JPEGs Lose Quality, Eventually

[Kirby Ball]

The newest issue of Digital Photography magazine talks about saving digital images in TIFF or .psd (Photoshop) formats. Apparently, every time you save a file as a JPEG, there is a loss of image quality and which can eventually render the image useless. By using a different format, images can be saved repeatedly without losing quality. Yes, this gives you two copies but the JPEG can always be deleted afterwards.

In a similar vein, after attending a Photoshop workshop where the guru urged us to shoot in RAW format, I (Coreen) decided to try it. My 1 GB memory card would only hold about 75 RAW images. Yikes! Back to JPEG, but I am editing everything in Photoshop now. :happy8:

 

[jfactor1]

Every photographer I've run into shoots in RAW. It's not necessary for the average person, but that extra little bit of quality can make a difference when you're getting paid.

I bought a 1 gig compact flash card for $30 after rebate, and the price of memory cards is going down all the time.

BTW, I only shoot in JPEG too

 

[Balanced Line]

JPG is to RAW as MP3 is to WAV

JPG is to RAW as MP3 is to WAV

There is no degradation if you don't recompress the image. If you intend to manipulate the image use RAW. You can play with an original as much as you want but if the original is compressed and you decompress then manipulate that version and once again compress you have traveled one more generation away. It is similar to using a copy of a copy rather using the original.

Think of it the same way you do a MP3. You wouldn't use a MP3, change it to PCM (programs such as Cool Edit manipulate a Pulse Code Modulation form - like a WAV file) manipulate it in the program and then re encode back to MP3. If it were available, you would start with the original .WAV. If the MP3 were all that was available, you would always want to go back the original MP3 file OR save the manipulated .WAV so that you would not have successive generations of decompression/compression. You want to save a "lossless" format like .WAV or .RAW

Uh oh, Kirby is ignoring me. WhadIsay?

 

[Kirby Ball]

Every photographer I've run into shoots in RAW. It's not necessary for the average person, but that extra little bit of quality can make a difference when you're getting paid.

I bought a 1 gig compact flash card for $30 after rebate, and the price of memory cards is going down all the time.

BTW, I only shoot in JPEG too

Yeah, they have come down in price quite a bit. I believe Coreen has 3 1 gig cards and 3 512s.

The wedding in Shreveport, she took around 450 pictures....needless to say, she's still editing!

Do you think I should have her fill out her own profile, or should she continue to impersonate me?

 

[Papa Deuce]

Yeah, they have come down in price quite a bit. I believe Coreen has 3 1 gig cards and 3 512s.

The wedding in Shreveport, she took around 450 pictures....needless to say, she's still editing!

Do you think I should have her fill out her own profile, or should she continue to impersonate me?

Her own PLEAAASE!..... I always hate when I think I am talking to Pat ( DoubleCeeDeejays ) and I am really talking to his wife Christine..... Sometimes I get a little, shall we say, "earthy"?

 

[Kirby Ball]

JPG is to RAW as MP3 is to WAV

There is no degradation if you don't recompress the image. If you intend to manipulate the image use RAW. You can play with an original as much as you want but if the original is compressed and you decompress then manipulate that version and once again compress you have traveled one more generation away. It is similar to using a copy of a copy rather using the original.

Think of it the same way you do a MP3. You wouldn't use a MP3, change it to PCM (programs such as Cool Edit manipulate a Pulse Code Modulation form - like a WAV file) manipulate it in the program and then re encode back to MP3. If it were available, you would start with the original .WAV. If the MP3 were all that was available, you would always want to go back the original MP3 file OR save the manipulated .WAV so that you would not have successive generations of decompression/compression. You want to save a "lossless" format like .WAV or .RAW

Uh oh, Kirby is ignoring me. WhadIsay?

Not ignoring.....

I'm just the DJ , Coreen is the photographer.....she's out of town this week (she's in Minot, ND with her Mom, who just had knee replacement surgery).

I'm fairly lost on all the photo talk..........

 

[Kirby Ball]

Her own PLEAAASE!..... I always hate when I think I am talking to Pat ( DoubleCeeDeejays ) and I am really talking to his wife Christine..... Sometimes I get a little, shall we say, "earthy"?

LOL -

I'll see what I can do about getting her to fill out her own profile.

 

[DjDennis]

look no matter what format you do it in its the hardware that will go in the end

I have had jpegs over 10x years old and they still look at if they where taken yesterday

if your Hard drive wont last thats when you will loose the edge so I wouldnt worry its like being told that meat was no good for you or even drinking Tea

so I give up - just what ev er suits you should be fine (does me)

 

[musicdoctordj]

I always keep the original photo file, no matter what.

MAGE: *


When you just copy a jpeg file you don't loose anything by just copying the file or burning it to a CD.

It is when you open a jpeg, do something to it, and save the photo as a jpeg . . .

Thats when you loose quality.

So, if you are doing a lot of things to a photo, first make all of the changes you want before saving the new file.

As for RAW files . . . they are nice, but aren't really necessary for most shooters!

The problem you have with RAW files is that you have to do something to each and every photo that you want to use or print, were as with a jpeg file, if properly exposed, shouldn't need any post processing in the computer.

You can take a jpeg directly out of the camera and make prints if desired or needed.



* Just used that emoticon thingy 'cus it looked cool!