Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 6, 2007, 7:42 AM   #11
TDN
Senior Member
 
TDN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,288
Default

Dal1970 wrote:
Quote:
Just my viewpoint of course. Each person finds what suit him/her and sticks with it.
exactly, well said
TDN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2007, 7:59 AM   #12
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

TDN wrote:
Quote:
Dal1970 wrote:
Quote:
Just my viewpoint of course. Each person finds what suit him/her and sticks with it.
exactly, well said
my advice also. best settings are what you like. go out and shoot using different settings and find what YOU like. unlike film you don't even have to write anything down because all the settings are in the exif info..

roy
  Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2007, 8:31 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Catbells's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 874
Default

Either shoot in RAW mode or use the maximum JPEG resolution in terms of image size & quality.

I NEVER use the camera to resize image size or reduce quality as this will affect image quality.

As to whether you use natural or bright, that's a matter of personal choice.

I would also leave all other settings at default and post process to enhance image sharpness, saturation etc.
Catbells is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2007, 3:45 PM   #14
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 90
Default

Let me preface this by saying I am a Computer Scientist, and my work involves a study of image compression (which is part of a larger topic called Information Theory).

My profesional opinion is that you should NEVER let the camera do JPEG compression... now, let me explain why....

The JPEG compression algorithm is a LOSSY compression algorithm. That means that every time you compress the image, you loose information (i.e. you loose pixel values when the image is compressed). If you take that JPEG off the camera, and then do post processing, you loose more information when you save the file as a JPEG a second time. This loss of information repeats for every application of the JPEG compression algorithm.

Now, you may say, "but I don't notice any difference when I look at the images on the computer" and that may very well be true. What you loose by repeated application of the JPEG algorithm is the ability to reproduce the image in large formats without noticeable loss of quality (in terms of continuity of lines and curves, in particular). Monitors don't show this because they only reproduce images at approximately 75dots per inch. Printers are capable of much higher DPI resolutions, making the discontinuties in the images more apparent.

On my K10D, I'm shooting in RAW as often as possible. I will use the RAW+JPEG mode as well, but If I need to do any post porcessing, I use the RAW image as a starting point. I use batch processing for most of my RAW to JPEG conversions on the computer. The RAW to JPEG conversion is actually all the post processing most images receive. It takes the old computer I use for this under an hour to to take 500 RAW images and generate 800x600 JPEGs and thumbnails for them. The same script I use to generate the files also generates a webpage which I use as a proof sheet.

(On my old Olympus E10, I frequently used the TIFF mode instead of the RAW mode. Unlike JPEG, TIFF is a lossless encoding scheme. Unlike RAW mode, TIFF images can be handled by a wider array of image processing tools).

Paul
pbender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2007, 4:55 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
bluwing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 592
Default

Hi Paul,

The reason you stated for TIFF is one of the reasons I went with an istD instead of a newer model.

JPEGS are fine for starting and the occasional family gatherings and those quick shots that you don't have time to do any real setup or prep. But for a quality print shot Raw or Tiff would be the way to go. Anything bigger than 8"x10" Print I would shoot it in Raw or Tiff.

Rudy
bluwing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2007, 7:13 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
snostorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770
Default

Hi All,

I rarely engage in RAW v JPEG discussions, but I'll chime in on this one.

My view is that although RAW is better, for me, Jpeg suites just fine, so I'm with Tom (TDN) and Tom (ennacac) here. I think that a lot of people have been told that RAW is the only way to go, truly believe that, and their perception is that RAW is essential to getting the best from their equipment. While this may be true in an ultimate sense, all I know is that I have a lot of fun shooting jpgs, that's why I do what I do, and I have a little problem understanding those who I think get way too serious about ultimate IQ.

I do consider myself as pretty picky about IQ, though obviously not as picky as many, and I have tried about every RAW converter available, so it's not a matter of choosing the wrong one. I've found that RAW for me, is a mode that I'll use for only the most critical exposures (and the RAW button on the K10 and RAW + Jpg are perfect implementations for this use). The extra exposure overhead usually ensures that I get something at least useable, and most likely optimal if I do my part. For almost all other shots, Jpeg works in my favor -- speed, storage, and PP time and effort.

About the "lossy" thing -- I only save an edited jpeg once, and at the lowest level of compression -- if I haven't finished working an image, I'll save it in Jpeg 2K lossless or as a PSD or PSP if have more than one layer open, then save as a jpeg when done and discard the intermediate file. Original jpgs from the camera are always kept, and if I feel a need to reprocess an image, I start from scratch with a copy of the original. Repeated jpg saves are never done by me, and the argument against the discernable degradation of the image either goes away or is minimalized to the point of being too picky to be practical.

If I can't actually see any difference, the fact that information is lost is irrelevant to me. I print up to 16x20 (and only a very few of those) and get my fair share of WOWs (admittedly from family, friends, and acquaintances whose credibility as critics is at best questionable:-)). If paying the mortgage was dependent on the ultimate quality of my images, then I might change my mind, but with my limitations in both talent and skill, that's not really in the cards.

I will not try to convince anyone that my way is the best, just sharing my perspective in this matter.

I hope that everyone can have as much fun in the coming year as I plan on having with my new toys!

Scott
snostorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2007, 7:40 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

There are reasons for shooting jpg and reasons for shooting raw. The K10's jpg using bright are quite nice - I was really surprised when I played with that setting. I mostly shoot raw, but mainly because I like playing with my pictures. I'll tend to do the same things to my pictures no matter what format I use, and raw does give me extra flexibility (the other day I was wandering around with a manual lens and forgot I had it on spot meter. I was using raw+jpg to see what difference I could see between the two pictures and several of them were way overexposed. I was really surprised at how much I could recapture with the raw file and ACR.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2007, 7:43 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
philneast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hobart Tasmania
Posts: 489
Default

For sports action I allways use the high quality jpeg setting as I feel thisd is the best comproise between image quality and storage capicty FOR SPORTS.


Sports shots demand some indication of movement and action so a very slight imperfection may in fact add to the overall impact of the images.

you do not NEED auto focus for sports, all mine are shot manually focusesed, even when I use an autofocus lens. My philosphy is that you need to "fill the frame " with your intended subject, so I prefocus on that point.

For Basketball ther are particular areas on the court that you can expect action. The free throw line for foul shots, the ring for rebounds and the three point line for floor play. By analysing the play you should be ready and waiting when the action comes to you.

Flash at sporting events can be problematic, just how far is the usable distance for your flash? Will it effectively light the area on the court, or just the back of the head of the person sitting in front of you?


A fast prime short telephot may be worth trying. There are a lot of second hand 135mm f2.8 lenses available at reasonable prices.

I also allways use a noise reduction program noise ninja in my case) and this helps images shot at ISO 1600,.




philneast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2007, 8:01 PM   #19
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 90
Default

snostorm wrote:
Quote:
About the "lossy" thing -- I only save an edited jpeg once, and at the lowest level of compression -- if I haven't finished working an image, I'll save it in Jpeg 2K lossless or as a PSD or PSP if have more than one layer open, then save as a jpeg when done and discard the intermediate file. Original jpgs from the camera are always kept, and if I feel a need to reprocess an image, I start from scratch with a copy of the original. Repeated jpg saves are never done by me, and the argument against the discernable degradation of the image either goes away or is minimalized to the point of being too picky to be practical.
I think you're missing part of what I said.... If you are editing a JPEG image off the camera, and you then edit the image and save the image as a JPEG, that is twice through the JPEG compression routine, even if it's only saved once durring post processing.



Quote:
If I can't actually see any difference, the fact that information is lost is irrelevant to me.
While from an esthetic point of view, the loss of information may not make much difference, from an information theoretical point of view, we can actually measure the loss of information between the original image and the image that results after compresion and decompression with a lossy compression algorithm.

Unfortunately, once information is lost in an image, you can't do anything to recover that information. At least by sticking with RAW images, you always have the RAW images to go back to.

Paul
pbender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2007, 10:24 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
snostorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770
Default

Hi Paul,

My intention was not to argue the point that RAW retains all the information, or that it is theoretically better to use a lossless method of saving an image, or that saving an edited jpg loses more of the original information, or that lost information is lost forever. These points are not refutable. . . but is any of this relevant in a real world practical sense for a photographic hobbyist ?

My point, if there really was one, is that if I don't see any image degradation, then -- for me, -- it just doesn't matter. My perception of the final image is the only thing that matters to me, not the fact that in the back of my head I know that there is 75% less information contained in the file, and "there just HAS to be a difference".

I've seen too many instances where people have allowed their brains and its logic to override what their eyes actually see. I "know" that a movie is made up of a number of still pictures projected at a constant rate per second, but I "see" smooth, natural motion and it doesn't degrade the experience. I "know" that an image printed at 1000 DPI "must" be better than one at 200 DPI, but if I can't see the difference, then it just doesn't matter.

I certainly didn't miss the point that recompressing an already compressed and decompressed file loses more information. I was only saying that I only do it once, and never more than that. If I can't actually see any degradation in my recompression of an already compressed and decompressed image file, then the theoretical and/or real measurable degradation that actually exists -- well it just doesn't matter. . . to me. If I can't see a problem in a 16x20 print, and that's as large as I go, then why should I care if it would make a less than optimal larger print? There are always going to be limits to the size that a given file can be printed. A lot of pros use Genuine Fractals to upsize digital files for very large prints. Does the fact that there is "made up" interpolated information included in the print make the image any less worthy? For me -- no. YMMV.

Everyone makes compromises in photography -- if not, then we'd all be shooting car sized cameras that reproduced 1:1. Would it take a better image -- yes . . . would it be practical? --- no (of course, I exaggerate). I compromise by using a camera that's convenient to carry and affordable for me. Using Jpg is another of my compromises -- if that makes me less than a real photographer, then so be it. . . I think that photographic hobbyist is more appropriate anyway (but harder to say:-)).

I was not saying that you're wrong -- if you think I said or even implied that, then that was not my intention. I was just trying to say that for me (and I think that I was pretty clear about that) shooting jpg was, for the great great majority of my shots, more than good enough for me and just about all to whom I've chosen to show my images (of course, I have no idea who sees the photos that I post here and on other fora, and what they think -- but then again, they're downsized and PP'd, so they aren't really indicative of reality).

Sorry about the rant -- I knew that I probably shouldn't have posted to this thread. . .
I'm just a little too opinionated for some.

. . . and sorry Peggy, for sorta hijacking your thread with this nitpicky stuff.

Scott
snostorm is offline   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 12:51 AM.