Google TIFF and JPEG. Charles Weston
--- On Fri, 10/22/10, Roger Nulton <[email protected]> wrote: From: Roger Nulton <[email protected]> Subject: Re: {S-Scale List} Re: Cameras To: [email protected] Date: Friday, October 22, 2010, 1:38 PM Bob, I would like to see this discussion too. The issue of JPEG vs. TIFF is confusing to me. I was sent some plans in TIFF a while back and they locked up my computer when I tried to open them: it was not an antique computer either<g>. When I save pics from my digital camera, they are identified as JPG in the basic photo program that I like to use. They look pretty clear to me, even when enlarged for cropping. Roger Nulton From: shabbona_rr Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 7:49 AM To: [email protected] Subject: {S-Scale List} Re: Cameras OK, this is a technical question, and then I'll drop the subject because it is only vaguely related to trains. Due to the discussion on this list, I took a 4.26 MB JPEG photo and saved it as a TIF. According to the properties, the TIF is 26.1 MB. How did changing the format raise the size of the photo to that degree? Also, I didn't really see much difference in the quality of the photo in either format. I would really like to know these things, and study them the best I can, but my comprehension is sometimes a little limited without some outside help. I didn't know how hard it is to draw a straight line until I tried to do it with a computer, and now I'm having the same problem with taking a picture. Bob, I attended your clinic in Duluth, and a lot of my questions all began to come together, but to much time elapsed between then and when I got to try the techniques you described. Offline responses welcome to save the list for more important things, like '56 Fords (with Overdrive, I might add), '73 Mustangs, and DCC, etc. :<) Bob Nicholson ______________________________________________ --- In [email protected], Bob Werre <b...@...> wrote: > > Chris is stating basically the same information that I've been giving at > my various clinics at the NASG conventions. I was told when I attended > an imging seminar once that a JEPG is created by the camera's onboard > computer. This itty bitty computer takes the raw data and compresses it > the best it can, whereas if you shoot in RAW you now have everything > that the camera can produce. Then your larger full blown computer does > the rest of the work with your 'abiliities' controling the computer. > > Chris also mentions that he likes to be able to crop and recompose the > image because it will help his design. For the last 35 years they've > always told me to shoot 'loose' so they can do just that. So if you > have a 4 mp camera you'll have to shoot a little tighter (thus giving > the designer fewer choices) or reproduce the final image a bit smaller. > On the other hand some of the most recent camera offerings will provide > an excess of information that most pros really don't need. So don't be > fooled when someone says they shooting with a 90 mp camera and only > using it for magazine usage where a 10-16 mp will do just fine. The > problem comes up when you have to store all those very large images and > ever more powerful computers to push those pixels around. The > computer, software and camera folks have to sell new stuff to you and me. > > Bob Werre > BobWphoto.com > > > > Christopher Borgmeyer wrote: > > > > > > > > > Finally a technical bugaboo. JPEGs are lossy. That means they loose > > data and introduce noise. Even at 100% quality. TIFFs and RAW files do > > not. If you have the option, shoot in TIFF or RAW. If you must shoot a > > JPEG make sure it is the highest quality setting you can shoot. And > > never save a file over and over again as a JPEG. Each time you run > > that JPEG compression algorithm on an image you introduce more and > > more noise. Trust me, with todays monitors all those jaggies will be > > spotted. We know where to look to spot the little rascals. If you're > > editing your shot in Photoshop, for example, save the shot as a PSD or > > some non-lossy format as you work. Maintain the quality of the data. > > JPEGs are the enemy. > > > > The moral of all this, composition and quality will always catch the > > art director's eye. > > > > Chris Borgmeyer > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
