Small JPEGS from the D70

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I typically shoot RAW + JPEG in the D70 -- mainly to have the JPEGS to see
if I want to mess with the photo at all. For relatgively low level shooting
(like most "event photography" stuff - not portraiture or "art" photos), I
am finding that the small JPEGS do just fine. In other words, unless I need
to really expand the range of values, or mess with the white balance, I am
finding little advantage to use the RAW conversion over even the smallest
JPEG (which you are forced with in the RAW + JPEG). Granted, though, most
print orders are 4x6 and 5x7 -- only an occasional 8x10 (and for event
photos, I have gotten perfectly good 8x10's out of a 2MP camera--again,
"event" photo stuff).

Any reactions? I would still shoot raw plus....but only for the digital
negative advantage.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Andy-J wrote:

> I typically shoot RAW + JPEG in the D70 -- mainly to have the JPEGS to see
> if I want to mess with the photo at all. For relatgively low level shooting
> (like most "event photography" stuff - not portraiture or "art" photos), I
> am finding that the small JPEGS do just fine. In other words, unless I need
> to really expand the range of values, or mess with the white balance, I am
> finding little advantage to use the RAW conversion over even the smallest
> JPEG (which you are forced with in the RAW + JPEG). Granted, though, most
> print orders are 4x6 and 5x7 -- only an occasional 8x10 (and for event
> photos, I have gotten perfectly good 8x10's out of a 2MP camera--again,
> "event" photo stuff).
>
> Any reactions? I would still shoot raw plus....but only for the digital
> negative advantage.


I think those 'small' jpegs are actually full size but more compressed
so more gritty squarish abstraction artifacts. Zoom in to 400% & compare
and you will see the difference.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Andy-J" <right@notinthislifetime.org> wrote in message
news:V5TDd.29598$3m6.995@attbi_s51...
>I typically shoot RAW + JPEG in the D70 -- mainly to have the JPEGS to see
>if I want to mess with the photo at all. For relatgively low level
>shooting (like most "event photography" stuff - not portraiture or "art"
>photos), I am finding that the small JPEGS do just fine. In other words,
>unless I need to really expand the range of values, or mess with the white
>balance, I am finding little advantage to use the RAW conversion over even
>the smallest JPEG (which you are forced with in the RAW + JPEG). Granted,
>though, most print orders are 4x6 and 5x7 -- only an occasional 8x10 (and
>for event photos, I have gotten perfectly good 8x10's out of a 2MP
>camera--again, "event" photo stuff).
>
> Any reactions? I would still shoot raw plus....but only for the digital
> negative advantage.

I did an "event" last year and shot almost all the pictures at 2 MP on Fuji
S2 Pros (there was about 7-8 photographers, all with S2 Pro's) and it worked
out perfectly because 2 MP was large enough to satisfy the print
requirements for the largest size that was offered. I personally would go
for more than 2 MP if I was offering 8x10 and I would not bother with RAW,
make sure that your camera is set up so that prints can be made without any
post production manipulation. Event results will never be your best results
but they can still be pretty good.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 21:30:06 +0100, in rec.photo.digital Michael Schnell
<mschnell_at_bschnell_dot_de@aol.com> wrote:

>If I remember correctly RAW+JPG uses medium quality JPG.

Nope. It's raw+basic, the highest level of compression.
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Phot [...] index.html

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:34aq9iF47milmU1@individual.net...
> bmoag wrote:
> > It is all in the eye or lack thereof of the beholder.
> >
> > Some people do not see the difference between standard broadcast tv
> > and HDTV: you can make out what is going on by watching either but
> > which would you prefer?
>
> I prefer to judge on program content. That's why I have no cable TV or
> satellite TV (I'm in the UK). Poor quality programming is no more
> enjoyable if it has a few more pixels...

You don't watch those nature shows, do you? On the political shows you
don't want to see some of the faces too clearly.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Raw
> gives some abilities you can't get with JPEG, like changing the white
> balance after the fact if the camera chose the wrong white balance.
>


Of course you can change the color tone (white balance being a special
case of same). But as the resolution of JPG is 8 bit per channel and NEF
is 12 Bit per channel you loose accuracy when loading a JPG, change the
color tone and save as 8 bit JPG again. 12 Bit NEF has a greater dynamic.


-Michael

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ed Ruf" <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:8i73u0h87le9643u35eau92jqb2ms3rcus@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:43:13 -0500, in rec.photo.digital "larrylook"
> <LarryLOOK@noemail.com> wrote:
>
> >I've been told resolution is identical with high jpeg and raw on d70.
Low
> >compression isn't great with copping small part of original photo. Raw
> >gives some abilities you can't get with JPEG, like changing the white
> >balance after the fact if the camera chose the wrong white balance.
>
> Don't believe everything you are told.

Could you expand here?

> ________________________________________________________
> Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
> See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
> http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Phot [...] index.html