Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Software > Editors (Photoshop, Vegas, Final Cut Pro, Kdenlive, etc.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 11, 2003, 11:55 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13
Default Jpeg - why bother?

New to this, but reading a lot. Just being pulled in so many different directions right now between camera use, PS6, Neat Image, Qimage, and printer settings. So many questions.

Given that jpeg loses quality when saving from any editor - why use it ?

Space considerations - I can understand in the 'old days' - like 1999 - when a big HD was 10 or 15 gigs, but now with 80 gigs being reasonable...

I've decided to use Tiff. Any reason why I should look at another format?
Kohl is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 11, 2003, 1:10 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 544
Default

It's a file size concern and, while you're right that storage is cheap now, handling really big files can be time consuming and even a bit messy. JPGs can be compressed enough to make transferring them, even for us dial-up modem guys, possible.

I use Canon's RAW file format and save my pictures ("proofs") on CDs. It's a lossless format. I then convert the pictures to either TIFF or sometimes even JPG, depending what I want to do with the picture. Conversion is necessary because Photoshop Elements can't deal directly with Canon RAW format.

The JPG artifact problem is worst when opening and saving files multiple times... the more the worse. The lossless TIFF format is really best, but whether it's worthwhile or not is up to each user.
Wildman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2003, 2:56 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13
Default

Web usage never occured to me. Makes sense. I'm one of those phoneline people. The pictures that I have sent to relatives in the past by internet have been jpeg 640 x 480.

Curious... I may consider using jpeg if anyone knows the following.

Assuming you keep saving in jpeg at the best quality setting, and assuming you start with a 4 or 5 MP RAW or TIFF image.

How many multiple saves would it take before you could eyeball picture degradation in a 4x6 image, or an 8x10 image?
Kohl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2003, 2:59 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 149
Default Re: Jpeg - why bother?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kohl
New to this, but reading a lot. Just being pulled in so many different directions right now between camera use, PS6, Neat Image, Qimage, and printer settings. So many questions.

Given that jpeg loses quality when saving from any editor - why use it ?

Space considerations - I can understand in the 'old days' - like 1999 - when a big HD was 10 or 15 gigs, but now with 80 gigs being reasonable...

I've decided to use Tiff. Any reason why I should look at another format?
Space is still an issue for emailing and web pages.

But if you are talking about working on the image, then saving it for printing at a lab, going to TIFF is smart. Also, it might be smart to keep in in a native photo editing software (like Photoshop) to preserve layers and things like that.
jsmeeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2003, 5:06 PM   #5
lg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kohl
How many multiple saves would it take before you could eyeball picture degradation in a 4x6 image, or an 8x10 image?
If you take the picture in SHQ (=highest quality .jpg) or HQ (=very good quality .jpg) mode in my camera, the difference isn't noticeable (IMHO). Saving a SHQ jpeg again one time, you would be very hard pressed to tell the difference in the pics. I save in HQ mode since my observation is that most folks can't tell the difference. I feel it is also safe to edit these HQ pics a single time and save them.

The trick here is to not save the file a second time, ever! If you always save the original, edit it, and save it again, your loss will be so minimal you probably won't notice the difference. You'll be very sorry if you ruined an original by editing it and didn't keep the original as a "backup." It's happened to me a few times, so until your are ABSOLUTELY SURE of what you are doing, NEVER SAVE THE ORIGINAL TO THE SAME FILENAME. For example, save the file PIC001.jpg "as" PIC001b.jpg so you will know where to restore it if you aren't satisfied with your editing results.
lg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2003, 9:22 AM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13
Default

Thanks for the info. I was interested about this because I am still a green newbie when it comes to removing noise. I have PS 6.01, but the learning curve is steep.

I have spent the better part of this week getting my settings and calibration figured out just from cobbling the info together from all these posts. I got very lucky when I stumbled on an ICC profile, so my color calibration is almost excellent.

I had found Neat Image - which is incredible, compared to the damge I can do ops: - but the demo only stores in jpeg. That concerns me. I suppose if I use it, it will have to be at the end of the process. It will probably force me to learn how to remove noise in PS - which is not a bad thing.
Kohl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2003, 5:37 PM   #7
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Can you save your pics to anyting besides JPeg if you camera only has jpeg?
  Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2003, 6:27 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
fenlander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 251
Default

You can save to any format your editing software can handle, but if your camera only handles jpeg then you will always take that initial hit to quality (small though it may be) when your camera saves the image.

I've recently started using Genuine Fractals. This program is available as a plugin for Photoshop and similar editors. It allows images to be saved in proprietary lossless or "almost lossless" versions. Better, when you reload the pic you can specify how big you want it and GF makes an EXCELLENT job of resizing. Pictures can be downsized, or upsized, with no visible loss of acuity.

Workflow with GF would be: copy jpegs from camera to hard disk. Resave as .stn (Genuine Fractal) files and retain that copy as the master copy. For a smaller version, open the stn file, specifying 640x480 or whatever and save as jpeg. No softning of the image and no sharpening needed on the reduced version. I'm impressed.

(Steve6 - your hint, thanks!)

fenlander
fenlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2003, 2:13 PM   #9
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thank you, where can I find that...

What is an ICC Profile?
  Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:55 PM.