by damned truths

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


In the Save As function the 0-12 quality scale is used, but in the Save For Web function a 0-100 scale is used. That 0-100 scale is probably close to the 1-99 scale specified in the standards. I compared the file sizes from the different settings, using a 21 MP image (so that the metadata is tiny compared to the image data), and came to this approximate ...


You've deliberately vandalised a compressed file, there is no way to recover the data except for you to put back what you've broken. Image recovery tools are built to work by taking blocks of data and getting them back into the right order; such as when the filesystem is damaged on an SD card or harddisk. They are not designed to correct the kind of damage ...


If your intention is to modify the JPEG file by changing some bytes inside it, just do the following: convert JPEG to uncompressed BMP change the bytes convert BMP to JPEG


JPEG is a file format standard for storing images. It is not a HEX file. There is no HEX encoding in a JPEG file. Your question therefore makes not sense and can't be answered. The way compression is done in the JPEG encoding scheme, there is not necessarily a 1:1 correspondence between a few adjacent bits in the file and a particular location in the ...


I think ths is right-on with the suggestion of copying the MakerNotes with exiftool. To do this: exiftool -tagsfromfile rawfile.cr2 -makernotes output.jpg which should work. (I've tested it with Pentax RAW files but not with Canon.) Further, finding a plugin that includes the MakerNotes in the exported JPEGs should do the trick as well. Several people ...


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" ...


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 ...


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 ...


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 ...


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.


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.


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 ...


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 ...


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 ...

Top 50 recent answers are included