"Image Quality": JPEG normal vs. JPEG fine

[a1157814a]

What's the difference? Does fine produce bigger images? Does the image actually have BETTER QUALITY?

 

[tsaraleksi]

It refers to the strength of the compression being applied to the image. When a JPEG is saved, the computer/camera looks for areas of like color and saves them as one unit. When you turn up the compression, it becomes less choosy about what constitutes like colors, which can result in getting weird blocky spots, especially in finely graded areas like the sky.

So 'fine' has more detail/accuracy than 'normal' though you'd have to test to see if it's a different that is a concern to you. Considering how inexpensive memory cards are these days, why not shoot for higher quality?

 

[Jurence]

JPEG works by looking at the color, and finding all instances of that color in an image, recording their coordinates. By "Fine" it is more distinct on the variations of color, so just off red is not the same as red, therefore higher quality.

 

[danjchau]

-------------

 

[dtornabene1]

While tsaraleksi answered your question, I have one for you. Why are you shooting in JPEG? Always, I mean ALWAYS shoot RAW. Now if you are using a camera without this ability, ignor my advice.

-Nick

 

[lvcrtrs]

If you shoot jpeg, I would reccomend to always shoot with highest quality possible unless you are limited with space or anything along the lines of that. You can always compress the image later.

I have my new D90 on Medium Fine becuase I was told that would be ok if I never printed over an 8x10. I can move up to Large Fine. Can you explain what "compress the image" is. Thank you, Sherry

 

[ANDS!]

While tsaraleksi answered your question, I have one for you. Why are you shooting in JPEG? Always, I mean ALWAYS shoot RAW. Now if you are using a camera without this ability, ignor my advice.

-Nick

Even when shooting fast action sports? Theres a time and place for every image format. A time and place.

Can you explain what "compress the image" is.

Essentially you are reducing the file size, by compressing the "RAW" data (which is uncompressed - well technically so, although some cameras do offer RAW compression).

 

[tsaraleksi]

If I don't have to move pictures right away, I tend to shoot raw for sports as well-- heck, in such uncontrolled shooting environments raw is actually more valuable than in say, a studio shoot that you can control. If you have a camera that is severely limited when shooting raw I can understand, though I shot raw sports on the 20D with its 6 frame buffer and was alright.

For me, jpeg is for when I have to get something done right away, which is, I think, why it's widely used in some professional circles.

 

[lvcrtrs]

Quote:
Can you explain what "compress the image" is.

Essentially you are reducing the file size, by compressing the "RAW" data (which is uncompressed - well technically so, although some cameras do offer RAW compression).
__________________
So compressing an image is only related to RAW not shooting in jpgs, Right?

 

[tsaraleksi]

No compression does not usually refer to raw shooting, it's for jpeg. The jpeg compression means that the computer finds areas of like color and treats them like one piece of information rather than individual pixels. As you turn up the compression, it considers less and less similar colors to be the same, which reduces the detail/accuracy of the image in favor of smaller file size. This is also why a jpeg image of a blank wall of one color is going to be much smaller in terms of megabites than one of a very detailed scene.

 

[Overread]

agreed JPEG is often used by journalists that have to have the shot taken, processed and on the web/to the printers in very short spaces of time, so they sacrifice the quality and added editing bonuses for speed - its also a good mode for holidays with family where you might get a lot of shots that you don't want to process and just want them for memories.

Also I don't recomend people to start working in RAW - much better that they work in JPEG (or in JPEG + RAW) in the early days till they get their feet with editing since all RAW shots need to be edited. People need to be confident with levels, contrast, brightness, basic understanding of white balance, sharpening, noise removal and a smattering of curves helps as well. Starting off in RAW is jumping in the deep end

 

[danjchau]

-------------

 

[majorpayne66]

Also I don't recomend people to start working in RAW - much better that they work in JPEG (or in JPEG + RAW) in the early days till they get their feet with editing since all RAW shots need to be edited. People need to be confident with levels, contrast, brightness, basic understanding of white balance, sharpening, noise removal and a smattering of curves helps as well. Starting off in RAW is jumping in the deep end

Not trying to jack this thread, just thought I would jump in.
I am shooting JPEG fine because I want to learn photography first and have little interest in learning to edit. I am just starting to edit some images with PP and am happy for now.. Sounds like I should move to JPEG+RAW for future editing. Is this right ? Can you elaborate on what JPEG+RAW does?

 

[tsaraleksi]

Jpeg can be compressed and lowered in file sizes many ways. The physical size of the image can be reduced, the dpi can be reduced, the quality can be reduced (as stated above), and obviously the format can change the size of the file. If you do a lot of web graphics and design, or uploading, reducing the file sizes of images is very important. When referring to RAW, I'm guessing that you guys mean converting RAW to Jpeg.

Sure, but in your camera, jpeg compression refers to what I'm talking about. You can also change the image size, but that is a different parameter.

Raw+Jpeg is pretty straightforward: it just gives you both a raw file and a jpeg file for a given picture.

 

[kundalini]

No compression does not usually refer to raw shooting....

Nikon does offer a Compressed NEF file format on the D300 (and a few other models I believe).