Raw

cmr164 · July 6, 2004

An interesting write-up on SportsShooter.com is here. Aside from the fact that he doesn't understand what TIFF is, Reed Hoffmann has written a pretty good summation of the pros and cons.

mercphoto · July 7, 2004

Raw

cmr164 wrote:

An interesting write-up on SportsShooter.com is here. Aside from the fact that he doesn't understand what TIFF is, Reed Hoffmann has written a pretty good summation of the pros and cons.

Good article. Pretty much what a sports photographer told me in early June. Use JPG as often as possible, learn to get the shot right in the camera, use RAW for difficult shots.

I do have a question about TIFF though. I've done 8x12's from JPG and TIFF and could not tell the difference at that size. I've done 20x30 JPGs that came out real nice. But a site I'm an agent for (usa-pics.com) requires TIFF submissions only. This means I shoot raw for him and convert to tiff. What is the benefit to the TIFF format. Yes, its uncompressed. Is that all? At what size print do the differences show?

cmr164 · July 7, 2004

mercphoto wrote:

Good article. Pretty much what a sports photographer told me in early June. Use JPG as often as possible, learn to get the shot right in the camera, use RAW for difficult shots.

I do have a question about TIFF though. I've done 8x12's from JPG and TIFF and could not tell the difference at that size. I've done 20x30 JPGs that came out real nice. But a site I'm an agent for (usa-pics.com) requires TIFF submissions only. This means I shoot raw for him and convert to tiff. What is the benefit to the TIFF format. Yes, its uncompressed. Is that all? At what size print do the differences show?

[font=lucida,helvetica,arial]

Start here A tiff which might or might not be compressed can contain 8 bit, 12 bit, or 16 bit RGB or it can contain YMCK, or it can contain RAW or even jpegs or gifs. Lots of people forget this and think tiffs are only 8 or 16 bit RGB. The writer of the article is one of those and so are the editors at usa-pics.com. Send them 16 bit tiffs (either compressed or not) and the will have almost as much info as it you sent raw.

[/font]

Baldy · July 9, 2004

cmr164 wrote:

[font=lucida,helvetica,arial]

Start here A tiff which might or might not be compressed can contain 8 bit, 12 bit, or 16 bit RGB or it can contain YMCK, or it can contain RAW or even jpegs or gifs. Lots of people forget this and think tiffs are only 8 or 16 bit RGB. The writer of the article is one of those and so are the editors at usa-pics.com. Send them 16 bit tiffs (either compressed or not) and the will have almost as much info as it you sent raw.

[/font]

You know, I see lots of photographers who worry so much about JPEG compression as I once did, setting the compression levels at 10 or higher (Photoshop is on a 1-12 scale), but I have yet to see the photo where you could tell the difference in print between 8 and a higher number. Have I just not seen enough of them?

I have a 20x30 print on display that's just JPEG 7 and people are shocked at the detail and clean image. No one can see artifacts.

Phil Askey at dpreview seems to have settled on JPEG 8, from what I can tell reading his reviews, and he's a very picky guy.

Please tell me if I'm off base.

Thanks,
Baldy

cmr164 · July 9, 2004

Baldy wrote:

You know, I see lots of photographers who worry so much about JPEG compression as I once did, setting the compression levels at 10 or higher (Photoshop is on a 1-12 scale), but I have yet to see the photo where you could tell the difference in print between 8 and a higher number. Have I just not seen enough of them?

I have a 20x30 print on display that's just JPEG 7 and people are shocked at the detail and clean image. No one can see artifacts.

Phil Askey at dpreview seems to have settled on JPEG 8, from what I can tell reading his reviews, and he's a very picky guy.

Please tell me if I'm off base.

Thanks,
Baldy

I recommend doing light adjustments like levels, ev +/-, WB and so forth with the raw image, then convert to jpeg. As long as you are not doing more than a couple of sequential jpeg saves you should be fine.

pathfinder · July 9, 2004

Baldy wrote:

You know, I see lots of photographers who worry so much about JPEG compression as I once did, setting the compression levels at 10 or higher (Photoshop is on a 1-12 scale), but I have yet to see the photo where you could tell the difference in print between 8 and a higher number. Have I just not seen enough of them?

I have a 20x30 print on display that's just JPEG 7 and people are shocked at the detail and clean image. No one can see artifacts.

Phil Askey at dpreview seems to have settled on JPEG 8, from what I can tell reading his reviews, and he's a very picky guy.

Please tell me if I'm off base.

Thanks,
Baldy

20 x 30 from jpeg 7 sounds super!! - But what was the actual file size? - JPEG 7 can still be a huge file - 40 0r 50 Mb or so - versus a JPEG 10 file that is only 500K . File size is also a function of image print size as well as jpeg compression, is it not?
It is interesting that you mention jpeg 8 and dpreview. The default setting for jpeg compression on the 1DMkll as it comes from Canon IS JPEG 8. Maybe there is a reason Canon chose that level. I changed mine to JPEG 10, but I may have to rethink that choice.
I have usually chosen jpeg 10 and 12 x18 inches when I save things in Photoshop, but maybe that is unnecessary. I'll have to do some experiments and see if I can actually see the difference.

mercphoto · July 10, 2004

Big enlargements

pathfinder wrote:

20 x 30 from jpeg 7 sounds super!! - But what was the actual file size? - JPEG 7 can still be a huge file - 40 0r 50 Mb or so - versus a JPEG 10 file that is only 500K . File size is also a function of image print size as well as jpeg compression, is it not?

I have a 20x30 print of a kart racing photo I took. Look on my site, mercphoto.smugmug.com, search for image 2418. It is a 2.7 MB file, from a Digital Rebel. Captured in-camera as a large fine JPG using parameters 1 (vivid colors, sharp edges). Its the best JPG the camera will provide. And as a 20x30 print it looks better than ISO 200 film I've taken. (the picture on the site has exposure information, if interested). I was really surprised at how good the print came out.

http://mercphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/134540/1/4900804

BTW, smugmug actually printed that 20x30. I was not only happy with the camera, but also quite happy with the print!

Raw

Comments