Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2005 · Re: Why jpegs are just junk files
  
 
trijicon
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Re: Why jpegs are just junk files


These are conversions from RAW?


Feb 12, 2005 at 05:59 AM
nutek
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Re: Why jpegs are just junk files


JPEG level 7 is already pretty low for printed works... Why don't you use Level 12 (max) if you are sending the full-size file to your client? If you're doing it in Photoshop, Level 12 should not introduce any visible compression artifacts at all into the file.


Feb 12, 2005 at 06:17 AM
HinduG
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Re: Why jpegs are just junk files


I don't think you make a compelling argument as to "Why JPEGS are just junk files."

At level 7 (Medium quality) of course you're going to have severe artifacts.

Being a photographer, you probably wouldn't mind the large size attachments, because you appreciate the nuances of image compression. But imagine if you receieve 100's of emails, each containing 48MB TIFFs...you'll quickly be annoyed of having a full mailbox (this applies those with fixed mailbox sizes typical of a corporate environment)

Jpeg's (because they're lossy) aren't the best image format for use with printpress graphics, sure, but that doesn't mean their junk.

MP3 is lousy for use in studios, but that doesn't mean its a junk audio format. It has its purpose.

TIFF is better for mulitple edits.
JPEG is better for efficient transmission.



Feb 12, 2005 at 06:48 AM
mickr7an
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Re: Why jpegs are just junk files


Guy, both final images that you have posted here are actually a JPG file, proving yourself wrong? A little bored today, were we?


Feb 12, 2005 at 06:53 AM
santa
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Re: Why jpegs are just junk files


saved me a few keystrokes


Feb 12, 2005 at 07:06 AM
Lars Johnsson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Re: Why jpegs are just junk files


mickr7an wrote:
Guy, both final images that you have posted here are actually a JPG file, proving yourself wrong? A little bored today, were we?







Feb 12, 2005 at 07:13 AM
jon1526
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Re: Why jpegs are just junk files


most of us dont print posters that would fit on the side of a bulding, where you would see these differences


Feb 12, 2005 at 07:17 AM
Pondria
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Re: Why jpegs are just junk files


A poor question can lead into great answers. Let's try that.

Often, we don't distinguish the "flexibility" that the RAW provides and the "loss of information" of jpeg by compression. As a compression scheme, JPEG is amazingly good. How good is it ?
Every one can try this. Put the camera on tripod and take two consecutive shots in RAW. Load them in PS and do the Difference between the two frames. What you see is Frame by frame diffence by random noise or by moving Sun or by vibration of camera etc.
Now, Save a shot as TIFF and save it as JPEG with, say, level 10. And do the Diff between them. You will see that the Loss by the JPEG comression is pretty negligible comparing to the result from the first comparison above.

RAW is convenient because it let you defer the shooting decisons to post-processing time. However, you won't lose the information by JPEG compression.






Feb 12, 2005 at 07:32 AM
Matt Drown
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Re: Why jpegs are just junk files


Why are we looking at things at higher than 1 pixel = 1 pixel?

Photoshop interpolates values when you zoom in higher than 100%, guess what it does, bicubic or similar guess work.

This is a little pet peeve of mine when people talk about quality of images.

Don't get me started on how we need to examine everything at 100% to compare two cameras with different pixel-counts, say a 1d vs a 20d...



Feb 12, 2005 at 08:12 AM
nanscombe
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Re: Why jpegs are just junk files


HI All,

Surely JPEG would mainly be used as either the source from a Camera, the final result of an edit or where space was at an absolute premium.

In most other instances, intermediate edits or (if accepted by the Lab) for printing, the file would be saved as a Tiff or PSD.

JPEG itself is Lossy so, by definition, the more compression you add the more detail you lose. Saving at lower levels of compression should give better results.

When saving for the Web, you would probably have already reduced the dimensions to something more manageable, ie to fit a 800x600 or 640x480 screen, so the file should be a reasonable size without using a high level of compression.

Regards
Nigel



Feb 12, 2005 at 08:29 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 

        


froleen
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Re: Why jpegs are just junk files


guy mancuso, you have done some good things. why are you sending this rubbish?

the jpegs will inherit the earth.



Feb 12, 2005 at 08:38 AM
John_B
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Re: Why jpegs are just junk files


Guy Mancuso

Sorry I don't agree at all. For one learn the software you are using! It is then you learn how compression damages a jpeg.
Two to make such a statement (which is wrong) with two photos not treated the same or the same size??
This is one of the beauties of Digital each photographer can achieve there photo anyway they like.



Feb 12, 2005 at 11:13 AM
Tom_W
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Re: Why jpegs are just junk files


jon1526 wrote:
most of us dont print posters that would fit on the side of a bulding, where you would see these differences


Well, Guy actually does on occasion.
But the point stands - I never save a JPEG below level 10, and I try to do most of the processing work in RAW before I convert.
I'd probably use TIFF files if my photographs were incredibly critical, but they're not. That, and my hard drives are too whimpy.



Feb 12, 2005 at 01:05 PM
gregau
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Re: Why jpegs are just junk files


To state the obvious everyone already knows that RAW is better than JPEG in a pixel-peeping 100% viewed comparison.

But as many of us already know too - JPEGs can produce great pictures too - and large prints can still look great.

BTW the crops are barely comparable!
Greg



Feb 12, 2005 at 01:16 PM
uz2work
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Re: Why jpegs are just junk files


mickr7an wrote:
Guy, both final images that you have posted here are actually a JPG file, proving yourself wrong? A little bored today, were we?


Maybe a better title for the post would be, "why level 7 jpegs are just
junk files".
Les



Feb 12, 2005 at 01:25 PM
daveharpe
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Re: Why jpegs are just junk files


raw is obviously the format of choice for max quality/flexibility. but jpegs are useful if used properly. they're a tool, and they can yield great results. the image on the cover of sports illustrated most weeks starts as a jpeg because sports shooters almost always shoot jpeg for speed/time/storage. however few of them shoot "medium" quality.


Feb 12, 2005 at 03:54 PM
HinduG
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Re: Why jpegs are just junk files


A little crazy argument is always fun to pass the time :P


Feb 13, 2005 at 01:20 AM
IdahoBob
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Re: Why jpegs are just junk files


For newbies there is a good discussion of JPEG and RAW in the first couple of chapters of Bruce Fraser's book Camera Raw with Abobe Photoshop CS. Agree that JPEGs can give some great pictures if compression is kept high and you don't re-edit previous edits. One of the huge advantages of RAW is that initial processing (edits if you will) are lossless and therefore leaves a lot more headroom for subsequent edits in photoshop. Watch your histograms and compare what happens when you work with JPEG or RAW workflows.


Feb 13, 2005 at 07:11 PM
Monito
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Re: Why jpegs are just junk files


IdahoBob wrote:
... great pictures if compression is kept high and you don't re-edit previous edits. ...


Sorry, just clarifying a point so everyone can be clear, I think you meant to write "if compression is kept low". Low compression means less loss, meaning higher quality, and having the effect of creating big files (hence the "high" factor that crept in, I think). High compression would mean a lot of squishing and much loss of information and smaller files.



Feb 14, 2005 at 02:20 AM
IdahoBob
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Re: Why jpegs are just junk files


EXACTLY Monito!!!!


Feb 14, 2005 at 02:43 AM
1
       2       end






FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password