Incense

by Bart Arondson

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tag Info

New answers tagged

0

JPEG is a compressed format, as has been pointed out by several others here, but what they haven't mentioned is that it is not a totally "lossless" compression. Every time you open a JPEG file for editing, it's being uncompressed, then compressed again when your edits are stored. Ergo, you're potentially losing a few bits every time. I started out as a "wet" ...


-1

There will always be pros and cons for each side of this question- RAW or JPG, for my personal experience it depends on the 'venue'. But I mostly shoot JPG for the simple reason of efficiency in storage and work-flow. The single best response for this question, in my opinion.. from dpollit...JPEG can force you to become a better photographer. I believe ...


0

The only time I'd opt for JPEG a over RAW, was when I'd be shooting all day and needed to maximize my card storage and battery life. JPEGs write faster to the card, which saves battery life. And, it's obvious they take less space, so I could shove a lot more images into a few chips. Of course, shooting JPEGs means you don't have the leeway available for ...


2

In some scenarios, you just simply doesn't need RAW files. A good example is daily press: JPGs are rarely edited for more than basic level and constrast adjustements, they have more than enough quality for web and press paper, are faster to transmit to the newsroom, can be directly used on layout software, and speed the general process both for photographer ...


3

Here is a good reason why RAW+JPEG is a good idea - tethering. If you use WiFi of a third party device like Cam Ranger, transferring a raw image to the tethered device can take a while. Transferring the JPEG should only take a few seconds in contrast.


0

It is no longer an issue today, but until just a few years ago many people were still using computers with insufficient memory to smoothly work with RAW files. On my old XP computer I had to split up a picture into small parts, process them separately and then stitch them back together when doing memory intensive computations.


25

Beyond the very obvious memory card requirement differences between RAW and JPEG images as noted in the question: JPEGs are compressed and typically have much smaller file sizes. For example a RAW file from a Nikon D800 can be 50MB and the JPEG may be a fraction at 10MB. This benefits not only memory card capacity but also editing workflow speed, archival ...


1

I doubt there are any hidden advantages, it is more or less obvious: the file is immediately ready for sharing (JPEG can be used everywhere) will usually look better out of the box, because of the automated in-camera treatment and "intelligent shooting modes", including quick-and-easy HDR (while for RAW files, we expect the experienced user should process ...


1

Just opening and closing a JPEG file should not trigger a save command (in any program that I know of) and therefore there is no re-compression taking place. For the times that you actually DO hit "save", what happens depends on what changes you've made and how smart the image program in question is. The user CutNGlass has already mentioned an example of ...


3

Simple: rotation is a JPEG property, and some image editors and viewers understand it, while others are dumb and just display all images starting from the top left. Your camera is setting this based on the camera's detected orientation, but not all of the programs you are using care. You can use a utility like jhead or jpegtran to apply the rotation ...


6

There are several ways to do this in Lightroom. I will outline two of them. New catalog Create a new catalog Import all the RAW files you want a JPEG version of. Select them all in Grid view, right click, and export them as JPEG. Virtual copy In your current catalog select all the RAW files you want undeveloped versions of. In Grid view right click ...


2

Within Digital Photo Professional navigate to the folder containing your CR2 files. From the top menu click File > Batch Process... The "Batch settings" window will open. To choose where the output jpeg files will be saved click the "Browse..." button in the "Save folder" section. The "Browse For Folder" window will open, click the desired output folder to ...


0

I don't recommend you to remove metadata from your original images. It make sense to do this for images that you want to share or publish, during the export stage for the next reasons: You might take a look at the metadata of some of your beautiful images later, to see their exposure, GPS info, etc... Like Paul said, images with the sRGB profile will be ...


0

Simply put No. To be specific. When saving the JPEG image you have some losses as JPEG is defined as lossy compression. The image is compressed using Huffman coding if I am not mistaken. Now when an image editor opens up an image it does not decompress the image. It simply decodes the compressed image so the screen can show what is in it. But when you ...


0

Seems like a better way would be to render the image including the colour profile, rather than depend on the client to apply the colour profile to the original. Try the "export for web" option in your editor - this function normally does all needed processing (rotate is an important one too) and gives you a final-version jpeg. There's a general guideline ...


-1

The simple answer is "That depends." Does it make a difference if: I open the image in a standard image viewer and simple "close" the pic? Should be safe, as a viewer should never be able to change image. I open the image in Photoshop Elements Editor and close it there? Should not change image. If I simply Close and image vs. ...


4

JPEG compression can be described as having two distinct phases: first a lossy phase, then a lossless phase. Understanding the difference between them is important to this question. This isn't so much because it helps understanding what's going on, but because it helps to understand where the common mistakes come from. Lossy compression happens only when ...


1

Simply put: Opening: no loss of quality Copying: no loss of quality Displaying: no loss of quality Saving without edits: is copying, no loss of quality* Saving with only metadata edits: no loss of quality* Saving with changes to compression quality: loss of quality Saving after image data edits: loss of quality *Dependant on program, poorly implemented ...


-1

There seems to be a lot of misinformation even in these answers. JPEG is a lossy block encoding standard. Its a frequency domain code that gets its compression by representing higher frequency image components with lower precision. The block size is 8x8 pixels. To encode a JPEG image you take each block, perform a 2-D DCT and record the result in a sort of ...


3

You definitely won't lose any quality just by viewing it. But, as pointed out above, you may lose image quality when saving it without making changes if the editor compresses it when it saves the file. For example, say you have a JPEG at no compression: You open it in The GIMP, make no changes, and save it The GIMP asks you how much compression you want ...


1

Definitely, like any file, if you don't hit "save" but just close the file, no changes will be made. (think of it like a word Doc that you just open and close) If you do make changes, most programs will give you a notification asking if you want to "save changes" So the answer is definitely no to your question. Hope that helps.


46

This is based on a misunderstanding. Loss of quality happens only during the compression that is done when an image is saved as JPEG. But it doesn't matter whether it was edited or not. So: you will (with some very specific exceptions, see comments) lose quality if you open an image in an image editor and re-save it, even if you didn't make any edits. But ...


19

Absolutely not. You need to edit the file and re-save it as a JPEG in order to compound the effects of image compression. Just viewing it has no effect at all — if it did, all of the JPEGs on the web would "wear out" completely in a day or two at most.



Top 50 recent answers are included