Home · Register · 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

  
 
Tim Wild
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Re: Why jpegs are just junk files


JPGs are great when used appropriately by people who understand them. The flaws have all been mentioned above, as well as the advantages.

A lot of professionals shoot purely in JPG, because they understand enough about them that it's not a problem. Sure, if you want to do major/multiple edits or major changes things won't look as good, but the thing about professionals is they tend to get things right in the camera. The time savings by shooting it right the first time is massive : all sharpening and white ballance is done for you, little or no post-processing is required. If you shoot RAW you often need to process the images individually or in small groups, tweaking each one, which takes a lot of time.

I'm relatively new to this, so I shoot RAW for anything important or difficult, which costs me time but can save my shot.



Feb 13, 2005 at 10:48 PM
Malcolm Stitt
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Re: Why jpegs are just junk files


Not sure if I agree with jpg=junk. Anything above 100% should be resampled not just zoomed.

I am of the opposite conclusion. I shoot Raw+JPG, and for many shots the jpg is good enough for web work or printing. I use raw when I need to. If my Canon s9000 printed from raw, I would leave them in raw, but it wants jpgs.

I used to use all RAW with my DRebel, since every shot needed tinkering with the exposure. With the 20D and my Oly8080 I find that jpg's are pretty good, so much less need for storing two files, converting, etc.

I always create jpgs at quality 10 or greater, never ever would use quality of 7.

Also, if multiple people use your photo database raw is a real pain since you have to train everyone in raw, setup computers to open the appropriate editor and display raw thumnails, etc. You end up having to develop every shot into raw



Feb 13, 2005 at 11:44 PM
teriba
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Re: Why jpegs are just junk files


I shoot almost exclusively JPEGs. For event work it has no equal.


Feb 14, 2005 at 02:10 AM
roblumba
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Re: Why jpegs are just junk files


I think Guy was just typing before thinking. Kinda a like not thinking about what you are saying.

Those were some bad artifacts. If you want smaller files, then downsample to a lower resolution and then use at least 9 level compression. I would rather my customers zoom in and see pixels rather than zoom in and see crazy artifacts.

Nowadays, some people have those internet speedup programs through dial in service providers. This basically configures the service provider to resample images with higher compression so that all you pictures look like crap. Just FYI.



Feb 14, 2005 at 02:24 AM
DanaJ
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Re: Why jpegs are just junk files


I admit JPEG has it's issues, but Photoshop level 7 JPEG is about equal to Canon's level 3 in-camera compression (both are close to the IJG level 83). The standard in-camera Canon JPEG setting, "8" is more like Photoshop's level 10 or 11 (but with chroma subsampling). There are lots of reasons to prefer RAW to JPEG in the camera, but these artifacts aren't one of them.

With our 1Ds, we use RAW in the studio, but JPEG for a lot of other things. For indoor gymnastics, the camera is a dog already -- it'd be nigh useless shooting RAW. This is really a problem of using the wrong tool for the job, though we get some pretty good results knowing the limitations. We already fill up 5GB in two hours with a single camera and level 7 JPEG, and usually spend some time waiting for the camera to flush its buffer. In other venues like autocross photos there isn't a speed issue but RAW is far more work than is justified by the return (to me at least). The real issue as Tim mentioned is that with JPEG you have to get everything very close to right when you capture the shots.

Rob brought up the point of high res + high compression vs. low res + low compression. A good point for what you're doing. If you're in control of the process, I've found better results with the opposite given identical file sizes, assuming Photoshop level 7 is the low end of compression. An example is, given large normal vs. small fine as two options for JPEG capture on a Canon camera, both producing equal sizes, the former produces superior results in most cases.



Feb 14, 2005 at 06:09 AM
headroom
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Re: Why jpegs are just junk files


One option for Mac users save as JPEG 2000 in PS. Its possible to have losless compression settings. Quicktime OS X can open it for OS 9 its the shareware j2k wich works very well...


Feb 14, 2005 at 06:22 AM
Aragosh
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Re: Why jpegs are just junk files


Just wondering, but if we still used 135 format, would you consider using an APS mask (if you could find such a thing) just because you wanted 54 exp from a 36exp film?

That is about what I think this argument is about.

NO TIM, in my experience many "PROs" use jpg because they simply either do not want to take out the money for more mem-cards, or do NOT know what they are doing.

I presume the next thing a JPEGger will tell me is that a 1.3mp camera in a cellphone will take the same quality pics as a DCS10. I agree with GUY, if you have it, flaunt it. Why buy a 16.7mp camera and work at 10% of its capability?

Sure thing that jpg has its uses, probably more than we give it credit for, but as a primary picture taking encoding? I think not.



Feb 14, 2005 at 06:38 AM
Kyle Yates
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Re: Why jpegs are just junk files


A little jpeg file doesn't actually prove too much.

You can create a pretty reasonable jpeg file from the RAW using PS --I use DPP mostly now for converting the RAW and especially on a 1Ds2 a decent jpeg doesn't have to be "too artifacty".

The embedded jpeg in the RAW file however is not very good -- it's only good for quick thumbnail viewing.

I haven't tried shooting RAW + JPEG but any "lossy" compression method throws away data --and the quality of the final pic depends on how much data is thrown away and how the missing data is "interpolated" or handled.

Once you've thrown away more than a "critical" amount then the pics are going to look not very good and I suspect that on the 7MB file you've passed the critical point so any imperfections will stand out pretty clearly.

I don't actually like the way most digital cameras produce their jpegs --you don't have much control over the process --If I need jpegs I create them myself in PS --Ok takes a bit longer but it yields a much better result.

(I'm a bit bored today as well -- weather is too horrible for a shoot I was going to do today --have to wait until it clears up).

Cheers
-K



Feb 14, 2005 at 06:50 AM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.