Digital Photos (was: Reno Suite...)

[RST Engineering]

There was a comment on the "was" thread about .jpg being an inferior format
to a couple of other formats. So if my Kodak 1.3Mp camera only downloads in
..jpg, how do I fool it into downloading in some other uncompressed format?

According to the camera specifications, the actual file format is listed as:
"Exif version 2.1 (JPEG base).

Suggestions other than borrowing Gail's very expensive Canon for my magazine
shots?

Jim

[BTIZ]

if your digital camera downloads to jpg.. as does mine.. the only way to
convert it is after download using a photo editing program that supports
multiple formats.. I use Paint Shop Pro

BT

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> There was a comment on the "was" thread about .jpg being an inferior
> format to a couple of other formats. So if my Kodak 1.3Mp camera only
> downloads in .jpg, how do I fool it into downloading in some other
> uncompressed format?
>
> According to the camera specifications, the actual file format is listed
> as: "Exif version 2.1 (JPEG base).
>
> Suggestions other than borrowing Gail's very expensive Canon for my
> magazine shots?
>
> Jim
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

RST Engineering wrote:
>
> There was a comment on the "was" thread about .jpg being an inferior format
> to a couple of other formats. So if my Kodak 1.3Mp camera only downloads in
> .jpg, how do I fool it into downloading in some other uncompressed format?

Jpeg is the preferred format for photos that are going to be displayed for view
(for example, the shots we submit to Jay of our aircraft should be jpegs). Gifs
are preferred for shots that people are likly to just glance at (for example,
thumbnails) because they typically are smaller than jpegs and consequently load
faster. This is not always the case, however; typically, the busier the photo
is, the less advantage gif has over jpeg, and a gif of a complicated color photo
may be larger than a jpeg of the same shot.

The main problem you will have is that, once you have a photo in a compressed
format, any attempt to edit it will reduce the quality of the shot and almost
certainly drastically increase its size. If you're shooting for a web site,
download your file from the camera the size and quality you want and never touch
it again.

Many digital cameras will download in a "raw" format. Unfortunately, many of
these formats are proprietary to the camera manufacturer and you have to use
their software to manipulate it. The "bmp" format is pretty universal and can be
easily edited by most photo programs.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Peter Duniho]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> There was a comment on the "was" thread about .jpg being an inferior
> format to a couple of other formats. So if my Kodak 1.3Mp camera only
> downloads in .jpg, how do I fool it into downloading in some other
> uncompressed format?

Depends on the camera. But I wouldn't be surprised if a 1.3Mp camera simply
does not provide any other format. Kodak's original digital cameras had a
proprietary format option, but it was compressed as well, and any
proprietary format requires conversion software to change the data into
something you can actually use. (EXIF is simply a header format used with
JPEG images to allow the camera to store information about how the picture
was taken...it's not an image format itself).

For a consumer-grade camera, as long as you set the JPEG format to the
highest resolution, lowest-compression setting, you should fine. You'd be
unlikely to notice any difference between the raw image and the compressed
one. Any of the professional-grade digital SLRs should have an option for
saving the data in a "raw" format (which typically is actually just a
proprietary, non-lossy compressed format). One of Canon's higher-end models
actually can have two memory cards installed and allows you to save each
picture twice, JPEG to one memory card and their raw format in the other.

All that said, you don't seem to have correctly understood the comments in
the other thread. JPEG is NOT an inferior format for photographs. It's
designed to remove information (enhancing compressability), without
sacrificing what the human eye sees. At higher compression levels, it
certainly can look like crap, but at the low compression levels used by
digital cameras, it's just fine for most people and most purposes.

The comparison you read was specifically looking at computer-generated
line-art images, which JPEG compression can make unreadable, especially at
the higher compression settings. But that doesn't mean JPEG is inherently a
bad format. It just means that you can achieve similar compression ratios
without sacrificing quality by using a non-lossy format like GIF or PNG
(computer generated images have more "regular" data, and so compress better
without throwing away information...they are "information sparse" in the
first place).

> Suggestions other than borrowing Gail's very expensive Canon for my
> magazine shots?

Well, 1.8Mp sure sucks for publication, but it wouldn't take a high-priced
camera to fix that. There are several good 5Mp cameras on the market,
priced at $500 and lower, that would do a great job. They emit JPEG images
too, but they will be high enough resolution, and low enough compression
that they should reprint just fine.

Pete



>
> According to the camera specifications, the actual file format is listed
> as: "Exif version 2.1 (JPEG base).
>
>
> Jim
>

[C J Campbell]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> There was a comment on the "was" thread about .jpg being an inferior
format
> to a couple of other formats. So if my Kodak 1.3Mp camera only downloads
in
> .jpg, how do I fool it into downloading in some other uncompressed format?
>
> According to the camera specifications, the actual file format is listed
as:
> "Exif version 2.1 (JPEG base).
>
> Suggestions other than borrowing Gail's very expensive Canon for my
magazine
> shots?

JPEG is indeed inferior to some other formats. Furthermore, every time you
manipulate the photo, changing color balance, sharpness, exposure, etc., it
loses more information. Many programs will lose information opening the .jpg
and saving it again without any other changes. All this loss of information
shows up in loss of fine detail, especially in the highlights and shadows,
and in color range. The way professional photographers who shoot in JPEG get
around this is they keep the original file and work only with copies of it,
making as many changes as they can and then saving the finished product.

JPEG actually has many advantages over the other formats, including file
size, which makes it much easier to transmit to the publisher, so most
professional photographers, especially sports photographers, use JPEG. The
faster camera action gained from using JPEG makes it worth the small loss of
information. There is a big difference between shooting a burst of maybe
five frames in RAW, then having to wait 10 to 15 seconds while the camera
saves it to memory, and being able to shoot continuously at 12 frames per
second in JPEG.

More cameras allow shooting in both RAW and JPEG at the same time. My Nikon
D70 can do this, although it does slow down how fast I can take pictures
because it now has to save two files instead of one. The advantage is
getting to use the JPEG files for printing contact sheets and preview
photos, while keeping the versatility of RAW.

One thing to remember is that photos in most publications are really not
blown up all that much, so the loss of detail caused by JPEG file
compression is not readily apparent to the untrained eye.

Even so, your Kodak 1.3Mp is wholly inadequate for any form of publication.
You will need at least 4.0Mp to achieve high enough resolution for print.
Such cameras are reasonably priced and easy to find. You can find camera
reviews on www.dpreview.com.

The common formats used by digital cameras are JPEG, TIFF, and RAW. JPEG and
TIFF are pretty well standardized. RAW is proprietary to each camera
manufacturer, although Adobe is pushing a RAW format of its own to become
the new standard. GIF files are obsolete.

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> For a consumer-grade camera, as long as you set the JPEG format to the
> highest resolution, lowest-compression setting, you should fine. You'd be
> unlikely to notice any difference between the raw image and the compressed
> one. Any of the professional-grade digital SLRs should have an option for
> saving the data in a "raw" format (which typically is actually just a
> proprietary, non-lossy compressed format). One of Canon's higher-end
models
> actually can have two memory cards installed and allows you to save each
> picture twice, JPEG to one memory card and their raw format in the other.

Several cameras do that. My Nikon D70 even does that and it saves both files
to the same card.

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> For a consumer-grade camera, as long as you set the JPEG format to the
> highest resolution, lowest-compression setting, you should fine. You'd be
> unlikely to notice any difference between the raw image and the compressed
> one. Any of the professional-grade digital SLRs should have an option for
> saving the data in a "raw" format (which typically is actually just a
> proprietary, non-lossy compressed format).

Actually, most RAW files are compressed somewhat, too. Read the instruction
manual.

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
RST Engineering > wrote:
>There was a comment on the "was" thread about .jpg being an inferior format
>to a couple of other formats. So if my Kodak 1.3Mp camera only downloads in
>.jpg, how do I fool it into downloading in some other uncompressed format?

Many cameras (especially of that vintage) don't have an uncompressed
(aka raw) format, and JPG is what you get. In that case your best bet
is submitting the original JPG image. Leave the cropping/tweaking to the
editor. For a small illustration your camera should do fine as long as
you light the subject well (eg indirect sunlight).

>According to the camera specifications, the actual file format is listed as:
>"Exif version 2.1 (JPEG base).

EXIF has more technical information about the image (for example it
probably encodes the exposure and focal length information) but the image
itself is JPG.

>Suggestions other than borrowing Gail's very expensive Canon for my magazine
>shots?

Borrow Gail too? :)

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Morgans]

"C J Campbell" > wrote

>
> Even so, your Kodak 1.3Mp is wholly inadequate for any form of
publication.
> You will need at least 4.0Mp to achieve high enough resolution for print.

??????????????????????????????????

ANY form of publication? I know lots of forms of publications that a 1.3
would not be an issue.

At what size are you planning to print? 8 X 10 magazine picture? Yes, for
that size, an amateur could see lose of sharpness. Smaller sizes, printing
at home, the printer will be the limiting factor, for most people.

Broad, sweeping statements like you made are seldom to stand up for all
situations. How about a less authoritarian stance?
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Beckman]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> For a consumer-grade camera, as long as you set the JPEG format to the
> highest resolution, lowest-compression setting, you should fine. You'd be
> unlikely to notice any difference between the raw image and the compressed
> one. Any of the professional-grade digital SLRs should have an option for
> saving the data in a "raw" format (which typically is actually just a
> proprietary, non-lossy compressed format). One of Canon's higher-end
> models actually can have two memory cards installed and allows you to save
> each picture twice, JPEG to one memory card and their raw format in the
> other.
>

Peter,

I just got a Canon EOS 20D. Both .jpg and .raw can be saved to one CF card.

Just an FYI,

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>> [...] Any of the professional-grade digital SLRs should have an option
>> for
>> saving the data in a "raw" format (which typically is actually just a
>> proprietary, non-lossy compressed format).
>
> Actually, most RAW files are compressed somewhat, too. Read the
> instruction
> manual.

I said they were compressed. You even quoted the part of my post where I
said that. Something wrong with your hearing aid?

[Peter Duniho]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> Jpeg is the preferred format for photos that are going to be displayed for
> view
> (for example, the shots we submit to Jay of our aircraft should be jpegs).
> Gifs
> are preferred for shots that people are likly to just glance at (for
> example,
> thumbnails) because they typically are smaller than jpegs and consequently
> load
> faster.

IMHO, you have this exactly backwards.

Generally, a GIF (or PNG or compressed TIF, for that matter) file will be
larger than a JPEG file, for the same image. GIF is a non-lossy compression
format, and doesn't have the luxury that JPEG has of throwing information
away to make the file smaller.

In the case of computer-generated images or natural images that have few
variations (scanned B&W document that has been "posterized", for example),
GIF can come out ahead with a smaller size and more importantly, will not
lose any detail the way a JPEG will. But this is the exception to the rule,
and doesn't apply to photographic images.

Generally speaking, if you have a GIF image and a JPEG image the same size
(in pixels) and the GIF image is smaller, it's either because the JPEG
compression was set to the minimum value, or because the JPEG version has
24-bit color while the GIF has only 8-bit color (which obviously results in
a 2/3 reduction in file size even before any compression has taken place).
The color-depth difference is, in particular, a very common reason one might
be fooled into thinking JPEG is not as efficient as GIF, since when
compression a color photographic image, that difference will almost always
exist.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:qW3vd.3841$2r.1754@fed1read02...
> I just got a Canon EOS 20D. Both .jpg and .raw can be saved to one CF
> card.

Thanks...I haven't been paying as much attention to that segment of the
market, so didn't realize they had added that feature (nor to the Nikon line
in the same market segment, for that matter). It didn't occur to me that
the high-end features in the 1Ds line might appear in the lower-end cameras.

That said, even with two cards, I have to admit that I find that feature of
limited use to most people. And especially with just one card, for most
people you'll be better off just saving the raw image, and converting to
JPEG later on the computer.

In any case, the information is probably more helpful to the original poster
than to me. At least, one hopes so. :) Thanks for bringing it up.

[Jay Beckman]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
> news:qW3vd.3841$2r.1754@fed1read02...
>> I just got a Canon EOS 20D. Both .jpg and .raw can be saved to one CF
>> card.
>
> Thanks...I haven't been paying as much attention to that segment of the
> market, so didn't realize they had added that feature (nor to the Nikon
> line in the same market segment, for that matter). It didn't occur to me
> that the high-end features in the 1Ds line might appear in the lower-end
> cameras.

I'm just finally taking the plunge into "prosumer" digital simply because I
had so much $$$ tied up in my film rigs. The 20D is deep, deep, deep in
terms of what it can do, but it also lets me take tons of simple .jpg images
on a snap shot basis.

> That said, even with two cards, I have to admit that I find that feature
> of limited use to most people. And especially with just one card, for
> most people you'll be better off just saving the raw image, and converting
> to JPEG later on the computer.

Agreed as the .raw files are huge (20Mb+) and you really can't do much with
them unless you have photo editing software (I just moved up to PSElements
v3) that can handle .raw.

That being said, the data "depth" in the .raw files allows for much more
tweaking before converting to .jpg (although I save everything initially in
..psd which is more or less "lossless.")

>
> In any case, the information is probably more helpful to the original
> poster than to me. At least, one hopes so. :) Thanks for bringing it
> up.

De nada,

Jay B

[Casey Wilson]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> There was a comment on the "was" thread about .jpg being an inferior
> format to a couple of other formats. So if my Kodak 1.3Mp camera only
> downloads in .jpg, how do I fool it into downloading in some other
> uncompressed format?
>
> According to the camera specifications, the actual file format is listed
> as: "Exif version 2.1 (JPEG base).
>
> Suggestions other than borrowing Gail's very expensive Canon for my
> magazine shots?

When a magazine editor is really particular, especially for cover
shots, s/he'll send out a staff photographer. On a low-end camera like a 1.3
Mp, you are more than likely stuck with whatever it gives you unless the POH
says different. But don't give up, print out a 4 X 6 inch copy of the
original photo at 300 dpi. If you don't see any serious degredation, chances
are the editor will be happy with them.
If Gail doesn't want to cooperate, ask the photo guru at Sierra C. to
trade the loan of a camera for a hop around the town.
Every time a digital image is saved in JPEG, it loses a smidgen of
quality in resolution and/or color rendition -- even if it was in JPEG to
start with. Kind of like the old Xerox of a Xerox of a Xerox...ad nauseum.
But read on...., preserve the original JPEG files by locking them with a
read-only attribute. Then, save a copy of the original in either .PNG or
..TIFF format to do whatever manipulations you feel like. PNG and TIFF retain
fidelity through a lot more saves than JPEG. If the image manipulation
software in your computer won't save in PNG or TIFF, read on....,
In workshops I teach for writers cum photographers, I recommend
getting a picture processor (software) at least equal to PhotoShop Elements
or Paint Shop Pro. Both inexpensive packages come loaded with more features
than they will ever use and retail for less than $100.

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> [...] Any of the professional-grade digital SLRs should have an option
> >> for
> >> saving the data in a "raw" format (which typically is actually just a
> >> proprietary, non-lossy compressed format).
> >
> > Actually, most RAW files are compressed somewhat, too. Read the
> > instruction
> > manual.
>
> I said they were compressed. You even quoted the part of my post where I
> said that. Something wrong with your hearing aid?

What? Dang. I knew I had to get thing checked.

[C J Campbell]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote
>
> >
> > Even so, your Kodak 1.3Mp is wholly inadequate for any form of
> publication.
> > You will need at least 4.0Mp to achieve high enough resolution for
print.
>
> ??????????????????????????????????
>
> ANY form of publication? I know lots of forms of publications that a 1.3
> would not be an issue.
>
> At what size are you planning to print? 8 X 10 magazine picture? Yes,
for
> that size, an amateur could see lose of sharpness. Smaller sizes, printing
> at home, the printer will be the limiting factor, for most people.
>
> Broad, sweeping statements like you made are seldom to stand up for all
> situations. How about a less authoritarian stance?

Nobody would believe I wrote it otherwise.

Yes, you can get by with incredibly inferior quality in some publications.
And your printer is not the limiting factor in that case; it is the printer
of the publisher. But 1.3 simply does not preserve enough detail or color
for the vast majority of print publications.

[Peter Duniho]

"Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
news:Ha5vd.3159$Z%1.2468@trnddc03...
> [...] Then, save a copy of the original in either .PNG or .TIFF format to
> do whatever manipulations you feel like. PNG and TIFF retain fidelity
> through a lot more saves than JPEG.

If by "a lot more" you mean "infinitely more"... :)

Lossless compressions algorithms are, by definition, well...lossless. Every
time you uncompress the data (to view it in a photo editor, for example) and
then recompress it using the same lossless algorithm (or any other lossless
algorithm, for that matter), you will get *exactly* the same data back the
next time you uncompress the data. No matter how many times you do the
exercise, this will be true.

[Ash Wyllie]

C J Campbell opined

>"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> For a consumer-grade camera, as long as you set the JPEG format to the
>> highest resolution, lowest-compression setting, you should fine. You'd be
>> unlikely to notice any difference between the raw image and the compressed
>> one. Any of the professional-grade digital SLRs should have an option for
>> saving the data in a "raw" format (which typically is actually just a
>> proprietary, non-lossy compressed format).

>Actually, most RAW files are compressed somewhat, too. Read the instruction
>manual.

But do they do lossey compression? If they don't that compression doesn't
matter.



-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[Dean Wilkinson]

JPEG uses a spatial frequency compression algorithm to compress the image.
Many cameras provide the ability to control the quality of the JPEG
compression which affects the resulting file size and image quality. This
is in effect controlling the spatial frequency bandwidth of the compression
algorithm. Allowing higher spatial frequency components in the image
increases the JPEG file size and preserves more of the image detail. You
should check to see if your camera provides this capability.

Dean Wilkinson
http://www.razorsedgesoft.com/airplan/index.htm

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> There was a comment on the "was" thread about .jpg being an inferior
format
> to a couple of other formats. So if my Kodak 1.3Mp camera only downloads
in
> .jpg, how do I fool it into downloading in some other uncompressed format?
>
> According to the camera specifications, the actual file format is listed
as:
> "Exif version 2.1 (JPEG base).
>
> Suggestions other than borrowing Gail's very expensive Canon for my
magazine
> shots?
>
> Jim
>
>