RAW to jpg or png ? (not for web images)

[SCUMSPAWN]

Hi new to the forum this is my first post.

i have about 300 RAW images already edited as RAW, i need to convert them now to either JPG or PNG (not Tiff) for further use.

i will export in max. size with as little compression as possible (preferably none)
Should i go with Jpg or Png ?
(aware that jpg WILL do some compression and Png will not) a basic google search always
comes up with notes like PNG being better for grayscale and "linear" images and not really "normal" photos, i might be getting that wrong

Suggestion?

 

[Dave442]

As you have the RAW files to go back to if necessary, I would export as JPG. I have only used PNG when I want a transparent background. It depends on what you mean by "further use" and then what the final use is of the image.

 

[table1349]

Hi new to the forum this is my first post.

i have about 300 RAW images already edited as RAW, i need to convert them now to either JPG or PNG (not Tiff) for further use.

i will export in max. size with as little compression as possible (preferably none)
Should i go with Jpg or Png ?
(aware that jpg WILL do some compression and Png will not) a basic google search always
comes up with notes like PNG being better for grayscale and "linear" images and not really "normal" photos, i might be getting that wrong

Suggestion?

What kind of use? The use determines the final format.

 

[KmH]

How do you intend to use the images if not for the display on the Internet?

Portable Network Graphics (PNG) is the most widely used lossless image compression format on the Internet. PNG supports both grayscale and full color images. PNG was designed for the Internet, not for high quality print graphics, so PNG does not support non-RGB color spaces such as CMYK.

JPEG (Joint Photography Experts Group) not only compresses the file size it also limits the color bit depth to 8-bits.
Raw (not all capital letters because Raw is not an acronym like JPEG is) files are 16-bit color depth files.
Raw files have limited uses because of their bit depth.
Bit Depth

For any electronic display a digital image file has to be limited to the few RGB color spaces that have color gamuts close to the limited color gamut capability of electronic display devices.

As for printing print labs want images in file types that minimize how much storage space they need to gave.
Consequently JPEG is the preferred file type for prints.
Print labs also want 8-bit depth files that are in the sRGB color space, though some labs have high quality inkjet printers that can print image files in the Adobe RGB file space.

• Color Management, Part 1: Concept & Overview
• Color Management, Part 2: Color Spaces
• Color Management, Part 3: Color Space Conversion
• Understanding Gamma Correction & Digital Tones

 

[unpopular]

PNG is a vastly superior format in about every single way to JPEG for RGB images. I have literally no idea why anyone uses JPEG anymore. It's a terrible format. Why camera manufactuerers pigeonhole us between raw and JPEG (or occasional uncompressed TIF) is just beyond me.

I've used PNG in photography and video pipelines without any problem whatsoever. Losless, 16-bit PNG is a great intermediate between TIF and JPEG, and there is positively no reason not to use it as far as I can tell.

 

[SCUMSPAWN]

PNG is a vastly superior format in about every single way to JPEG for RGB images. I have literally no idea why anyone uses JPEG anymore. It's a terrible format. Why camera manufactuerers pigeonhole us between raw and JPEG (or occasional uncompressed TIF) is just beyond me.

I've used PNG in photography and video pipelines without any problem whatsoever. Losless, 16-bit PNG is a great intermediate between TIF and JPEG, and there is positively no reason not to use it as far as I can tell.

Thank you (unpopular donkey) that was kind of the answer i was hoping for
yes jpg is a horrible format by default, but i have only used PNG for web use not really for larger (uncompressed) files, so i was unsure IF there was something i might had missed.

Thanks, all, for the interest.. i will more on with the PNG option

 

[SCUMSPAWN]

hi, the images are for an installation in a larger art concept, size does not matter but the systems used can not handle TIFF (which would have been my first choice). i want to keep quality as high a possible due to the final display which will be 10x 16m (about cinema size).

SCUMSPAWN
------------------

How do you intend to use the images if not for the display on the Internet?

Portable Network Graphics (PNG) is the most widely used lossless image compression format on the Internet. PNG supports both grayscale and full color images. PNG was designed for the Internet, not for high quality print graphics, so PNG does not support non-RGB color spaces such as CMYK.

JPEG (Joint Photography Experts Group) not only compresses the file size it also limits the color bit depth to 8-bits.
Raw (not all capital letters because Raw is not an acronym like JPEG is) files are 16-bit color depth files.
Raw files have limited uses because of their bit depth.
Bit Depth

For any electronic display a digital image file has to be limited to the few RGB color spaces that have color gamuts close to the limited color gamut capability of electronic display devices.

As for printing print labs want images in file types that minimize how much storage space they need to gave.
Consequently JPEG is the preferred file type for prints.
Print labs also want 8-bit depth files that are in the sRGB color space, though some labs have high quality inkjet printers that can print image files in the Adobe RGB file space.

• Color Management, Part 1: Concept & Overview
• Color Management, Part 2: Color Spaces
• Color Management, Part 3: Color Space Conversion
• Understanding Gamma Correction & Digital Tones

 

[table1349]

JPEG for photographic images. PNG for line drawings etc.

http://www.interactivesearchmarketing.com/jpeg-png-proper-image-formatting/
http://lifehacker.com/learn-when-to-use-jpeg-gif-or-png-with-this-graphic-1669336151
What’s the difference between GIF, PNG, JPEG, and TIFF?

 

[unpopular]

^^ Not really sure where this consensus is coming from aside from perhaps file size optimization for the web, which really isn't THAT big of an issue either with compressed PNG-8. It kind of makes me question if the only reason for this advise is that PNG handles logos and line art well due to alpha support, or that it's target was to replace GIF's clumsy LUT approach. This isn't to say that PNG isn't suitable for images. It is.

JPEG is an out-dated technology that simply ought to die. It was fine 15 years ago, but it's time to let it retire.If your RAW processor can push out a PNG and you don't want to deal with TIF, I'd say go for it.

 

[unpopular]

And while we're on the subject, whatever happened to JPEG2000. That was suppose to fix all the JPEG problems, but today I only see it in some high-end video codecs designed for 4K and 8K production.

I'm assuming that it wasn't adopted because it's proprietary?

 

[unpopular]

hi, the images are for an installation in a larger art concept, size does not matter but the systems used can not handle TIFF (which would have been my first choice). i want to keep quality as high a possible due to the final display which will be 10x 16m (about cinema size).

yes. I've had a similar sort of situation but with stop motion. I wanted the flexibility of 16-bit compositing with alpha, but I didn't want to deal with the overhead of TIF. PNG worked fine for this.

 

[Derrel]

What final image format you elect to go with depends in large part what your "further use" statement actually means.

There is theory, and there is real-world practice. if you were to show 100 images to 10 people, each images saved as both a .PNG and as a .JPG, it's highly doubtful that people would be able to tdistinguish or identify the format of any of the images with any degree of certainty.

If one were to listen to some people, one might get the idea that a sizable .JPG image is utter rubbish...and YET...that large .JOPG file can be sent to a high-grade printing company, and their equipment and expertise can make a fabulous printed image from said .JPG.

The idea that .JPG is crap is a hold-over from the late 1990's, and itsy-bitsy little 200k images...a HIGH-grade, large .JPG image can convey a huge amount of information.

 

[unpopular]

But what advantage does JPEG have over PNG, aside from CMYK support? And if you're printing to offset, why not just use TIF at that point - which is the printing industry standard as it supports any number of additional channels for spot?

JPEG has *zero* advantage, and plenty of disadvantages. If you're sending off to a mass-market print service, and they won't accept anything but jpeg, then make a jpeg for that purpose specifically.

Otherwise stick with TIF or PNG. There is simply no reason to use lossy, splotchy jpeg, period and I REALLY wish that camera manufacturers would at least give us the option to record using PNG.

 

[Derrel]

. There is simply no reason to use lossy, splotchy jpeg, period and I REALLY wish that camera manufacturers would at least give us the option to record using PNG.

Oh, FFS, man, stop with the BS already....

Christ on a bike...

 

[unpopular]

How is this BS?? JPEG is lossy, PNG doesn't have to be; though it CAN be if you need it.

Why would you use JPEG?

I get it. JPEG at maximum setting is better quality than than what we are familiar with on the "information super highway"

But its still lossy. It's still forced into 8-bit. It's not THAT much smaller than lossless PNG, lossy compression on PNG is significantly better, and PNG24 is a heck of a lot smaller than half precision TIF.

So what advantage does JPEG have over PNG?

The only BS I smell is the insistence on using prehistoric technology for no other reason than that's what grandpa derrel is familiar with.

If anyone can point to one single reason to not use PNG for RGB images, I'll eat my hat - I have no problem doing that - but until then, JPEG is garbage.