Jpeg's

TimB5388 · 01-25-2009, 02:36 AM

The only thing that in my mind could improve these pictures is knowing that there a bunch of hungry bass just waiting to be caught. Very nice pictures

I shoot jpg all the time and I seldom do any pp but then my photos are for my enjoyment. I have shot raw and without the intent of doing pp I see no need for it other than to fill up memory cards.

cupic · 01-25-2009, 05:51 AM

Brilliant location and exquisite shots

cheers

pentaxmz · 01-25-2009, 09:58 AM

I think I need to state this....

First, they are very nice photos... (of course).

But to critique them in terms of the quality of the jpeg format is not really possible.

Because....

1. These photo are not 100% crop;
2. They are reduced size in order to fit in this forum;
3. Doesn't this forum further compress uploaded images?;

Anyhow, if you like the results of jpeg, by all means continue to use it, however, be aware that jpeg will never show a completely honest rendering of what your camera sensor captured.

Marc Sabatella · 01-25-2009, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by pentaxmz

to critique them in terms of the quality of the jpeg format is not really possible.

Because....

1. These photo are not 100% crop;
2. They are reduced size in order to fit in this forum;
3. Doesn't this forum further compress uploaded images?;

If you upload the pictures elsewhere then post a pointer here, there would be no further compression. Not sure what happens if you upload to the forum directly.

Anyhow, while I agree the size posted is insufficient to say much about sharpness - whatever alleged softness there is wouldn't be apparent at this size - it's still a fine size for looking at color & contrast.

Marc Sabatella · 01-25-2009, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by axl

Does it mean you keep all your RAWs?
boy if I did it I'd have wall full of CDs/DVDs with archives or I'd have to buy new HDD every 6 months...
BR

A compressed RAW file (can be generated in camera or via Adobe DNG Converter) is much smaller than a full resolution TIFF file of the same image, and not that much bigger than a JPEG of full resolution and high quality. So if you're in the habit of converting all your RAW files to TIFF, you're taking up *more* space, and even if you convert to JPEG, you are probably saving only maybe 30% at most in file size over the RAW file.

Of course, if you were thinking of keeping both the RAW *and* a high resolution conversion, that would more double the space requirements. But if you keep your RAW files and use modern RAW processing software that lets you work with your RAW images directly, there is no reason to generate the high resolution version of most of your files. You can keep the original RAW file and use that for your full resolution needs, or perhaps generate a full resolution TIFF to send to a print service on an as-needed basis, and then delete it when you're done. As a general rule, I generate only medium-resolution JPEG's (good enough for web use and a 4x6 print) of my files, and only for the ones I identify as "keepers" - maybe 30% of the shots I take). These take next to no space.

So while converting everything to high resolution JPEG and deleting the RAW files might mean your storage cost is around 6-7MB per image on average for a 10MB camera, keeping the RAW and only the medium resolution JPEG of the keepers means around 9-10MB per image on average. Hardly a difference to lose sleep over.

stevebrot · 01-25-2009, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

...Not sure what happens if you upload to the forum directly...

If you upload to the forum, the server software will reprocess the image to forum standards. This often enough (not always) results is a substantial loss of detail and/or contrast and a change in color balance. Not recommended.

Steve

Arpe · 01-25-2009, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by TimB5388

The only thing that in my mind could improve these pictures is knowing that there a bunch of hungry bass just waiting to be caught. Very nice pictures.

Bass? Not here mate. Trout more likely though.

Nice pics Boy, though I reckon a touch more contrast wouldn't go astray, though of course could be my monitor.

ftpaddict · 01-25-2009, 04:19 PM

I can almost smell the fresh air in your photos. Loving each and every one of them.

abraham_love · 01-26-2009, 03:08 AM

I prefer the IST JPEGs to your K20 RAW and processed shots!

MSM · 01-26-2009, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

If you upload to the forum, the server software will reprocess the image to forum standards. This often enough (not always) results is a substantial loss of detail and/or contrast and a change in color balance. Not recommended.

Steve

Steve: I have often wondered what is the best way to post images here. Is there an easier way. I have been taking my images from Aperture and exporting them in a smaller size to the desktop and then uploading them here. I would post more images it there is an easier way. Any suggestions? thanks.

**rayallen** · 01-26-2009, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by abraham_love

I prefer the IST JPEGs to your K20 RAW and processed shots!

Yes, I thought that, too.

**Mallee Boy** · 01-26-2009, 02:52 PM

I sometimes look back at my DS images and wonder if I have actually gained anything by going to the K20...but then I can find plenty of examples that say the opposite.

01-25-2009, 02:36 AM	#16
TimB5388 New Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Somewhere in the world taking a picture Photos: Albums Posts: 15	Are there bass in the lake The only thing that in my mind could improve these pictures is knowing that there a bunch of hungry bass just waiting to be caught. Very nice pictures I shoot jpg all the time and I seldom do any pp but then my photos are for my enjoyment. I have shot raw and without the intent of doing pp I see no need for it other than to fill up memory cards.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
JPEG, RAW, JPEG + RAW...huh?	Raptorman	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	14	12-22-2009 11:49 AM
RAW or JPEG	tkcampbell	Pentax DSLR Discussion	24	12-13-2009 04:31 PM
K-x vs K-m JPEG quality	deadwolfbones	Pentax DSLR Discussion	8	11-21-2009 08:47 PM
RAW + JPEG with JPEG on One Star quality	laissezfaire	Pentax DSLR Discussion	58	12-10-2008 02:42 PM
RAW or JPEG	Cloudy Wizzard	General Talk	26	10-03-2007 04:44 AM

01-25-2009, 05:51 AM	#17
cupic Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Australia-NSW Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,824	Brilliant location and exquisite shots cheers

01-25-2009, 09:58 AM	#18
pentaxmz Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 659	I think I need to state this.... First, they are very nice photos... (of course). But to critique them in terms of the quality of the jpeg format is not really possible. Because.... 1. These photo are not 100% crop; 2. They are reduced size in order to fit in this forum; 3. Doesn't this forum further compress uploaded images?; Anyhow, if you like the results of jpeg, by all means continue to use it, however, be aware that jpeg will never show a completely honest rendering of what your camera sensor captured.

01-25-2009, 10:33 AM	#19
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by pentaxmz to critique them in terms of the quality of the jpeg format is not really possible. Because.... 1. These photo are not 100% crop; 2. They are reduced size in order to fit in this forum; 3. Doesn't this forum further compress uploaded images?; If you upload the pictures elsewhere then post a pointer here, there would be no further compression. Not sure what happens if you upload to the forum directly. Anyhow, while I agree the size posted is insufficient to say much about sharpness - whatever alleged softness there is wouldn't be apparent at this size - it's still a fine size for looking at color & contrast.

01-25-2009, 10:48 AM	#20
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by axl Does it mean you keep all your RAWs? boy if I did it I'd have wall full of CDs/DVDs with archives or I'd have to buy new HDD every 6 months... BR A compressed RAW file (can be generated in camera or via Adobe DNG Converter) is much smaller than a full resolution TIFF file of the same image, and not that much bigger than a JPEG of full resolution and high quality. So if you're in the habit of converting all your RAW files to TIFF, you're taking up more space, and even if you convert to JPEG, you are probably saving only maybe 30% at most in file size over the RAW file. Of course, if you were thinking of keeping both the RAW and a high resolution conversion, that would more double the space requirements. But if you keep your RAW files and use modern RAW processing software that lets you work with your RAW images directly, there is no reason to generate the high resolution version of most of your files. You can keep the original RAW file and use that for your full resolution needs, or perhaps generate a full resolution TIFF to send to a print service on an as-needed basis, and then delete it when you're done. As a general rule, I generate only medium-resolution JPEG's (good enough for web use and a 4x6 print) of my files, and only for the ones I identify as "keepers" - maybe 30% of the shots I take). These take next to no space. So while converting everything to high resolution JPEG and deleting the RAW files might mean your storage cost is around 6-7MB per image on average for a 10MB camera, keeping the RAW and only the medium resolution JPEG of the keepers means around 9-10MB per image on average. Hardly a difference to lose sleep over.

01-25-2009, 10:57 AM	#21
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella ...Not sure what happens if you upload to the forum directly... If you upload to the forum, the server software will reprocess the image to forum standards. This often enough (not always) results is a substantial loss of detail and/or contrast and a change in color balance. Not recommended. Steve

01-25-2009, 04:18 PM	#22
Arpe Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,452	Originally posted by TimB5388 The only thing that in my mind could improve these pictures is knowing that there a bunch of hungry bass just waiting to be caught. Very nice pictures. Bass? Not here mate. Trout more likely though. Nice pics Boy, though I reckon a touch more contrast wouldn't go astray, though of course could be my monitor.

01-25-2009, 04:19 PM	#23
ftpaddict Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Yurp Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,666	I can almost smell the fresh air in your photos. Loving each and every one of them.

01-26-2009, 03:08 AM	#24
abraham_love Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: London Posts: 51	I prefer the IST JPEGs to your K20 RAW and processed shots!

01-26-2009, 12:21 PM	#25
MSM Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Alabama Photos: Gallery Posts: 994	Originally posted by stevebrot If you upload to the forum, the server software will reprocess the image to forum standards. This often enough (not always) results is a substantial loss of detail and/or contrast and a change in color balance. Not recommended. Steve Steve: I have often wondered what is the best way to post images here. Is there an easier way. I have been taking my images from Aperture and exporting them in a smaller size to the desktop and then uploading them here. I would post more images it there is an easier way. Any suggestions? thanks.

01-26-2009, 02:43 PM	#26
rayallen Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Forresters Beach, NSW, Australia. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,014	Originally posted by abraham_love I prefer the IST JPEGs to your K20 RAW and processed shots! Yes, I thought that, too.

01-26-2009, 02:52 PM	#27
Mallee Boy Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,904 Original Poster	I sometimes look back at my DS images and wonder if I have actually gained anything by going to the K20...but then I can find plenty of examples that say the opposite.