Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-25-2009, 02:36 AM   #16
New Member
TimB5388's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Somewhere in the world taking a picture
Photos: Albums
Posts: 13
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.

01-25-2009, 05:51 AM   #17
Veteran Member
cupic's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia-NSW
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,724
Brilliant location and exquisite shots

cheers
01-25-2009, 09:58 AM   #18
Veteran Member
pentaxmz's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 647
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
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by pentaxmz Quote
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
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
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
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,189
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
...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
Pentaxian
Arpe's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,330
QuoteOriginally posted by TimB5388 Quote
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
Veteran Member
ftpaddict's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Yurp
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,669
I can almost smell the fresh air in your photos. Loving each and every one of them.

01-26-2009, 03:08 AM   #24
Forum Member
abraham_love's Avatar

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
MSM's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Alabama
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 994
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
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
Loyal Site Supporter
rayallen's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Forresters Beach, Central Coast, NSW, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,508
QuoteOriginally posted by abraham_love Quote
I prefer the IST JPEGs to your K20 RAW and processed shots!
Yes, I thought that, too.
01-26-2009, 02:52 PM   #27
Site Supporter
Mallee Boy's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hindmarsh Isl. Sth Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,485
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.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, jpegs, pentax, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:52 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top