View Single Post
  #6   Report Post  
Old 01-06-2008, 01:23 PM posted to alt.binaries.photos.original,alt.binaries.pictures.gardens
Wolf Kirchmeir[_3_] Wolf Kirchmeir[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Apr 2008
Posts: 63
Default 2-Pics: Raw vs. JPG

John - Pa. wrote:
[...]
While I suppose that I could have
fooled around with the JPG in PS too, I figure that there isn't much
point to that since the manipulation of a RAW-based file carrying
14-bits of data per channel (in my case) should produce better results
than manipulating an 8-bit/channel file with lossy compression that
will degrade with every "save". The question to be answered is; will
the difference in quality be worth the file-size and time of RAW
processing, or should I just shoot JPG and not worry about it.

[...]

I did a quick gamma change of the PG image with PMView (a simple
viewer/processor ported from OS/2). Result attached. Took about 30
seconds, inlcluding program start-up.

BTW, there will not be increased loss at every save of a JPG. The viewer
converts the JPG to a bitmap for display, and converts it back to JPG
when Saving. If the initial compression was different than the one used
by the image processor, there will be loss of information. If the
compression is the same, there will be none.

OTOH, there will be differences in image file size after processing,
because image processing changes the image information. But that's true
regardless of the image format used. All image processing entails some
loss of original information. You cannot recover the original image by
reversing the processing. (You should never work on the original file.
Keep an archive folder for originals, and copy images to a Work folder
for processing. It's odd, but this common sense procedure has tpo be
taught to most people when they start in digital photography.)

NB that unless you are printing very large images on a very high end
printer, there will be no visible differences in final image quality.
There will be aesthetic differences, because of the wider range of
processing available on RAW images, but aesthetic judgments and
preferences are personal. They aren't built into image processors. ;-)

Since you have the capability to record both RAW and JPG, I suggest you
use it, but work on RAW images only when you think the image is worth
the extra time and effort.

HTH

--
wolf k.

Attached Thumbnails
2-Pics: Raw vs. JPG-20083045-jpg-gamma.jpg