograph.

Granted a raw image probably has more information than the slightly compressed version of the jpeg file that most cameras make, but I would like to see you shoot 7 shots as fast as I can shoot 9 jpegs. And most people wouldn't see the difference between a shot that started out as RAW vs one that starts as a .jpeg after post processing any ways.

Now, I shoot a lot, maybe too much, but the type of images I capture usually are fleeting moment, and if I am changing flash cards every ten minutes or waiting for my buffer to clear then I am not going to get those moments recorded, not without going thru a lot more effort.

My point is... if you or your camera is not ready for the moment, I don't care how good your capture ability is, you are NOT going to have that moment as a photograph.

The impact of a photo taken at the right moment can totally overcome most deficencies in contrast, color, exposure, and grain if it is a truly great picture in the first place.

If it didn't then we might all be using 8x10 large format cameras.

just my .0237849 cents worth.

Stu

  View Public Profile Send a private message to StuHaluski Visit StuHaluski's homepage! Find More Posts by StuHaluski
 
Re: Just curious,
Old 12-01-2004, 07:14 PM   #5 (permalink)
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Member GG#: 38754
Location: Oroville
Posts: 40
Comments: 0

Paul_Illes is offline IP: 24.7.154.192
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

I figure there must be something wrong with my eyes but I shoot many jpegs at 3000 megs and "fine." I make 8.5 x 11's as a matter of course and I have never had a client complain about the quality of the print. Of course I don't make posters very often, either, but I have had pretty good luck blowing an occasional one of these up to 20 by 30 using Imagener, as long as the exposure was right on. Maybe wedding photogs have to allow for the clients who "may" want larger wall pictures to hang, but I don't think those clients inspect them at a ten inch range like the photogs on this board do.

Now, if you're selling advertising photos that's another thing but I think most of the people here are wedding and people photographers. Maybe. (g)
  View Public Profile Send a private message to Paul_Illes Find More Posts by Paul_Illes
 
Re: no purpose?
Old 12-01-2004, 10:50 PM   #6 (permalink)
Lifetime Photographer

 
DavidMoyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Member GG#: 36994
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 1,802
Comments: 0

DavidMoyle is offline IP: 64.164.73.93
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Well, unfortunately, that's just not true. j-peg is lossy. Always has been. Tiff is not. And there is just no comparing the quality you get from a RAW 16-bit image to a j-peg (Granted, you need to reduce it to 8-bit before you print it, but the highest possible quality original is always best for print design). Most times, you won't notice the difference between a tiff and j-peg on screen, and you probably won't notice it on a small brochure. But, just in case a client comes to me and wants a huge poster-sized design, I'd rather be safe. I hear what you are saying about speed of shooting and the amount of times you need to change storage cards. It's basically a trade-off, and it is why digital still has some weaknesses over film in that area. And there is definitely an arguement that most times you don't need the extra size, etc. But the arguement that any format is lossy just is not true based on everything I've read and learned in the last 12 years.
  View Public Profile Send a private message to DavidMoyle Visit DavidMoyle's homepage! Find More Posts by DavidMoyle
 
Re: Just curious,
Old 12-01-2004, 10:55 PM   #7 (permalink)
Lifetime Photographer

 
DavidMoyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Member GG#: 36994
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 1,802
Comments: 0

DavidMoyle is offline IP: 64.164.73.93
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

I just shot a fire-truck for a fire museum poster. I also sell some of my work to people who want poster-sized prints to frame, and I do a poster-sized calendar for a client of mine every year, so that is where I notice the difference. I was just answering to the fact that this was left out of the article and it could be important, I think the article was more geared to a specific group. If j-peg works for what you do, then I wouldn't change.
  View Public Profile Send a private message to DavidMoyle Visit DavidMoyle's homepage! Find More Posts by DavidMoyle
 
Re: no purpose?
Old 12-02-2004, 12:33 AM   #8 (permalink)
Lifetime Photographer

 
StuHaluski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Member GG#: 36068
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 350
Comments: 1

StuHaluski is offline IP: 24.98.10.76
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

David every photograph ever taken of any scene is nothing but a compressed version of that scene, there is nothing that we have that can record all the data even in a small scene.

BTW I never said jpeg wasnt lossy.

A jpeg is just one more step of compression that happens before I change it into a tif. All you are doing is manually deciding what part of your RAW file you are going to get rid of or keep whichever way you wish to look at it.

My point is that for every situation there are different approaches and different tools. By locking yourself in to a certain practices [ QUOTE ]
serves absolutely no purpose for good quality print design

[/ QUOTE ] can limit you in mindset and capability. Basically I am choosing a faster speed film or smaller format film than you are. i.e. 35mm vs medium format arguement. No one argues you cant take a good shot with 35mm any more, of course medium and large format take a larger recording of a given scene but not necessarily a better record.

I really rebutt hard to comments that indicate there are only certain things or ways to accomplish something. For every technique I have read can be used in wholly different manner than for which it was meant to be used. And for every "rule" I have seen, I have in turn seen it elegantly broken, destroyed, obliterated.

I can appreciate that you choose to use RAW format for what you do, and it serves its purpose for you but to say that jpegs serve no purpose is wrong.
Plenty of people find it works just fine, 8x10 photographers are a rare breed today because of changing times, make sure you dont get behind in your thinking.

Photography is a compromise at all times.

Digital and Film are apples and oranges.

Regards

Stu
  View Public Profile Send a private message to StuHaluski Visit StuHaluski's homepage! Find More Posts by StuHaluski
 
Re: no purpose?
Old 12-02-2004, 01:35 AM   #9 (permalink)
Lifetime Photographer

 
DavidMoyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Member GG#: 36994
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 1,802
Comments: 0

DavidMoyle is offline IP: 64.164.73.93
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

I don't refute what you are saying in regards to doing what works for you and suits your purposes. And I agree that if you need speed, and do not need the larger images, then j-peg works fine. I think if you read my reply again, and the reply to another post here, I'm not sayin RAW is the only way to accomplish a good final product.

However, what I was saying, is that the article is misleading and does not cover all the facts. The relatively new practice of using j-pegs in print design is just causing way too many issues when someone does not understand the different methods of saving a j-peg. J-peg was developed for the internet as a way of reducing file sizes, by averaging pixels and eliminating unnecessary information for web viewing. Every time you open a j-peg, make a change, and re-save it, you are degrading the image. And, this serves no purpose for quality print design.

If I have a j-peg, and a clent asks me to use it for his project, so I open it, adjust the total inks for the printing process required, and re-save it, I just degraded it. Then he calls next week, and asks me to adjust something, say the size needs to be a little smaller, I just degraded it again when I re-saved it. Where you notice it is in the shadow detail areas first. Now, if I start with a good j-peg, and open it and immediately save it as a tif or psd, and then make the changes, I won't have to worry much about degrading the image again when I come back to re-size it (as a general rule...there are always exceptions, like adjustments for certain printing where the histogram is effected)

Sure, for someone just taking photos for use as an 8x10 framed print, generally, there is no issue. But, one needs to understand the final use of the images before making a statement like "j-peg is all that is needed and RAW is just a waste of time" as the article seemed to do.

As far as film vs digital, I was merely speaking of the speed in which you can accomplish high-quality images with the camera.

That was all I was getting at.
  View Public Profile Send a private message to DavidMoyle Visit DavidMoyle's homepage! Find More Posts by DavidMoyle
 
Master Photographer Quote....
Old 12-02-2004, 02:08 AM   #10 (permalink)
Free Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Member GG#: 35360
Location: Texarkana
Posts: 300
Comments: 0

Clint is offline IP: 24.117.124.207
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

we had a "master photographer" visit our club meeting and basically told me I was lazy because I shot in RAW. That I didn't want to spend the time to set up everything before the shoot so that my workflow would be fast.

This is like me telling him that 20 years ago he should only leave images in his chemicals for x amount of time and only that amount of time because anything else would be a waste.

In fact I spend WAY more time fixing Jpgs than I do RAW. I hardly ever have to do anything to my raw images except let Capture One Process them to tiffs. Meanwhile in JPG i usually spend twice the amount of time because the stupid camera starts making assumptions about sharpening and such and alot of times does thing I don't want it to do.

yeah family snaps I shoot jpg, but for a paying client RAW is the only way to go.
  View Public Profile Send a private message to Clint Visit Clint's homepage! Find More Posts by Clint
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I'm curious ... Doug_Lester Off Topic 3 08-06-2006 02:51 AM
Just Curious... Al_Nowak Main Community Forum 0 07-23-2006 09:56 PM
just curious timxdrama Digital Darkroom 7 08-22-2004 12:19 AM

Sponsors


New To Site? Need Help? Photographer & Model Links
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:57 PM.

© 1999-2017 Garage Glamour™




Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94