Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

JPEG Compression Question

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
August 23, 2005 5:15:01 PM

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

I shoot in high resolution JPEG mode with my camera. I download the
files to my computer for archiving and editing. I save each picture as
a TIF for editing. After I complete my editing, I save the edited TIF
as a high quality JPEG.
My question is this: Is the edited JPEG the still same quality as the
original JPEG downloaded from the camera?
Thanks for any info you can provide.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 5:32:18 PM

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

"Les" <les.s.feinstein@lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1124828101.429191.14730@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I shoot in high resolution JPEG mode with my camera. I download the
> files to my computer for archiving and editing. I save each picture as
> a TIF for editing. After I complete my editing, I save the edited TIF
> as a high quality JPEG.
> My question is this: Is the edited JPEG the still same quality as the
> original JPEG downloaded from the camera?
> Thanks for any info you can provide.

No.
That could only be true if you saved it as the tif.
It would then avoid suffering the tone "consolidation" that happens when
it's re-compressed into a jpeg.
Remember, that it's in the saving, re-saving, or converting to...a
jpeg...that loss due to recompression happens.
August 23, 2005 5:51:09 PM

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

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
> There are always small errors created when you save an image as JPEG, as
> it is a lossy compression scheme .. which means you have lost data.
> Now, when you convert to TIFF, you have lost nothing over the original
> JPEG, so the original loss is simply maintained. You then save your
> JPEG from the modified TIFF and you again apply a lossy algorithm and
> get more loss. So, the answer is the new JPEG is of lower quality [as
> far as dataloss is concerned] than the original. Having said that, if
> you never modify your new JPEG images and always work from your original
> TIFF, your loss can be considered neglible.
>
Thank you Thomas (and Mark).
Extending this discussion one step further, it seems that the ideal
situation would be to shoot in TIFF mode in the camera (to avoid the
initial compression loss). Aside from the fact that my camera won't
shoot in TIFF mode, considering the huge file sizes involved with TIFF,
would shooting in RAW mode be of any benefit? RAW seems also to also
be a compressed mode (much smaller file size than TIFF); is the RAW
compression lossless?
This is just a theoretical discussion at this point, as high quality
JPEG seems adequate for my purposes.
Thanks.
Related resources
August 23, 2005 6:02:43 PM

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

RAW files (at least the Canon CR2) are compressed losslessly - so there
isn't any quality lost to compression when you shoot a RAW file.
However, the RAW files are more of a "hassle" than JPEG in that they
require post processing.

So if you were to shoot in RAW you would download the image from the
camera, open it in a RAW conversion program (I use Adobe Camera Raw 2.4
and Raw Shooter Essentials), do the conversion and then save the
result. If you choose to save the image in a lossless format you
wouldn't lose any data from the original capture (with the exception of
whatever might be lost in the conversion). Then you could make
whatever adjustments you wanted to and save the final output as JPEG -
which would result in the file being compressed in a lossy format only
once.

Brian
August 23, 2005 6:38:19 PM

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

Jim Townsend wrote:
>...
> - Camera saves a first generation JPEG. 1. There is some data loss.
> - You edit the file and save as as JPEG. 2. There is some data loss.
>
> Note that #2 makes no difference.. You're saving a JPEG twice no
> matter how you look at it.
>
> I can't see an advantage to doing the TIFF conversion. (Not unless you
> edit it over several sessions saving each time). You can save a TIFF
> as much as you want without data loss.
> ...

Jim,
The reason I convert to TIFF is because sometimes I spend a long time
editing a picture, so I do intermediate saves in case I have to
interrupt the session. Also, after printing an edited file, I might
decide to do some additional tweaks based on how the print looks.
Les
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 6:44:23 PM

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

"Les" <les.s.feinstein@lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1124833099.489907.304730@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jim Townsend wrote:
>>...
>> - Camera saves a first generation JPEG. 1. There is some data loss.
>> - You edit the file and save as as JPEG. 2. There is some data loss.
>>
>> Note that #2 makes no difference.. You're saving a JPEG twice no
>> matter how you look at it.
>>
>> I can't see an advantage to doing the TIFF conversion. (Not unless you
>> edit it over several sessions saving each time). You can save a TIFF
>> as much as you want without data loss.
>> ...
>
> Jim,
> The reason I convert to TIFF is because sometimes I spend a long time
> editing a picture, so I do intermediate saves in case I have to
> interrupt the session. Also, after printing an edited file, I might
> decide to do some additional tweaks based on how the print looks.
> Les

Ah. Doing intermediate saves...that would give reason for it.
:) 
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 7:01:11 PM

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

Les wrote:
> Jim Townsend wrote:
> >...
> > - Camera saves a first generation JPEG. 1. There is some data loss.
> > - You edit the file and save as as JPEG. 2. There is some data loss.
> >
> > Note that #2 makes no difference.. You're saving a JPEG twice no
> > matter how you look at it.
> >
> > I can't see an advantage to doing the TIFF conversion. (Not unless you
> > edit it over several sessions saving each time). You can save a TIFF
> > as much as you want without data loss.
> > ...
>
> Jim,
> The reason I convert to TIFF is because sometimes I spend a long time
> editing a picture, so I do intermediate saves in case I have to
> interrupt the session. Also, after printing an edited file, I might
> decide to do some additional tweaks based on how the print looks.

If you are spending considerable time editing pictures, you might as
well shoot RAW. The RAW post workflow literally takes less than a
couple of minutes or so per picture, at most. I use RawShooter
Essentials 2005, which is free at www.pixmantec.com. Do the quick
extra step, export it to TIFF and go wild.

Ben
August 23, 2005 7:40:18 PM

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

kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:
> ...
> If you are spending considerable time editing pictures, you might as
> well shoot RAW. The RAW post workflow literally takes less than a
> couple of minutes or so per picture, at most. I use RawShooter
> Essentials 2005, which is free at www.pixmantec.com. Do the quick
> extra step, export it to TIFF and go wild.
>
....

Ben,
I looked at the site for RawShooter. Sounds like a neat program, but
definitely not free. The free part refers to their trial version, but
nowhere can I find the price for a registered version, and downloading
the trial version means agreeing to receive a bunch of spam from them.
Before I subject myself that, I want to know what it's gonna cost me,
so I can make a buy/no buy decision. Can you tell me what it costs?
Thanks.
Les
August 23, 2005 7:59:53 PM

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

Les wrote:
....
> Ben,
> I looked at the site for RawShooter. Sounds like a neat program, but
> definitely not free. The free part refers to their trial version, but
> nowhere can I find the price for a registered version, and downloading
> the trial version means agreeing to receive a bunch of spam from them.
> Before I subject myself that, I want to know what it's gonna cost me,
> so I can make a buy/no buy decision. Can you tell me what it costs?
> Thanks.
> Les

On second thought, Ben, never mind. I just looked at the minimum
system requirements for RawShooter, and my system doesn't even come
close. Oh, well!
Les
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 8:06:15 PM

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

Les wrote:

> I shoot in high resolution JPEG mode with my camera. I download the
> files to my computer for archiving and editing. I save each picture as
> a TIF for editing. After I complete my editing, I save the edited TIF
> as a high quality JPEG.
> My question is this: Is the edited JPEG the still same quality as the
> original JPEG downloaded from the camera?
> Thanks for any info you can provide.

What you're doing is an unecesary step. Look at the two scenarios
shown below:

- Camera saves a first generation JPEG. 1. There is some data loss.
- You save the JPEG as a TIFF. 2. There is no data loss
- You save the TIFF as a JPEG. 3. There is some data loss

This is no different than:

- Camera saves a first generation JPEG. 1. There is some data loss.
- You edit the file and save as as JPEG. 2. There is some data loss.

Note that #2 makes no difference.. You're saving a JPEG twice no
matter how you look at it.

I can't see an advantage to doing the TIFF conversion. (Not unless you
edit it over several sessions saving each time). You can save a TIFF
as much as you want without data loss.

Just as a point.. Saving as JPEG twice isn't the end of the world.

Fine JPEG and even a second generation saves of fine JPEG files really
aren't that bad.. If you make sure you use maximum JPEG compression
each time, I doubt you could see the difference between an original TIFF
and a second generation JPEG.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 8:12:28 PM

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

Les wrote:
> kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:
> > ...
> > If you are spending considerable time editing pictures, you might as
> > well shoot RAW. The RAW post workflow literally takes less than a
> > couple of minutes or so per picture, at most. I use RawShooter
> > Essentials 2005, which is free at www.pixmantec.com. Do the quick
> > extra step, export it to TIFF and go wild.
> >
> ...
>
> Ben,
> I looked at the site for RawShooter. Sounds like a neat program, but
> definitely not free. The free part refers to their trial version, but
> nowhere can I find the price for a registered version, and downloading
> the trial version means agreeing to receive a bunch of spam from them.
> Before I subject myself that, I want to know what it's gonna cost me,
> so I can make a buy/no buy decision. Can you tell me what it costs?
> Thanks.
> Les

It _is_ free and I have never once received a SPAM email from them. I
think they call it the "trial" version because it is free, not because
it is limited/time restricted.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 9:10:08 PM

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

Les wrote:
....
> My question is this: Is the edited JPEG the still same quality as the
> original JPEG downloaded from the camera?
> Thanks for any info you can provide.
....

You've already gotten good answers and advice, but I'll add a
comment of my own.

You might try some experiments. Shoot a few shots in your
camera's different JPEG modes.

Examine them very closely. Can you see a difference between
best and second best compression modes? Between the second
best and worst?

Then edit the photos using your customary editor. Save and
examine again. Can you see a difference betweeen original
JPEG and edited JPEG?

Here's what happened when I tried this with my Canon S30
and later Pentax Optio 750Z:

1. If I blew up the images to the point where I could see
the color of individual pixels, I could see a difference,
but I couldn't tell that one was, subjectively, of higher
quality as between best and second best.

2. I could see a quality difference between second best
and third best.

3. If I saved edited photos using a compression ratio that
produced about the same size output as input, the results
were like 1. above. I could see differences in pixels in
at high magnifications, but could not see a difference
in subjective quality.

4. If I saved enough times this way, usually at least 4
times, I could begin to see a subjective degradation.


For myself, I therefore decided to save in medium quality
JPEG mode, and to save the results of editing in JPEG mode,
unless I knew that I would be editing it multiple times
in multiple sessions with intermediate saves (very rare
for me).

Your mileage may vary on this. Differences that were
unnoticeable to me might be noticeable to you. But if
you examine the images yourself as I described, you'll
at least know what the effects are with regard to your
own personal expectations and won't have to rely on
abstract notions of what is "good" and what isn't.

Alan
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 11:43:31 PM

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

Les wrote:

> Jim,
> The reason I convert to TIFF is because sometimes I spend a long time
> editing a picture, so I do intermediate saves in case I have to
> interrupt the session. Also, after printing an edited file, I might
> decide to do some additional tweaks based on how the print looks.

Then saving as TIFF is worth it.. :-)
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 11:51:10 PM

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

Les wrote:
> I shoot in high resolution JPEG mode with my camera. I download the
> files to my computer for archiving and editing. I save each picture as
> a TIF for editing. After I complete my editing, I save the edited TIF
> as a high quality JPEG.
> My question is this: Is the edited JPEG the still same quality as the
> original JPEG downloaded from the camera?
> Thanks for any info you can provide.
>
I shoot with a Canon S500 = 5 MP. Even after editing and minor cropping
in my PC, I print up to 8.5 x 11" with excellent sharpness and tonal
scale. I keep in mind that the Picasa2 software that I use saves the
original JPEG images plus the edited/cropped ones, so that clicking the
undo button restores the images to the original JPEGs.
Nice discussion.

Morton
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 12:23:17 AM

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

Les <les.s.feinstein@lmco.com> wrote:
> I shoot in high resolution JPEG mode with my camera. I download the
> files to my computer for archiving and editing. I save each picture as
> a TIF for editing. After I complete my editing, I save the edited TIF
> as a high quality JPEG.
> My question is this: Is the edited JPEG the still same quality as the
> original JPEG downloaded from the camera?
> Thanks for any info you can provide.
>

There are always small errors created when you save an image as JPEG, as
it is a lossy compression scheme .. which means you have lost data.
Now, when you convert to TIFF, you have lost nothing over the original
JPEG, so the original loss is simply maintained. You then save your
JPEG from the modified TIFF and you again apply a lossy algorithm and
get more loss. So, the answer is the new JPEG is of lower quality [as
far as dataloss is concerned] than the original. Having said that, if
you never modify your new JPEG images and always work from your original
TIFF, your loss can be considered neglible.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 1:02:16 AM

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

Hi Les,

Depends on the program you're using to save as a JPEG. Some programs, like
IrfanView (http://www.irfanview.com/) allow you to adjust the quality, and
other attributes, of the saved JPEG. In IrfanView's case, quality can be
from 1% thru 100%.

Ken

"Les" <les.s.feinstein@lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1124828101.429191.14730@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I shoot in high resolution JPEG mode with my camera. I download the
> files to my computer for archiving and editing. I save each picture as
> a TIF for editing. After I complete my editing, I save the edited TIF
> as a high quality JPEG.
> My question is this: Is the edited JPEG the still same quality as the
> original JPEG downloaded from the camera?
> Thanks for any info you can provide.
>
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 1:06:58 AM

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

On 23 Aug 2005 13:51:09 -0700, "Les" <les.s.feinstein@lmco.com> wrote:

>
>Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>>
>> There are always small errors created when you save an image as JPEG, as
>> it is a lossy compression scheme .. which means you have lost data.
>> Now, when you convert to TIFF, you have lost nothing over the original
>> JPEG, so the original loss is simply maintained. You then save your
>> JPEG from the modified TIFF and you again apply a lossy algorithm and
>> get more loss. So, the answer is the new JPEG is of lower quality [as
>> far as dataloss is concerned] than the original. Having said that, if
>> you never modify your new JPEG images and always work from your original
>> TIFF, your loss can be considered neglible.
>>
>Thank you Thomas (and Mark).
>Extending this discussion one step further, it seems that the ideal
>situation would be to shoot in TIFF mode in the camera (to avoid the
>initial compression loss). Aside from the fact that my camera won't
>shoot in TIFF mode, considering the huge file sizes involved with TIFF,
>would shooting in RAW mode be of any benefit? RAW seems also to also
>be a compressed mode (much smaller file size than TIFF); is the RAW
>compression lossless?
>This is just a theoretical discussion at this point, as high quality
>JPEG seems adequate for my purposes.
>Thanks.

Shot RAW. It's a lossless compression (except for Nikon and Kodak) and
you can from PhotoShop save out to any format you want.

See the below article.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/RAW-file-for...

All you want to know about RAW and compression.
**************************************************************

"There has always been war. War is raging throughout the world
at the present moment. And there is little reason to believe
that war will cease to exist in the future. As man has become
increasingly civilized, his means of destroying his fellow man
have become ever more efficient, cruel and devastating.
Is it possible to put an end to a form of human behavior which
has existed throughout history by means of photography?
The proportions of that notion seem ridiculously out of balance.
Yet, that very idea has motivated me.

James Nachtwey
War Photographer
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 2:05:43 AM

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

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 16:06:15 -0500, Jim Townsend <not@real.address>
wrote:

>Les wrote:
>
>> I shoot in high resolution JPEG mode with my camera. I download the
>> files to my computer for archiving and editing. I save each picture as
>> a TIF for editing. After I complete my editing, I save the edited TIF
>> as a high quality JPEG.
>> My question is this: Is the edited JPEG the still same quality as the
>> original JPEG downloaded from the camera?
>> Thanks for any info you can provide.
>
>What you're doing is an unecesary step. Look at the two scenarios
>shown below:
>
>- Camera saves a first generation JPEG. 1. There is some data loss.
>- You save the JPEG as a TIFF. 2. There is no data loss
>- You save the TIFF as a JPEG. 3. There is some data loss
>
>This is no different than:
>
>- Camera saves a first generation JPEG. 1. There is some data loss.
>- You edit the file and save as as JPEG. 2. There is some data loss.
>
>Note that #2 makes no difference.. You're saving a JPEG twice no
>matter how you look at it.
>
>I can't see an advantage to doing the TIFF conversion. (Not unless you
>edit it over several sessions saving each time). You can save a TIFF
>as much as you want without data loss.

Because many image buyers require TIFF.

http://www.alamy.com/contributors/submit.asp


**************************************************************

"There has always been war. War is raging throughout the world
at the present moment. And there is little reason to believe
that war will cease to exist in the future. As man has become
increasingly civilized, his means of destroying his fellow man
have become ever more efficient, cruel and devastating.
Is it possible to put an end to a form of human behavior which
has existed throughout history by means of photography?
The proportions of that notion seem ridiculously out of balance.
Yet, that very idea has motivated me.

James Nachtwey
War Photographer
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 2:05:44 AM

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

John A. Stovall wrote:


>>I can't see an advantage to doing the TIFF conversion. (Not unless you
>>edit it over several sessions saving each time). You can save a TIFF
>>as much as you want without data loss.
>
> Because many image buyers require TIFF.
>
> http://www.alamy.com/contributors/submit.asp
>

Yes but the original poster was only saving his JPEG files
not the TIFF and never indicated an interest in selling his
images :-)
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 2:38:29 AM

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

In article <1124836818.618531.14880@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
les.s.feinstein@lmco.com says...
> Ben,
> I looked at the site for RawShooter. Sounds like a neat program, but
> definitely not free. The free part refers to their trial version, but
> nowhere can I find the price for a registered version, and downloading
> the trial version means agreeing to receive a bunch of spam from them.
> Before I subject myself that, I want to know what it's gonna cost me,
> so I can make a buy/no buy decision. Can you tell me what it costs?
> Thanks.
> Les
>
>

You get no spam from them ever except an occasional email to anounce
another update (free) if you want one.

I have never gotten any spam from them at all, and Ive been using the
software since it first appeared.

You should investigate BEFORE running off at the keyboard. Anyone who
uses it will tell you the same thing.
--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
August 24, 2005 2:47:16 AM

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

....
> You get no spam from them ever except an occasional email to anounce
> another update (free) if you want one.
>
> I have never gotten any spam from them at all, and Ive been using the
> software since it first appeared.
>
> You should investigate BEFORE running off at the keyboard. Anyone who
> uses it will tell you the same thing.
>
I feel compelled to respond to this, particularly the last sentence.
If you've been following this thread, Larry, you already know that I
DID investigate. That's how I determined that what was offered was
called a "trial version". Since trial versions usually have an
expiration date, beyond which paid registration is required, I had no
reason to equate this with a "free" version (and thanks to all who
clarified this for me).
My investigation (yes, the same investigation that you said I should
have done) also determined that the company WOULD send me information
about their products (there was no choice here to opt out). Since I
don't want to receive this information, but it will be sent anyway, it
falls in the category of "SPAM". If you have a different definition of
spam, please let me know.
August 24, 2005 2:50:04 AM

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

Alan,
This is excellent advice that I intend to follow. It would be
extremely useful to know where the knee of the curve is with respect to
image quality, and nothing is as good as empirical data.
Thank you for the suggestion.
Les
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 8:44:10 AM

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

In article <1124862436.666697.206150@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
les.s.feinstein@lmco.com says...
> My investigation (yes, the same investigation that you said I should
> have done) also determined that the company WOULD send me information
> about their products (there was no choice here to opt out). Since I
> don't want to receive this information, but it will be sent anyway, it
> falls in the category of "SPAM". If you have a different definition of
> spam, please let me know.
>

Calling stuff "Spam" goes back a long way, and involves the actual food
product "Spam".

Spam "looked like food" but who knew what was in it.

Calling unwanted stuff in your email box "Sapm" started (according to
some stories) because it looked like email, but it was advertising
something.

The emails from RSE never look like anything but emails from RSE,
because they ARE emails from RSE and they dont advertise anything, they
just notify you if there is an upgrade (for which there is no charge).

If you want to complain, pick another subject.

RSE isnt good one to pick on.




--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 11:28:30 AM

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

Larry Lynch wrote:
.............
> You should investigate BEFORE running off at the keyboard. Anyone who
> uses it will tell you the same thing.
=========================================
Les said that his computer system does not meet the software's minimum
requirements, so further investigation about the free-ness of the
program or whether there would be any resultant spam would not sway his
decision.

Further, I read in one review that the program needed Win XP, but
"BEFORE running off at the keyboard" I further checked the system
requirements and found that it also runs on Win 2000 w/SP4. :-)
I think I'll try it myself.

Jerry C.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 11:28:31 AM

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

In article <ykVOe.12945$g47.7578@trnddc07>, jerryc@nospam.com says...
> Further, I read in one review that the program needed Win XP, but
> "BEFORE running off at the keyboard" I further checked the system
> requirements and found that it also runs on Win 2000 w/SP4. :-)
> I think I'll try it myself.
>
> Jerry C.
>

I think you will be pleased with it.

I hope it works as well in Win 2k as it does in XP.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 2:47:32 PM

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

Larry Lynch <larrylynch3rd@comcast.dotnet> writes:

> Calling stuff "Spam" goes back a long way, and involves the actual food
> product "Spam".
>
> Spam "looked like food" but who knew what was in it.
>
> Calling unwanted stuff in your email box "Sapm" started (according to
> some stories) because it looked like email, but it was advertising
> something.

Got a cite for one of those stories? My recollection is that it started
with Usenet spam. Seeing the same message in newsgroup after newsgroup
made people think of Monty Python's spam skit, in which everything on
the menu is Spam. The meaning gradually expanded to cover all kinds of
unwanted messages.

Anyway, back to the RAW/TIFF thing, the free netpbm library includes a
command-line RAW converter if you want to avoid license fees and
unwanted email. On Debian GNU/Linux, just "apt-get install netpbm"
And use the rawtoppm and pnmtotiff commands.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 3:09:19 PM

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

ng Rawshooter from the beginning. The trial version is full
featured and it's not time limited. So far the only "Spam" I've received
is an occasional upgrade notice. At this point, there's no "for sale"
version. If you go to their site, you will see that their marketing
strategy is to distribute a high quality free version as the software is
developing in order to build a market for an eventual commercial offering or
to partner with an established graphics software provider, as they have done
with Corel. I'm an amateur, not a pro photographer and Rawshooter is
probably all that I will ever need. It's comprehensive and effective to the
point that all I need do in Photoshop is crop, re-size and touch up
distractions in the image.
Regards,
David "Routemeister" Thompson
http://home.rochester.rr.com/backroads/

"Les" <les.s.feinstein@lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1124836818.618531.14880@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:
>> ...
>> If you are spending considerable time editing pictures, you might as
>> well shoot RAW. The RAW post workflow literally takes less than a
>> couple of minutes or so per picture, at most. I use RawShooter
>> Essentials 2005, which is free at www.pixmantec.com. Do the quick
>> extra step, export it to TIFF and go wild.
>>
> ...
>
> Ben,
> I looked at the site for RawShooter. Sounds like a neat program, but
> definitely not free. The free part refers to their trial version, but
> nowhere can I find the price for a registered version, and downloading
> the trial version means agreeing to receive a bunch of spam from them.
> Before I subject myself that, I want to know what it's gonna cost me,
> so I can make a buy/no buy decision. Can you tell me what it costs?
> Thanks.
> Les
>
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 3:09:20 PM

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

"Routemeister" <dthomps1@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:zzYOe.35951$EX.12150@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> ng Rawshooter from the beginning. The trial version is full featured and
> it's not time limited. So far the only "Spam" I've received is an
> occasional upgrade notice. At this point, there's no "for sale" version.
> If you go to their site, you will see that their marketing strategy is to
> distribute a high quality free version as the software is developing in
> order to build a market for an eventual commercial offering or to partner
> with an established graphics software provider, as they have done with
> Corel. I'm an amateur, not a pro photographer and Rawshooter is probably
> all that I will ever need. It's comprehensive and effective to the point
> that all I need do in Photoshop is crop, re-size and touch up distractions
> in the image.
> Regards,
> David "Routemeister" Thompson
> http://home.rochester.rr.com/backroads/

I only recently discovered this little gem of a program (Thanks, Bill H).
I love it. I have both Capture One (Raw conversion program) and Photoshop
CS, and I have to say that I like this free program better than both!

It's very easy to use, and renders at least as well as either of the above
two.

This shot:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47903081/original
....and all the others in that gallery were processed from RAW using it.

I kinda goofed on a couple of the butterfly images (too much yellow), but
that's because I was kind of hurrying...and only just discovered this this
alternative program last week.
The re-done version on my computer is perrrfect, color-wise.

Highly recommended...and FREE!! (see below for link to download page)
:) 
-Mark
Here's a link to it:
http://www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter_essentials...

PS. Routemeister is right, and they are apparently getting ready to release
a commercial version with Corel. You'd better act quickly if you want to
try the free version...
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 3:15:49 PM

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

Les wrote:

> Jim Townsend wrote:
>
>>...
>>- Camera saves a first generation JPEG. 1. There is some data loss.
>>- You edit the file and save as as JPEG. 2. There is some data loss.
>>
>>Note that #2 makes no difference.. You're saving a JPEG twice no
>>matter how you look at it.
>>
>>I can't see an advantage to doing the TIFF conversion. (Not unless you
>>edit it over several sessions saving each time). You can save a TIFF
>>as much as you want without data loss.
>>...
>
> Jim,
> The reason I convert to TIFF is because sometimes I spend a long time
> editing a picture, so I do intermediate saves in case I have to
> interrupt the session. Also, after printing an edited file, I might
> decide to do some additional tweaks based on how the print looks.

There may be some advantages in saving your intermediate work in
progress images in the lossless native format of your imaging application.

Layers and other structure can then be preserved.

Regards,
Martin Brown
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 4:07:28 PM

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

in Tue, 23 Aug 2005 20:15:01 GMT, "Les" <les.s.feinstein@lmco.com> wrote
in news:1124828101.429191.14730@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> I shoot in high resolution JPEG mode with my camera. I download the
> files to my computer for archiving and editing. I save each picture as
> a TIF for editing. After I complete my editing, I save the edited TIF
> as a high quality JPEG.
> My question is this: Is the edited JPEG the still same quality as the
> original JPEG downloaded from the camera?
> Thanks for any info you can provide.

While you are not asking the direct question, there is
an assumption in your process which could vary the answer.

TIFF is more of a container than a format. You can use
various compression schemes inside a TIFF file.
(google for TIFF for comprehensive definitions)

As an example, saving to a TIFF (.tif) file in irfanview
has the option of no encoding, LZW, Packbits, JPEG, ZIP,
or for monochrome: Huffman RLE, Fax G3 and Fax G4.

If the compression used in your TIFF is loss-less
then you are not losing anything in the TIFF format.
Picking JPEG as the compression inside the TIFF would
be a different story.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 5:03:38 PM

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

Les <les.s.feinstein@lmco.com> wrote:
> Thank you Thomas (and Mark).
> Extending this discussion one step further, it seems that the ideal
> situation would be to shoot in TIFF mode in the camera (to avoid the
> initial compression loss). Aside from the fact that my camera won't
> shoot in TIFF mode, considering the huge file sizes involved with TIFF,
> would shooting in RAW mode be of any benefit? RAW seems also to also
> be a compressed mode (much smaller file size than TIFF); is the RAW
> compression lossless?
> This is just a theoretical discussion at this point, as high quality
> JPEG seems adequate for my purposes.
> Thanks.
>

I shoot in RAW (Nikon) format. I adjust several features from within
RAW [lately using Photoshop CS2] and then work on all my modifications
within Photoshop. If I need a transient save [to avoid losing work], I
use the native Photoshop PSD format. I shoot all my images in AdobeRGB
and do all my work in Photoshop also in AdobeRGB. I do any adjusting
that I feel like, then crop to my final image size (say 4"x6") at
300dpi. Lastly, I convert to the printer profile I am after (I use the
profile for the Costco near my home, usually the Lustre profile) and
then save as a JPEG @ quality 10. I use the JPEGs to print at Costco
without color management (I have already done the color management).

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 8:52:40 PM

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

In article <nm9d5o3e6ij.fsf@scrubbing-bubbles.mit.edu>,
brlspam@yahoo.com says...
> Larry Lynch <larrylynch3rd@comcast.dotnet> writes:
>
> > Calling stuff "Spam" goes back a long way, and involves the actual food
> > product "Spam".
> >
> > Spam "looked like food" but who knew what was in it.
> >
> > Calling unwanted stuff in your email box "Sapm" started (according to
> > some stories) because it looked like email, but it was advertising
> > something.
>
> Got a cite for one of those stories? My recollection is that it started
> with Usenet spam. Seeing the same message in newsgroup after newsgroup
> made people think of Monty Python's spam skit, in which everything on
> the menu is Spam. The meaning gradually expanded to cover all kinds of
> unwanted messages.
>
> Anyway, back to the RAW/TIFF thing, the free netpbm library includes a
> command-line RAW converter if you want to avoid license fees and
> unwanted email. On Debian GNU/Linux, just "apt-get install netpbm"
> And use the rawtoppm and pnmtotiff commands.
>
Ive got some old email (somewhere) from back in the days of dial up
bulletin boards... (pre-internet & WWW).

Any incoming message that looked like email but turned out to be
advetising was reffered to as SPAM. As with the product in the can... It
LOOKS like meat, but is it????

That was the terminology back in the old days of 300 baud modems and
"bulletin board" communication.. Then came Compuserve, then Prodigy &
AOL all of which were around before the actual Internet as we know it
today evolved.

Most of my email from thaose days came through the portals of
A.R.P.A.N.E.T.

So long ago I dont remember the specifics.

My Local node was called "Plainfield News" and was paid for on an annual
basis.. I remember the dial-up number but I dont remember the price ($30
a year seems to be right)

The point is.. we called any un-wanted messages that were advertising
SPAM because we were almost all Military or ex-military and we had had
our fill of SPAM (the canned kind) during Korea and Viet Nam. Looked
like meat (looked like email) Didn't taste like meat (wasnt email).

None of us (that I know of) ever thought to document calling it spam..
we just did it, just like you call a new guy a NEWBIE or a NOOBY or any
variation of newbie.. have you documented the first time you used a
slang term on the internet??

My first "Internet" connection was through ATT Worldnet dial-up at the
whopping speed of 1200 baud, later 9.6kbaud, and later yet 24k baud. My
first use of USENET came through ATT Worldnet. I dont rememberthe date,
but it was a while back, and it was the first Internet connection
available in my area.

Dial up in my area is STILL @ 24k baud, due to the phone lines (and
their poor state of repair).

/END of Off Topic Rant

--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 12:36:43 AM

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

Les wrote:
> I shoot in high resolution JPEG mode with my camera. I download the
> files to my computer for archiving and editing. I save each picture as
> a TIF for editing. After I complete my editing, I save the edited TIF
> as a high quality JPEG.
> My question is this: Is the edited JPEG the still same quality as the
> original JPEG downloaded from the camera?
> Thanks for any info you can provide.
>
That would depend entirely on the compression settings used by your
software.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 12:56:02 AM

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

Larry Lynch wrote:

> My Local node was called "Plainfield News" and was paid for on an annual
> basis.. I remember the dial-up number but I dont remember the price ($30
> a year seems to be right)

My first email addy in 1992, "free" thru my university, was
zu02313@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu. We had email, though no traditional domain
associated with it. I guess we RAS'd into the school's server(s).

> My first "Internet" connection was through ATT Worldnet dial-up at the
> whopping speed of 1200 baud, later 9.6kbaud, and later yet 24k baud.

We dialed in thru Eudora, IIRC, and Kermit was our little email
program. As there was no WWW at the time to speak of, we read news in
digest form and connected at approximately 28k.

>My first use of USENET came through ATT Worldnet. I dont rememberthe date,
> but it was a while back, and it was the first Internet connection
> available in my area.

I can still find some of my early ramblings, circa '93 or so, via
Google (old DejaNews).
!