Tom Given that something is lost on the initial jpeg capture, everything I been taught tells me that its only after numerous jpeg resavings, that the continued losses become evident.
Kenneth Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode > Of course not... :-) I didn't mean to imply the .jpg quality setting in > the > camera (although that would obviously have a bearing). I meant the color, > contrast, lighting, etc., of the subject to be captured. > > All I'm saying is that assuming all .jpgs are lossy, to any degree, and > knowing that I don't necessarialy understand, nor can predict what the > algorithm will do, I chose to shoot .tiffs, based on the fact that storage > is relatively inexpensive. > > > Tom C. > > > > > > >>From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> >>Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode >>Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:32:17 -0400 >> >> >it all depends on the photo and the .jpg quality one is saving at. >> >>I've never shot JPEG at anything but the highest quality level. >> >>Kenneth Waller >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode >> >> >> >I have but it all depends on the photo and the .jpg quality one is >> >saving >> > at. I must admit I saw it really fast when using a Sony Mavica. I >> > preferred >> > .tiffs over .jpgs for this reason and because by their nature .jpgs are >> > lossy compression. I felt I was truly getting a '1st gen' image with >> > .tiffs, where with .jpgs out of camera, I already had an image that may >> > not >> > contain everything that was shot. >> > >> > This may be a little simplistic or a splitting of hairs, but it made >>sense >> > to me. >> > >> > >> > Tom C. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >>From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >> >>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> >> >>Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode >> >>Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:09:28 -0400 >> >> >> >> > No quality losses when saving the first JPEG after editing. >> >> >> >>I guess I knew that but haven't observed the difference. Has anybody? >> >> >> >>Kenneth Waller >> >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >> >>From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode >> >> >> >> >> >> > No quality losses when saving the first JPEG after editing. >> >> > >> >> > -Adam >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Kenneth Waller wrote: >> >> >> I guess I don't see the advantage of shooting TIFF over highest >> >> >> quality >> >> >> JPEG. What's to be gained? >> >> >> >> >> >> Kenneth Waller >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> >> From: "Don Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I have yet to shoot a single picture in JPG. I've had the camera >>since >> >> >> last year and started shooting TIFF because I had to learn how to >>use >> >> >> the camera and hadn't a clue about handling RAW files anyway. I had >> >>only >> >> >> one card for months -- a 512 Kingston and it was enough. But I work >> >> >> mainly indoors and can unload a card without trouble. I did venture >> >> >> out >> >> >> with the small card once or twice and didn't have trouble. I now >>have >> >> >> three cards ) 1/2, 1 and 2 gig) and don't really need so many. But >> >> >> like >> >> >> all electronic things they can fail, so having several is good >> >>planning. >> >> >> I shoot only RAW now and am perfectly satisfied with the results. >> >> >> >> >> >> Don W >> >> >> >> >> >> Shel Belinkoff wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>I really don't see getting more photos on a card as an issue. That >> >>would >> >> >>>be the least of my concerns. 2GB of space will net about 185 pics >> >> >>>in >> >>RAW >> >> >>>using the DS - that's certainly a fair number of pics for a day. >>Cards >> >> >>>are >> >> >>>cheap now - a 1gb card can be purchased for less than the cost of a >> >>roll >> >> >>>of >> >> >>>film and processing with prints. After all, if I'm going to do >> >> >>>photography, >> >> >>>I'd want the best possible results, and if shooting raw will >> >> >>>provide >> >> >>>that, >> >> >>>then raw it is. If JPEG will provide appropriate quality, then >> >> >>>there's >> >> >>>nothing wrong with shooting in that format. >> >> >>> >> >> >>>Perhaps it's just me being irksome, but it seems odd that you'd go >>out >> >>to >> >> >>>make photographs and just dump what could be good pictures because >>you >> >> >>>don't want to take the time to learn a few simple techniques to >>shoot >> >>in >> >> >>>a >> >> >>>manner that's appropriate to the scene and situation. Why waste >>your >> >> >>>time >> >> >>>making photos then? You took the time to learn how to use film >> >> >>>cameras >> >> >>>appropriately, learned what film choices to make, sought out good >>labs >> >> >>>and >> >> >>>processing ... >> >> >>> >> >> >>>Are you really "using up" the room on your card? The files get >>dumped >> >> >>>into >> >> >>>the computer at some point, and the space is reusable. Of course, >>if >> >> >>>you're using a single card with 512mb or less space, well, maybe >>your >> >> >>>point >> >> >>>has merit. >> >> >>> >> >> >>>Shel >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>>>And another is that you can get more photos on a card :) >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>I did a bit of RAW shooting but 95% of the time I'm shooting >> >> >>>>jpg and happily so. >> >> >>>>IF I don't see what I like in my jpgs I just dump 'em.. I >> >> >>>>think I'm probably not >> >> >>>>really understanding the process well enough to make it work >> >> >>>>for me. But if the >> >> >>>>light is right, and you could have nailed it with a slide, >> >> >>>>the extra room you >> >> >>>>are using up on your card shooting raw doesnt seem worth it. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> >> > [email protected] >> >> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> >> >> >> >>-- >> >>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> >>[email protected] >> >>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> > [email protected] >> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> >>-- >>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>[email protected] >>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
