JPEG Qulity Differences.....

[Overread]

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photographic-discussions/169089-pact.html#post1633751

I think most in this thread should have a read of that before responding again. Also it might be good for them to remember that most people come to DSLRs from a point and shoot background, where MP is (though in camera menus) directly linked to the dimensions of the image you get out at the end.
Lets not lower ourselves to making sniping remarks at each other when this is just a point of missinformation - just correct in a polite manner - its all that is needed

 

[Misfitlimp]

Also, dude, Chinamen is not the prefered nomenclature...

Wait, wrong forum.

Also, dude, once you start shooting in raw, if you're anything like me, you will be amazed and wonder how you survived this long with out doing so. I pulled up some pics I took when I first got my camera (not knowing to use RAW) and my first though was "Oh, that's underexposed, well that's easy to fix... Oh wait."

Seriously. It is that big of a deal.

No man! This agression will not stand .....man!
I just started shootin in RAW and i know what u mean. Long live the dude

 

[EhJsNe]

Well...im replying now with quotes within quotes....gets me all confused that HTML codes and whatnot....so what Im saying Ill put in bold...to lessen any confusion and so I can be lazy and not go back and fix things! :greenpbl:

You're not doing anything wrong with GIMP, it does not have built in RAW capacity. You need UFRaw. It intigrates nicely with GIMP and does everything that, for example, CaptureNX does.

To the best of my knowledge, it doesn't change colors, just makes the image smaller.

Thank you very very very much! I will be sure to download that!



I bought my D70 used, without the software............. *emberessed-ness*

Unfortunately, since you're posting on a public forum you'll have to suffer all 'spazzy answers' particularly when they are earned.


As pointed out by others free RAW converters are a dime a dozen and readily avaliable on the Internet so it's very easy to believe you didn't search very hard as you state. One can only be lead to believe you didn't even bother with an Internet search since just typing JPEG returned 124,000,000 hits. Typing JPEG Basic returned 834,000.

Your D70 is 6 MP.... JPEG fine immediately throws away 2/3 of those 6 MP leaving you 2 MP of the original 6 MP. JPEG medium tosses another 1/3 leaving you with 1 MP of the original 6 MP, and JPEG basic tosses yet another 1/3 leaving you about 0.75 MP of the original 6 MP. That's worse than most camera phones.

Now, if you want to edit and use an editor like the GIMP, Photoshop and most others you destroy even more pixels.

None of that happens if you shoot RAW and use a RAW editor, until you're ready to output your image for the web or to have a print made.

I wasnt looking for a RAW converter....I was looking for the difference in quality of jpg, I didnt even look for RAW converters....picasa will convert RAW files for me!

I think you may have a messed up camera...or you are misinformed (no offense meant by that)...but anyway, changing the file quality shouldnt affect the pixel count...most camera have a sperate menue thing for the actual pixel count......just so you know...

Do you know howbadly the file is degraded by editing? I havent noticed a visible difference shooting in FINE from before editing and after....unless I set to compression something under 80.......

Well IM aware that I get better image quality from RAW....but my computor gets REALLY slow when I edit a raw picture in Picasa! I cant imagine what would happen in GIMP! My computor lags a lot in GIMP...and having a big file would make it worse...but if I really do get better IQ, I would rather shoot in RAW and lose some time...

What the hell, I tried. :lmao:

I'm sorry, but that's one of the best laughs I've had in about a week. I mean your reply. :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Hey, you'll figure it all out one of these days. :salute:

Well Im glad I could make you laugh...........I decided to start shooting RAW when I get home....and coninue in JPG FINE....

and yes...I will eventually figure it out...but by then, by D70 will be dead, and I will get a new camera....and will have to figure just about everything out again.....

By the way....may I ask what your laughing at? Im thinking its either my slow computor thing....or the used D70 thing.....

I think you may have a messed up camera...or you are misinformed (no offense meant by that)...but anyway, changing the file quality shouldnt affect the pixel count...most camera have a sperate menue thing for the actual pixel count......just so you know...

The pixel count doesn't change when you change the JPEG image quality? Where did you hear that?

Looking at my XTi owner's manual I see that changing the JPEG image quality setting from High Quality to Medium Quality means a reduction of half the pixels (10mp to 5.3mp) and changing from Medium Quality to Low Quality means another reduction of half the pixels (5.3mp to 2.5mp). Looks like the pixel count goes down as image quality goes down if you ask me.

I agree with whoever said it...you have a messed up manual!
Well still....reducing the pixels shouldnt affect the compression, its just removing less, and if Im correct about this, the image quality should actually increase, because the picels arent smushed on the sensor! (Or I could be entirely wrong......I beleive I got that information from a comment on some baseball game thread...I beleive it was started by AlexColeman.......you konw that kid with the D700 )

Read this it will help you see what jpeg dose.

JPEG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for the link! It was quite informative!

I think you may have a messed up camera...or you are misinformed (no offense meant by that)...but anyway, changing the file quality shouldnt affect the pixel count...most camera have a sperate menue thing for the actual pixel count......just so you know...

The pixel count doesn't change when you change the JPEG image quality? Where did you hear that?

Looking at my XTi owner's manual I see that changing the JPEG image quality setting from High Quality to Medium Quality means a reduction of half the pixels (10mp to 5.3mp) and changing from Medium Quality to Low Quality means another reduction of half the pixels (5.3mp to 2.5mp). Looks like the pixel count goes down as image quality goes down if you ask me.

Here is another good example EhJsNe. ^^^ Don't blow this one too.

Look at page 43 of your D70 Users Manual. The chart shows the pixel sizes of the 3 JPEG qualities.

You said you didn't get the software. You did get a copy of the D70 Users Manual, didn't you?

If not, I now have one I'll sell you.

*sigh* No owners manual either........doesnt Nikon offer free PDF files of the manual? I beleive I found it on the internet somewhere...I figured its not that compicated...just playing in the menues and experimenting, I figured out just about everything, how to set the white balance..(and googling white balance got me into using the wrong one on purpose! In direct sun, Cloudy white balance -3 looks really cool, at least the shots Ive gotton so far on my vacation in arizona....I usually use the correct white balance on things I cant take a few shots of...and Ill adjust the picture later in gimp)
Thanks for the offer tho!

Also, dude, Chinamen is not the prefered nomenclature...

Wait, wrong forum.

Also, dude, once you start shooting in raw, if you're anything like me, you will be amazed and wonder how you survived this long with out doing so. I pulled up some pics I took when I first got my camera (not knowing to use RAW) and my first though was "Oh, that's underexposed, well that's easy to fix... Oh wait."

Seriously. It is that big of a deal.

ok...then.............lol

Well, I havent figured out gimp very much yet, im starting to get the hang of it, Ive been using it for about a month...before I was just getting everything right in camera, and then using picasa, but the tools and things offered in GIMP made me think "wy have I been using picasa?" my pictures looked fine (hehe) in picasa, but after the things I can do in gimp, overall, the quality (as in how much I like my pictures) has improved a lot!
Wait a minute......Ive lightened underexposed JPEGs before....what happens to a lightened jpg in comparison to a lightened RAW? (do you, by any chance, have any examples?)

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photographic-discussions/169089-pact.html#post1633751

I think most in this thread should have a read of that before responding again. Also it might be good for them to remember that most people come to DSLRs from a point and shoot background, where MP is (though in camera menus) directly linked to the dimensions of the image you get out at the end.
Lets not lower ourselves to making sniping remarks at each other when this is just a point of missinformation - just correct in a polite manner - its all that is needed

Wait....is my thread violating the pact? If so I will see to it wont happen again,
Or are some of the responses violating it?

Ive been a very confused duude lately.........lol

 

[KmH]

Here's a link to Nikon's D70 manual download.

 

[musicaleCA]

I agree with whoever said it...you have a messed up manual!
Well still....reducing the pixels shouldnt affect the compression, its just removing less, and if Im correct about this, the image quality should actually increase, because the picels arent smushed on the sensor! (Or I could be entirely wrong......I beleive I got that information from a comment on some baseball game thread...I beleive it was started by AlexColeman.......you konw that kid with the D700 )

Yes, you are completely wrong. And so is that guy. In the world of IQ, less is, well, less. Period. Fewer pixels is fewer pixels, and means that the image can't be rendered as large, nor printed as large, as the original without some loss in quality (even using if you're using fractals to interpolate the image). Period. JPEG compression is different than pixel count, and is essentially a "how ugly do you want the final product to be" setting. The course one uses a crappy algorithm and is completed faster, but generates much more artifacting.

Wait a minute......Ive lightened underexposed JPEGs before....what happens to a lightened jpg in comparison to a lightened RAW? (do you, by any chance, have any examples?)

RAWs contain more information from the sensor; they contain the entire dynamic range of the sensor, all 14- or 16-bits of it, while a JPEG is 8-bits deep and contains a much smaller portion of the sensor's dynamic range. This allows you to better recover underexposed images without losing as much colour detail, and accurately adjust WB.

 

[benlonghair]

Here's an example of why I shoot in RAW. I don't have the original at work, so I'll explain what happened. If I remember, I'll crop down the original and post it when I get home.

This was shot facing west at about 5pm. Light was reflecting off the water something fierce. Originally the water was exposed correctly and the person was almost a silhouette. With some exposure comp once downloaded (I generally shoot AP, and I should have had the exp comp cranked up about two stops on the camera) and some selective burning, it came out usable. I don't believe you could pull even this much out of JPG.

Also, there's no reason not to, unless you intend to download to a computer without a raw converter. I ger about 1200 JPGs on my 8gig card, and I get about 700 on it RAW. I shot all 4th of july weekend and didn't fill the card.

EDIT:

Wait....is my thread violating the pact? If so I will see to it wont happen again,
Or are some of the responses violating it?

Replies, I believe. Maybe even me. Don't know, don't really care.

 

[EhJsNe]

I agree with whoever said it...you have a messed up manual!
Well still....reducing the pixels shouldnt affect the compression, its just removing less, and if Im correct about this, the image quality should actually increase, because the picels arent smushed on the sensor! (Or I could be entirely wrong......I beleive I got that information from a comment on some baseball game thread...I beleive it was started by AlexColeman.......you konw that kid with the D700 )

Yes, you are completely wrong. And so is that guy. In the world of IQ, less is, well, less. Period. Fewer pixels is fewer pixels, and means that the image can't be rendered as large, nor printed as large, as the original without some loss in quality (even using if you're using fractals to interpolate the image). Period. JPEG compression is different than pixel count, and is essentially a "how ugly do you want the final product to be" setting. The course one uses a crappy algorithm and is completed faster, but generates much more artifacting.

Wait a minute......Ive lightened underexposed JPEGs before....what happens to a lightened jpg in comparison to a lightened RAW? (do you, by any chance, have any examples?)

RAWs contain more information from the sensor; they contain the entire dynamic range of the sensor, all 14- or 16-bits of it, while a JPEG is 8-bits deep and contains a much smaller portion of the sensor's dynamic range. This allows you to better recover underexposed images without losing as much colour detail, and accurately adjust WB.

DARN.....I was wrong...oh well, nothing I can do, I never shoot at lower megapixels anyway....

OHH! THat makes sense! Im starting to wonder why Im not shooting in RAW...well, I cant convert JPEG to RAW, and I cant go back in time and switch my camera to RAW...so oh well! Guess Ill start shooting RAW now.....
(And if I can convert jpg to raw...i realy dont care to know how....)

Here's an example of why I shoot in RAW. I don't have the original at work, so I'll explain what happened. If I remember, I'll crop down the original and post it when I get home.

This was shot facing west at about 5pm. Light was reflecting off the water something fierce. Originally the water was exposed correctly and the person was almost a silhouette. With some exposure comp once downloaded (I generally shoot AP, and I should have had the exp comp cranked up about two stops on the camera) and some selective burning, it came out usable. I don't believe you could pull even this much out of JPG.

Also, there's no reason not to, unless you intend to download to a computer without a raw converter. I ger about 1200 JPGs on my 8gig card, and I get about 700 on it RAW. I shot all 4th of july weekend and didn't fill the card.

EDIT:

Wait....is my thread violating the pact? If so I will see to it wont happen again,
Or are some of the responses violating it?

Replies, I believe. Maybe even me. Don't know, don't really care.

Well if you have a image editor with burning...why didnt you leave everthing alone, and just use the dodge tool on the kid?? It would have left the entire scene properly exposed......or used the selections, and outline the kid (with the wonderfully confusing dots and lines! ) and just lighten the exposure on the kid....

 

[benlonghair]

Well if you have a image editor with burning...why didnt you leave everthing alone, and just use the dodge tool on the kid?? It would have left the entire scene properly exposed......or used the selections, and outline the kid (with the wonderfully confusing dots and lines! ) and just lighten the exposure on the kid....

Don't talk sense to me. Also, it has to do with how burning looks after it's done. Burning and exposure comp don't look the same. Burning tends to get wierd colors and noise (and wierd colored noise), while exposure doesn't.

 

[Figment]

I dont have the money for software that can edit RAW

Every camera that shoots RAW, comes with software to edit/process the files.

Mine Didn't...

*Thinks about stomping back to Calumet*

 

[EhJsNe]

Well if you have a image editor with burning...why didnt you leave everthing alone, and just use the dodge tool on the kid?? It would have left the entire scene properly exposed......or used the selections, and outline the kid (with the wonderfully confusing dots and lines! ) and just lighten the exposure on the kid....

Don't talk sense to me. Also, it has to do with how burning looks after it's done. Burning and exposure comp don't look the same. Burning tends to get wierd colors and noise (and wierd colored noise), while exposure doesn't.

Ok, your the one who used burning on your photo. Im talking about dodging, or using the selections and and lightening the exposure.

Did you mean dodging? Because I cant imagine darkening an image would create noise.....
And if lightening exposure doesnt add noise (or less), why dont you do that?

 

[three_eyed_otter]

If I may...Workflow is very impt. E.g., If you 1st delete the 5 bad photos of the subject and are left with 2 or 3 appreciable ones then shooting in raw is not that big of deal. Basically dwindle down the # of photos based on quality of image i.e., composition, subject, etc. and then processing RAW is not so difficult. As well, when your skills increase, and they will, you will be able to come back and work the photo into an even greater image. Many a great photos were realized in post-processing.

Picassa is great for separating the wheat from chaff...even if on a slow computer it may be time consuming. Personally, Gimp might work for some, but I always found it to be a dog. Adobe gives you 30 days which would set you straight for the rest of the summer. Adobe Photoshop Elements 7

have a good one
3Eo