Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.
What is RAW format exactly – and why should it be used on my camera, if indeed it should?
Thanks
Gecko the ignorant
What is RAW format exactly – and why should it be used on my camera, if indeed it should?
Thanks
Gecko the ignorant
Your camera can store images in either of two formats.
RAW or Jpeg.
When you take a photo, your camera’s CCD records a huge amount of information about the image it can see. Often more information than your monitor or printing system is capable of displaying.
Now if you are set to RAW mode, this data gets stored directly to the memory card, 100% in-tact with nothing lost at all. This results in quite a huge file, but it gives you more scope for manipulation when you load it onto your computer, as you can make alterations without affecting the image quality or introducing excess noise.
However, if you are set to Jpeg mode, the software inside your camera takes the data from the CCD, and discards the parts of it that it feels are uneccesary, and then compresses the rest into a Jpeg file.
gecko wrote:Thanks
What is RAW format exactly – and why should it be used on my camera, if indeed it should?
Thanks
Gecko the ignorant
Your camera can store images in either of two formats.
RAW or Jpeg.
When you take a photo, your camera’s CCD records a huge amount of information about the image it can see. Often more information than your monitor or printing system is capable of displaying.
Now if you are set to RAW mode, this data gets stored directly to the memory card, 100% in-tact with nothing lost at all. This results in quite a huge file, but it gives you more scope for manipulation when you load it onto your computer, as you can make alterations without affecting the image quality or introducing excess noise.
However, if you are set to Jpeg mode, the software inside your camera takes the data from the CCD, and discards the parts of it that it feels are uneccesary, and then compresses the rest into a Jpeg file. This results in a much smaller file size, and faster operation of your camera, but it leaves you with less scope for manipulation once you have the image loaded onto your computer.
RAW is great if your photographing architecture, landscapes, or things where you want the absolute maximum detail.
Jpeg is great for sports or action photos where speed is the priority, and for general snappy snaps.
It really comes down to your own personal requirements.
Having said that, if you’re working to the old film photography maxim of "get it right in-camera", then your shots won’t require hardly any post processing in photoshop, so you’ll probably get away with using Jpeg most of the time.
Thanks
One more question. If I use RAW on my camera, then what format is the upload to my computer in?
Gecko the smarter now
(not quite so) Fat Sam wrote:
Your camera can store images in either of two formats.
RAW or Jpeg.
When you take a photo, your camera’s CCD records a huge amount of information about the image it can see. Often more information than your monitor or printing system is capable of displaying.
Now if you are set to RAW mode, this data gets stored directly to the memory card, 100% in-tact with nothing lost at all. This results in quite a huge file, but it gives you more scope for manipulation when you load it onto your computer, as you can make alterations without affecting the image quality or introducing excess noise.
However, if you are set to Jpeg mode, the software inside your camera takes the data from the CCD, and discards the parts of it that it feels are uneccesary, and then compresses the rest into a Jpeg file.
That is a gross oversimplification of what really happens.
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:59:34 -0000, "\(not quite so\) Fat Sam" wrote:
gecko wrote:Thanks
What is RAW format exactly – and why should it be used on my camera, if indeed it should?
Thanks
Gecko the ignorant
Your camera can store images in either of two formats.
RAW or Jpeg.
When you take a photo, your camera’s CCD records a huge amount of information about the image it can see. Often more information than your monitor or printing system is capable of displaying.
Now if you are set to RAW mode, this data gets stored directly to the memory card, 100% in-tact with nothing lost at all. This results in quite a huge file, but it gives you more scope for manipulation when you load it onto your computer, as you can make alterations without affecting the image quality or introducing excess noise.
However, if you are set to Jpeg mode, the software inside your camera takes the data from the CCD, and discards the parts of it that it feels are uneccesary, and then compresses the rest into a Jpeg file.
This results in a much smaller file size, and faster operation of your camera, but it leaves you with less scope for manipulation once you have the image loaded onto your computer.
RAW is great if your photographing architecture, landscapes, or things where you want the absolute maximum detail.
Jpeg is great for sports or action photos where speed is the priority, and for general snappy snaps.
It really comes down to your own personal requirements.
Having said that, if you’re working to the old film photography maxim of "get it right in-camera", then your shots won’t require hardly any post processing in photoshop, so you’ll probably get away with using Jpeg most of the time.
One more question. If I use RAW on my camera, then what format is the upload to my computer in?
Gecko the smarter now
What is RAW format exactly – and why should it be used on my camera, if indeed it should?
Thanks
Gecko the ignorant
(not quite so) Fat Sam wrote:
Your camera can store images in either of two formats.
RAW or Jpeg.
When you take a photo, your camera’s CCD records a huge amount of information about the image it can see. Often more information than your monitor or printing system is capable of displaying.
Now if you are set to RAW mode, this data gets stored directly to the memory card, 100% in-tact with nothing lost at all. This results in quite a huge file, but it gives you more scope for manipulation when you load it onto your computer, as you can make alterations without affecting the image quality or introducing excess noise.
However, if you are set to Jpeg mode, the software inside your camera takes the data from the CCD, and discards the parts of it that it feels are uneccesary, and then compresses the rest into a Jpeg file.
That is a gross oversimplification of what really happens. What really happens is that the sensor only records one color per pixel, and it is recorded in a so-called linear way. The camera takes this information and calculates the missing color information by means of interpolation. It also applies a density correction, so that the resulting image looks like what our eyes would see (our eyes are not linear). Finally, it brings the resulting image down to 8 bits per color, and saves it as a JPEG file. You do indeed loose information in that last step.
If you shoot in RAW, you do those calculations in the RAW software, and decide how that software should deal with color, density, sharpness and so on during that process. In other words, shooting in RAW gives you full control over all those corrections, while using the original data, rather than an image that is the result of some automatic correction in the camera.
(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
(not quite so) Fat Sam wrote:
Your camera can store images in either of two formats.
RAW or Jpeg.
When you take a photo, your camera’s CCD records a huge amount of information about the image it can see. Often more information than your monitor or printing system is capable of displaying.
Now if you are set to RAW mode, this data gets stored directly to the memory card, 100% in-tact with nothing lost at all. This results in quite a huge file, but it gives you more scope for manipulation when you load it onto your computer, as you can make alterations without affecting the image quality or introducing excess noise.
However, if you are set to Jpeg mode, the software inside your camera takes the data from the CCD, and discards the parts of it that it feels are uneccesary, and then compresses the rest into a Jpeg file.
That is a gross oversimplification of what really happens. What really happens is that the sensor only records one color per pixel, and it is recorded in a so-called linear way. The camera takes this information and calculates the missing color information by means of interpolation. It also applies a density correction, so that the resulting image looks like what our eyes would see (our eyes are not linear). Finally, it brings the resulting image down to 8 bits per color, and saves it as a JPEG file. You do indeed loose information in that last step.
If you shoot in RAW, you do those calculations in the RAW software, and decide how that software should deal with color, density, sharpness and so on during that process. In other words, shooting in RAW gives you full control over all those corrections, while using the original data, rather than an image that is the result of some automatic correction in the camera.
Yup! once awhile I read some information I can agree, while most is often overcooked. It’s so simple but probably because it’s too simple for most people to figure out, then try to confuse if not misleading other <bg>
Me? it’s pretty simple
1. The camera captures whatever it can see through the lens
– Good lens sees cleaner image when bad lens has less IQ
2. The camera calculates then PROCESS whatever it see through the lens, then save the processed to memory then transfer to memory card
– RAW with minimal process which leave more room for further processing (see more below)
– JPG with full process ready to use
3. RAW after minimal processed by hardware (camera) it will need to be processed by software to ready to be used.
– If using perfect RAW converter then it will give better result
– If using buggy RAW converter then it may not be a perfect JPG/TIFF
– If operate by poor operator then it may better start with JPG or lets the camera does all processing.
– I am not going to knock down any software but just an example just for fun. If RAW is processed by graphic viewer like ACDSee then it may not give the same result as professional graphic editor (like Photoshop for example)
But ACDSee in the hand of good user may give better result than poor RAW operator.
And #3 show little more detail of what RAW really is <bg>
That is a gross oversimplification of what really happens.
Well of course it is.
But the OP didn’t want a technical white-paper specification of the exat file format breakdown.
He just wanted to know generally what RAW was and what it’s benefits were. To go into detail about how the CCD records data on a pixel by pixel basis is a tad overkill IMO.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this exactly what I said?
(not quite so) Fat Sam wrote:
That is a gross oversimplification of what really happens.
Well of course it is.
But the OP didn’t want a technical white-paper specification of the exat file format breakdown.
He just wanted to know generally what RAW was and what it’s benefits were. To go into detail about how the CCD records data on a pixel by pixel basis is a tad overkill IMO.
That’s where we disagree. If you really want to know the benefits of RAW, some basic understanding of what is going on in a camera is needed IMO.
The most
important difference is that in JPEG the demosaicing (the interpolation of colors) is already done
Yup! once awhile I read some information I can agree, while most is often overcooked. It’s so simple but probably because it’s too simple for most people to figure out, then try to confuse if not misleading other <bg>
Me? it’s pretty simple
1. The camera captures whatever it can see through the lens
– Good lens sees cleaner image when bad lens has less IQ
2. The camera calculates then PROCESS whatever it see through the lens, then save the processed to memory then transfer to memory card
– RAW with minimal process which leave more room for further processing (see more below)
– JPG with full process ready to use
3. RAW after minimal processed by hardware (camera) it will need to be processed by software to ready to be used.
– If using perfect RAW converter then it will give better result
– If using buggy RAW converter then it may not be a perfect JPG/TIFF
– If operate by poor operator then it may better start with JPG or lets the camera does all processing.
– I am not going to knock down any software but just an example just for fun. If RAW is processed by graphic viewer like ACDSee then it may not give the same result as professional graphic editor (like Photoshop for example)
But ACDSee in the hand of good user may give better result than poor RAW operator.
And #3 show little more detail of what RAW really is <bg>
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this exactly what I said?
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:59:34 -0000, "\(not quite so\) Fat Sam" wrote:
gecko wrote:Thanks
What is RAW format exactly – and why should it be used on my camera, if indeed it should?
Thanks
Gecko the ignorant
Your camera can store images in either of two formats.
RAW or Jpeg.
When you take a photo, your camera’s CCD records a huge amount of information about the image it can see. Often more information than your monitor or printing system is capable of displaying.
Now if you are set to RAW mode, this data gets stored directly to the memory
card, 100% in-tact with nothing lost at all. This results in quite a huge file, but it gives you more scope for manipulation when you load it onto your computer, as you can make alterations without affecting the image quality or introducing excess noise.
However, if you are set to Jpeg mode, the software inside your camera takes
the data from the CCD, and discards the parts of it that it feels are uneccesary, and then compresses the rest into a Jpeg file. This results in a much smaller file size, and faster operation of your camera, but it leaves you with less scope for manipulation once you have the
image loaded onto your computer.
RAW is great if your photographing architecture, landscapes, or things where
you want the absolute maximum detail.
Jpeg is great for sports or action photos where speed is the priority, and for general snappy snaps.
It really comes down to your own personal requirements.
Having said that, if you’re working to the old film photography maxim of "get it right in-camera", then your shots won’t require hardly any post processing in photoshop, so you’ll probably get away with using Jpeg most of
the time.
One more question. If I use RAW on my camera, then what format is the upload to my computer in?
Gecko the smarter now
Thanks
One more question. If I use RAW on my camera, then what format is the upload to my computer in?
Gecko the smarter now
"\(not quite so\) Fat Sam" wrote:
<snip>
Yup! once awhile I read some information I can agree, while most is often overcooked. It’s so simple but probably because it’s too simple for most people to figure out, then try to confuse if not misleading other <bg>
Me? it’s pretty simple
1. The camera captures whatever it can see through the lens
– Good lens sees cleaner image when bad lens has less IQ
2. The camera calculates then PROCESS whatever it see through the lens, then save the processed to memory then transfer to memory card
– RAW with minimal process which leave more room for further processing (see more below)
– JPG with full process ready to use
3. RAW after minimal processed by hardware (camera) it will need to be processed by software to ready to be used.
– If using perfect RAW converter then it will give better result
– If using buggy RAW converter then it may not be a perfect JPG/TIFF
– If operate by poor operator then it may better start with JPG or lets the camera does all processing.
– I am not going to knock down any software but just an example just for fun. If RAW is processed by graphic viewer like ACDSee then it may not give the same result as professional graphic editor (like Photoshop for example)
But ACDSee in the hand of good user may give better result than poor RAW operator.
And #3 show little more detail of what RAW really is <bg>
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this exactly what I said?
I am not trying to correct you or anyone, I just happen to read something
I can agree and responsed to what I read. That’s it!
I didn’t read through the whole message of yours (not because it’s yours
or someone else’s but that’s the way I read message .. a quick browse through then re-read *if* I catch something I may interest in).
I re-read yours (only the important parts) and yours seems ok, so don’t worry about it. And sorry for misunderstanding (if you need me to say sorry <bg>).
Johan W. Elzenga wrote:
The most
important difference is that in JPEG the demosaicing (the interpolation of colors) is already done
To a technophobe, that statement would be meaningless.
(not quite so) Fat Sam wrote:
Johan W. Elzenga wrote:
The most
important difference is that in JPEG the demosaicing (the interpolation of colors) is already done
To a technophobe, that statement would be meaningless.
True, but there are ways you can explain it to a technophobe as well, and still explain the fundamental difference rather than simply ignore that part.
You could say: "Before you get the image, a lot of calculations have to be done. During those calculations, things like color, sharpnes, brightness and contrast are determined. If you shoot in JPEG, all those calculations are done automatically by the camera, so you have very little or no control over it. If you shoot in RAW, you have full control because you do it yourself afterwards on your computer".
That explains the fundamental difference in a way your father would also have understood.
Johan W. Elzenga wrote:
(not quite so) Fat Sam wrote:
That is a gross oversimplification of what really happens.
Well of course it is.
But the OP didn’t want a technical white-paper specification of the exat file format breakdown.
He just wanted to know generally what RAW was and what it’s benefits were. To go into detail about how the CCD records data on a pixel by pixel basis is a tad overkill IMO.
That’s where we disagree. If you really want to know the benefits of RAW, some basic understanding of what is going on in a camera is needed IMO.
And what if the asker isn’t technically minded, but just wants to know what RAW is and why it would benefit him?
My old dad bought a camera that has RAW functionality.
He asked me to explain to him what it was.
I tried to give him a technical explanation, but to be honest, I might as well have been teaching a cat to solve a rubiks cube.
In the end, I gave him more or less the same explanation as I gave to the OP, and he understood.
You see, the amount of technical information required depends upon the audience you’re delivering to.
My explanation woudl seem over-simplistic to an electronics engineer, while your explanation would sound over-complicated, offputting and maybe even intimidating to a technophobe.
No, it isn’t the same. You made it sound like the difference between RAW and JPEG is only that in case of JPEG some information is discarded. That is not the most important difference though. The most important difference is that in JPEG the demosaicing (the interpolation of colors) is already done, so you have no control over how that is done.
True, but there are ways you can explain it to a technophobe as well, and still explain the fundamental difference rather than simply ignore that part.
You could say: "Before you get the image, a lot of calculations have to be done. During those calculations, things like color, sharpnes, brightness and contrast are determined. If you shoot in JPEG, all those calculations are done automatically by the camera, so you have very little or no control over it. If you shoot in RAW, you have full control because you do it yourself afterwards on your computer".
That explains the fundamental difference in a way your father would also have understood.
I think we’re splitting hairs now to be honest.
In article <1i7sqjl.lqxog01lnan5wN%>,
(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
No, it isn’t the same. You made it sound like the difference between RAW and JPEG is only that in case of JPEG some information is discarded. That is not the most important difference though. The most important difference is that in JPEG the demosaicing (the interpolation of colors) is already done, so you have no control over how that is done.
I would disagree. Functionally, the most important difference, from the point of view of the photographer, is that the JPEG is compressed using lossy compression, and hence the quality of the image is degraded.
Johan W. Elzenga wrote:
(not quite so) Fat Sam wrote:
That is a gross oversimplification of what really happens.
Well of course it is.
But the OP didn’t want a technical white-paper specification of the exat file format breakdown.
He just wanted to know generally what RAW was and what it’s benefits were. To go into detail about how the CCD records data on a pixel by pixel basis is a tad overkill IMO.
That’s where we disagree. If you really want to know the benefits of RAW, some basic understanding of what is going on in a camera is needed IMO.
And what if the asker isn’t technically minded, but just wants to know what RAW is and why it would benefit him?
My old dad bought a camera that has RAW functionality.
He asked me to explain to him what it was.
I tried to give him a technical explanation, but to be honest, I might as well have been teaching a cat to solve a rubiks cube.
In the end, I gave him more or less the same explanation as I gave to the OP, and he understood.
You see, the amount of technical information required depends upon the audience you’re delivering to.
My explanation woudl seem over-simplistic to an electronics engineer, while your explanation would sound over-complicated, offputting and maybe even intimidating to a technophobe.
(not quite so) Fat Sam wrote:
Johan W. Elzenga wrote:
The most
important difference is that in JPEG the demosaicing (the interpolation of colors) is already done
To a technophobe, that statement would be meaningless.
True, but there are ways you can explain it to a technophobe as well, and still explain the fundamental difference rather than simply ignore that part.
You could say: "Before you get the image, a lot of calculations have to be done. During those calculations, things like color, sharpnes, brightness and contrast are determined. If you shoot in JPEG, all those calculations are done automatically by the camera, so you have very little or no control over it. If you shoot in RAW, you have full control because you do it yourself afterwards on your computer".
That explains the fundamental difference in a way your father would also have understood.
In article <1i7sqjl.lqxog01lnan5wN%>,
(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
No, it isn’t the same. You made it sound like the difference between RAW and JPEG is only that in case of JPEG some information is discarded. That is not the most important difference though. The most important difference is that in JPEG the demosaicing (the interpolation of colors) is already done, so you have no control over how that is done.
I would disagree. Functionally, the most important difference, from the point of view of the photographer, is that the JPEG is compressed using lossy compression, and hence the quality of the image is degraded.
I re-read yours (only the important parts) and yours seems ok, so don’t worry about it. And sorry for misunderstanding (if you need me to say sorry <bg>).
LOL, sorry for making you feel like you had to apologise mate. 😉 At the end of the day, this is usenet. The great free exchange of ideas and opinions. One of the last true bastions of free-speech.
If we didn’t engage in discussions and occasionally disagree with each other, it wouldn’t be anywhere near as much fun as it is now.
May I agree and disagree with you? <bg> cuz after you mess with RAW then save to lossy compression then you end up with what you disagree. Yup! I can see that you may save to TIFF <bg>
"\(not quite so\) Fat Sam" wrote:
Johan W. Elzenga wrote:
(not quite so) Fat Sam wrote:
That is a gross oversimplification of what really happens.
Well of course it is.
But the OP didn’t want a technical white-paper specification of the exat file format breakdown.
He just wanted to know generally what RAW was and what it’s benefits were. To go into detail about how the CCD records data on a pixel by pixel basis is a tad overkill IMO.
That’s where we disagree. If you really want to know the benefits of RAW, some basic understanding of what is going on in a camera is needed IMO.
And what if the asker isn’t technically minded, but just wants to know what
RAW is and why it would benefit him?
My old dad bought a camera that has RAW functionality.
He asked me to explain to him what it was.
I tried to give him a technical explanation, but to be honest, I might as well have been teaching a cat to solve a rubiks cube.
In the end, I gave him more or less the same explanation as I gave to the OP, and he understood.
You see, the amount of technical information required depends upon the audience you’re delivering to.
My explanation woudl seem over-simplistic to an electronics engineer, while
your explanation would sound over-complicated, offputting and maybe even intimidating to a technophobe.
Now I have to agree with you (happy?), because at the moment each has some strong/weak point. Example
– RAW is kinda nice to have *but* the software to handle RAW may not be that
good yet. If someone either use buggy RAW converter or too much joy to screw up some channel by using RAW converter then it will become a bad RAW
– JPG may not be the greatest format, but there are many greatest graphic editors (Photoshop for example) have lot more options/features to handle the
JPG than any current RAW converter has for RAW.
And if anyone has Adobe Lightroom then s/he may notice what Photoshop has to offer that many RAW converter users don’t realize how powerful Photoshop
really is (no, I don’t mix up between Photoshop and RAW converter because looking at LightRoom someone may find Adobe has added some Photoshop features to LightRoom to handle JPEG).
"gecko" wrote in message
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:59:34 -0000, "\(not quite so\) Fat Sam" wrote:
gecko wrote:Thanks
What is RAW format exactly – and why should it be used on my camera, if indeed it should?
Thanks
Gecko the ignorant
Your camera can store images in either of two formats.
RAW or Jpeg.
When you take a photo, your camera’s CCD records a huge amount of information about the image it can see. Often more information than your monitor or printing system is capable of displaying.
Now if you are set to RAW mode, this data gets stored directly to the memory
card, 100% in-tact with nothing lost at all. This results in quite a huge file, but it gives you more scope for manipulation when you load it onto your computer, as you can make alterations without affecting the image quality or introducing excess noise.
However, if you are set to Jpeg mode, the software inside your camera takes
the data from the CCD, and discards the parts of it that it feels are uneccesary, and then compresses the rest into a Jpeg file. This results in a much smaller file size, and faster operation of your camera, but it leaves you with less scope for manipulation once you have the
image loaded onto your computer.
RAW is great if your photographing architecture, landscapes, or things where
you want the absolute maximum detail.
Jpeg is great for sports or action photos where speed is the priority, and
for general snappy snaps.
It really comes down to your own personal requirements.
Having said that, if you’re working to the old film photography maxim of "get it right in-camera", then your shots won’t require hardly any post processing in photoshop, so you’ll probably get away with using Jpeg most of
the time.
One more question. If I use RAW on my camera, then what format is the upload to my computer in?
Gecko the smarter now
most camera shoot a jpeg plus the raw at the same time
I recommend that as your first test for RAW shooting
compare your processing of the image to the auto-processed jpg-camera image
then if you cannot figure the RAW well you still have the picture on jpg or you can compare who does a better job
In article ,
Joel wrote:
May I agree and disagree with you? <bg> cuz after you mess with RAW then save to lossy compression then you end up with what you disagree. Yup! I can see that you may save to TIFF <bg>
Generally, I do save camera shots to TIFF (or PSD).
If the final destination is a JPEG, then degradation is inevitable–but if oyu start with a JPEG, edit it, and save as a JPEG, the image quality has been degraded twice (or more, if you do multiple rounds of editing). If you start with RAW and then save as a JPEG at the end, the image quality is degraded only once.
tacit wrote:
In article ,
Joel wrote:
May I agree and disagree with you? <bg> cuz after you mess with RAW then
save to lossy compression then you end up with what you disagree. Yup! I
can see that you may save to TIFF <bg>
Generally, I do save camera shots to TIFF (or PSD).
I know! it was first available almost a decade or so ago. I have never use TIFF from day one, but do lot of reading to know what’s going on in the
computer world.
If the final destination is a JPEG, then degradation is inevitable–but if oyu start with a JPEG, edit it, and save as a JPEG, the image quality has been degraded twice (or more, if you do multiple rounds of editing). If you start with RAW and then save as a JPEG at the end, the image quality is degraded only once.
How do you describe DEGRADED? I mean the way I can understand and agree *not* the way you want me (us) to agree.
Me? instead of shooting blind or repeating what other said, I did a test myself by re-copied the same small JPG about dozen times to see with my own
eyes, and it was 8-10 years ago. Yup! when JPG was older generation, and it was a small (probably around 100-200K?), I have zoomed in 300-500+% but couldn’t find the word "DEGRADATION" anywhere <bg>
This may not have anything to do with JPG and its degradation, but at similar time they were talking about thw watermark "Digimarc" and much tougher protection (using special script), and I proved to them by copying the protected image and posted (the link) HERE on "alt.graphics.photoshop" to stop the protection WAR.
And yes, I have been here for around a decade or more, but mostly in background (for many years).
How do you describe DEGRADED? I mean the way I can understand and agree *not* the way you want me (us) to agree.
I see no reason to introduce loss in image quality if it is not necessary. First-gen JPEG degradation may not be noticeable to many people, but if you re-save it a few times, it will be.
"Joel" wrote in message
tacit wrote:
In article ,
Joel wrote:
May I agree and disagree with you? <bg> cuz after you mess with RAW then
save to lossy compression then you end up with what you disagree. Yup! I
can see that you may save to TIFF <bg>
Generally, I do save camera shots to TIFF (or PSD).
I know! it was first available almost a decade or so ago. I have never use TIFF from day one, but do lot of reading to know what’s going on in the
computer world.
If the final destination is a JPEG, then degradation is inevitable–but if oyu start with a JPEG, edit it, and save as a JPEG, the image quality has been degraded twice (or more, if you do multiple rounds of editing). If you start with RAW and then save as a JPEG at the end, the image quality is degraded only once.
How do you describe DEGRADED? I mean the way I can understand and agree *not* the way you want me (us) to agree.
Me? instead of shooting blind or repeating what other said, I did a test myself by re-copied the same small JPG about dozen times to see with my own
eyes, and it was 8-10 years ago. Yup! when JPG was older generation, and it was a small (probably around 100-200K?), I have zoomed in 300-500+% but couldn’t find the word "DEGRADATION" anywhere <bg>
This may not have anything to do with JPG and its degradation, but at similar time they were talking about thw watermark "Digimarc" and much tougher protection (using special script), and I proved to them by copying the protected image and posted (the link) HERE on "alt.graphics.photoshop" to stop the protection WAR.
And yes, I have been here for around a decade or more, but mostly in background (for many years).
.jpg aftifacts can be avoided and ussually one generation is not enough to cause an issue unless extream compresion is being used.
I do not see Jpg aftifacts really being an issue when talking about, "What is RAW?" and "why use it?".
If you worry about fils size and hard drive space, maybe RAW not for you.
If you don’t care to correcting white ballance, exposure, clipped blacks etc.. Then perhaps RAW is not for you.
In article ,
Joel wrote:
How do you describe DEGRADED? I mean the way I can understand and agree *not* the way you want me (us) to agree.
JPEG uses lossy compression. The quality of the image is sacrificed any time an image is saved as a JPEG, even at maximum quality.
The degradation is cumulative. You will not see additional degradation if you make copies of a JPEG, but you will see it if you open a JPEG, save it, close it, open it again, save it, close it, and so forth.
I see no reason to introduce loss in image quality if it is not necessary. First-gen JPEG degradation may not be noticeable to many people, but if you re-save it a few times, it will be.
..up to around 10 times. Loaded the "Original" and "Copy-10" to an older version of ACDSee and ZOOMED IN the same tine tiny spot 300-500+% til the screen filled with small squares from few big squares (or seeing small PIXELs). But I can’t find the word "degradation" but few pixels had color changed slightly.
tacit wrote:
I see no reason to introduce loss in image quality if it is not necessary. First-gen JPEG degradation may not be noticeable to many people, but if you re-save it a few times, it will be.
True, but that is not the issue in the debate JPEG versus RAW. If you shoot in JPEG, that is your first generation image. If you decide to edit that image, you can save the editted image in TIFF to avoid any further loss. Nobody forces you to save it in JPEG again.
To me, the issue is that JPEG is processed 8 bits, and RAW is (almost) unprocessed 12 bits or 14 bits.
In article ,
Joel wrote:
..up to around 10 times. Loaded the "Original" and "Copy-10" to an older version of ACDSee and ZOOMED IN the same tine tiny spot 300-500+% til the screen filled with small squares from few big squares (or seeing small PIXELs). But I can’t find the word "degradation" but few pixels had color changed slightly.
If the pixels have changed, that is degredation. The copy does not have the same content as the original. Information about the state of the original has been lost.
I am glad that you do not consider the loss significant. I am sure that many people would agree with you; in fact, many people don’t really know how to tell the difference between an image that has had lossy compression applied and one that has not. As long as the image meets your standards, that’s fine.
However, once you know what to look for, some people find that JPEG degradation is very noticeable. I can usually tell at a glance, for example, whether an image has been compressed with lossy compression or not.
"\(not quite so\) Fat Sam" wrote:
<snip>
Yup! once awhile I read some information I can agree, while most is often overcooked. It’s so simple but probably because it’s too simple for most people to figure out, then try to confuse if not misleading other <bg>
Me? it’s pretty simple
1. The camera captures whatever it can see through the lens
– Good lens sees cleaner image when bad lens has less IQ
2. The camera calculates then PROCESS whatever it see through the lens, then save the processed to memory then transfer to memory card
– RAW with minimal process which leave more room for further processing (see more below)
– JPG with full process ready to use
3. RAW after minimal processed by hardware (camera) it will need to be processed by software to ready to be used.
– If using perfect RAW converter then it will give better result
– If using buggy RAW converter then it may not be a perfect JPG/TIFF
– If operate by poor operator then it may better start with JPG or lets the camera does all processing.
– I am not going to knock down any software but just an example just for fun. If RAW is processed by graphic viewer like ACDSee then it may not give the same result as professional graphic editor (like Photoshop for example)
But ACDSee in the hand of good user may give better result than poor RAW operator.
And #3 show little more detail of what RAW really is <bg>
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this exactly what I said?
I am not trying to correct you or anyone, I just happen to read something I can agree and responsed to what I read. That’s it!
I didn’t read through the whole message of yours (not because it’s yours or someone else’s but that’s the way I read message .. a quick browse through then re-read *if* I catch something I may interest in).
I re-read yours (only the important parts) and yours seems ok, so don’t worry about it. And sorry for misunderstanding (if you need me to say sorry
<bg>).
tacit wrote:
In article ,
Joel wrote:
..up to around 10 times. Loaded the "Original" and "Copy-10" to an older version of ACDSee and ZOOMED IN the same tine tiny spot 300-500+% til the screen filled with small squares from few big squares (or seeing small PIXELs). But I can’t find the word "degradation" but few pixels had color changed slightly.
If the pixels have changed, that is degredation. The copy does not have the same content as the original. Information about the state of the original has been lost.
Interesting! very interesting! and still very interesting! because after the camera captured the image it has to calculate and some adjustment (or processing) before saves (degrade) to RAW.
– When you process (degrade) your RAW then save the degraded to TIFF it will be degraded because it is no longer the original
– When you just load the TIFF to graphic editor then save without doing any modification, it will be degraded because it’s no longer the original. And not original means some difference.
I am glad that you do not consider the loss significant. I am sure that many people would agree with you; in fact, many people don’t really know how to tell the difference between an image that has had lossy compression applied and one that has not. As long as the image meets your standards, that’s fine.
If you just want to see the degradation (difference or some change) then no need to go very far, just try to save your TIFF using different graphic program then you may see many degrated TIFF. Because not all grahic programs are created equal, or each has its own calculation, so each gives different (degradation) result.
However, once you know what to look for, some people find that JPEG degradation is very noticeable. I can usually tell at a glance, for example, whether an image has been compressed with lossy compression or not.
Like I said, if you mess up the RAW with RAW converter then you should be able to see the difference without trying. And that’s one of the reason why most of the time I trust the camera’s process than RAW converter’s calculation and process.
That’s why different RAW converter user worships and swear by different RAW god, and many RAW converter users still having hard time to chose between several available RAW converters.
gecko wrote:
What is RAW format exactly – and why should it be used on my camera, if indeed it should?
RAW is just another format similar to all other format, except
– RAW has minimal processed by camera, and leave more room for you to process further more
-JPEG is an already processed by camera (hardware) , so you don’t need to process again using software if you do not wish to process any further.
That’s the general, and if you have the heart for RAW vs JPG war then just hang around to enjoy the war <bg>
Thanks
Gecko the ignorant
In article ,
Joel wrote:
..up to around 10 times. Loaded the "Original" and "Copy-10" to an older version of ACDSee and ZOOMED IN the same tine tiny spot 300-500+% til the screen filled with small squares from few big squares (or seeing small PIXELs). But I can’t find the word "degradation" but few pixels had color
changed slightly.
If the pixels have changed, that is degredation. The copy does not have the same content as the original. Information about the state of the original has been lost.
I am glad that you do not consider the loss significant. I am sure that many people would agree with you; in fact, many people don’t really know how to tell the difference between an image that has had lossy compression applied and one that has not. As long as the image meets your standards, that’s fine.
However, once you know what to look for, some people find that JPEG degradation is very noticeable. I can usually tell at a glance, for example, whether an image has been compressed with lossy compression or not.
If you just want to see the degradation (difference or some change) then no need to go very far, just try to save your TIFF using different graphic program then you may see many degrated TIFF. Because not all grahic programs are created equal, or each has its own calculation, so each gives different (degradation) result.
In article ,
Joel wrote:
If you just want to see the degradation (difference or some change) then no need to go very far, just try to save your TIFF using different graphic program then you may see many degrated TIFF. Because not all grahic programs are created equal, or each has its own calculation, so each gives different (degradation) result.
Incorrect. provided that no lossy compression is applied, every single pixel in a TIFF saved with any program will be identical to the original. If you re-save an uncompressed TIFF over and over, every pixel value is preserved unchanged; no changes in any pixels occur.
Incorrect. provided that no lossy compression is applied, every single pixel in a TIFF saved with any program will be identical to the original. If you re-save an uncompressed TIFF over and over, every pixel value is preserved unchanged; no changes in any pixels occur.
Right! <bg>
In article ,
Joel wrote:
Incorrect. provided that no lossy compression is applied, every single pixel in a TIFF saved with any program will be identical to the original. If you re-save an uncompressed TIFF over and over, every pixel value is preserved unchanged; no changes in any pixels occur.
Right! <bg>
This is not, however, the case with JPEG. Because PEG uses lossy compression, opening and re-saving a JPEG will cause cumulative image degradation…which is how this whole conversation got started to begin with.
tacit wrote:
In article ,
Joel wrote:
Incorrect. provided that no lossy compression is applied, every single pixel in a TIFF saved with any program will be identical to the original. If you re-save an uncompressed TIFF over and over, every pixel value is preserved unchanged; no changes in any pixels occur.
Right! <bg>
This is not, however, the case with JPEG. Because PEG uses lossy compression, opening and re-saving a JPEG will cause cumulative image degradation…which is how this whole conversation got started to begin with.
Yea right again! <bg>
On Nov 29, 8:27 pm, Joel wrote:
tacit wrote:
In article ,
Joel wrote:
Incorrect. provided that no lossy compression is applied, every single pixel in a TIFF saved with any program will be identical to the original. If you re-save an uncompressed TIFF over and over, every pixel value is preserved unchanged; no changes in any pixels occur.
Right! <bg>
This is not, however, the case with JPEG. Because PEG uses lossy compression, opening and re-saving a JPEG will cause cumulative image degradation…which is how this whole conversation got started to begin with.
Yea right again! <bg>
If you have Photoshop, the .psd format is pretty stable.
feedscrn wrote:
On Nov 29, 8:27 pm, Joel wrote:
tacit wrote:
In article ,
Joel wrote:
Incorrect. provided that no lossy compression is applied, every single
pixel in a TIFF saved with any program will be identical to the original. If you re-save an uncompressed TIFF over and over, every pixel
value is preserved unchanged; no changes in any pixels occur.
Right! <bg>
This is not, however, the case with JPEG. Because PEG uses lossy compression, opening and re-saving a JPEG will cause cumulative image degradation…which is how this whole conversation got started to begin
with.
Yea right again! <bg>
If you have Photoshop, the .psd format is pretty stable.
I rarely save to .PSD unless I plan to change some layer later which I rarely do, or it usually won’t take me long to start all over again etc..
And we were talking about the format of some messed up mind of some dreamers <bg>
Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections
