On 2009-10-03, Norman Silverstone nor...@littletank.org wrote:
What do you think are benefits of using jpegs with quality above 95%?
I have absolutely no idea, it is just that I came across a reference
somewhere which said I use 98% jpeg compression when archiving images.
Better use
Better use compressed 8-bit sRGB TIFF instead (all minilabs I know
would reject TIFF with *any* compression, though...).
Why is that?
Why is WHAT??? You need to Trim the posting more precisely...
I wonder if the questioner meant why do minilabs reject TIFF with *any*
compression?
On 2009-10-02, Norman Silverstone nor...@littletank.org wrote:
I have been following this thread with interest so I decided to do some
tests. The results may be relevant or not as the case may be but I think
that they are interesting. My little camera gives a RAW image = 8.6 MB
and a jpeg
I have been following this thread with interest so I decided to do some
tests. The results may be relevant or not as the case may be but I think
that they are interesting. My little camera gives a RAW image = 8.6 MB
and a jpeg image = 2.6 MB. The developed RAW image from UFRaw saved at
On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 08:59:11 +0100, Norman Silverstone wrote:
I have absolutely no idea, it is just that I came across a reference
somewhere which said I use 98% jpeg compression when archiving images.
If you're archiving images that aren't compressed with lossy compression,
use a format that
Ok, I want to make sure that I've asked my question clear enough before I
decide that you guys have blown me away with your technological knowledge.
I'm
shooting in RAW and so I'm opening up a RAW file with UFRaw because without
opening the file first with UFRaw, I can't get it into
On 2009-09-30, Carusoswi for...@gimpusers.com wrote:
In the spirit of the OP's question, if you make no adjustments in UFRAW, is
there any more latitude for adjustment in the resultant JPG file (in Gimp or
other editing application) than what you might get straight from the camera?
This is not
Ilya -
Thanks for your earlier note -- I am quite happy to stand corrected and
your post suggests a basic experiment I can easily do: compare in-camera
processed and post-processed RAW images for the same scene and settings.
I'll have a limited sample to work with: my only camera delivering
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 07:11 -0700,
Ok, I want to make sure that I've asked my question clear enough before I
decide that you guys have blown me away with your technological knowledge. I'm
shooting in RAW and so I'm opening up a RAW file with UFRaw because without
opening the file first with
On 2009-10-01, John Mills johnmi...@speakeasy.net wrote:
With cameras which use more advanced versions of the Apical Iridex
hardware or firmware (starting with Sony, but Nikon is reported to be
in process of catching up), the situation is not as clear. I did not
see any report of RAW
On 2009-10-01, Bryan for...@gimpusers.com wrote:
Well, after opening the RAW file in UFRaw and whether
I perforn any adjustments or not in UFRaw, if I hit OK to send it to
Gimp isn't it still a RAW file when it's in GIMP or has UFRaw
converted it to a jpg automatically and that is why the
Bryan -
Wiser heads will probably correct or refine this, but ...
The 'raw' file is supposed to represent data very close to what is
provided by the camera's sensor array.
Before saving images in non-raw formats (JPEG, etc.) the camera performs
some conversions of the image field as well as -
On 2009-09-30, John Mills johnmi...@speakeasy.net wrote:
If you aren't making any adjustments in UFRaw you may be just as well-off
to work with [say] JPEG images out of your camera. The intermediate stage
of adjusting your image in UFRaw is one of the main reasons for using RAW
format in
13 matches
Mail list logo
