glasses

Glasses                                             
by Meysam                

Submit your Photo
Hall of Fame


Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

New answers tagged

0

Assuming I have the time for batch extraction but don't have the time to develop these manually, is there any reason for me to continue shooting in RAW+JPEG mode and keep the standalone JPEGs, or should I go ahead and just mass-extract all the embedded JPEGs from the RAW files? If you can extract the preview and you are okay with its quality, then no, ...


4

To concentrate on what you should do, I suggest you stick to the raw+jpeg. Worst case you need another card and storage is cheap. Do you actually ever get close to filling all your cards? If not, you don't need to worry. My reasoning is that, like you (by the sound of things) I like to print or otherwise use a lot of my pictures as shot. But sometimes a ...


4

Although the context is different, this is fundamentally a question of the difference in compression levels. ImageMagick identifies them as 81 and 95 — that's not a standard number, but it's generally true that 95 is "pretty high quality" and 81 is "medium-low quality". The issue of RAW vs. JPEG is a red herring here; it just happens that the embedded ...


0

The bottom line is RAW is a file produced by your camera that contains 100% of the information your camera sees. JPG is a file produce by your camera were your camera's computer (brain) takes that same 100% of data and discards (deletes) a certain percentage of that data in order to make a compressed (smaller) file. Do you want your camera's brain to ...


0

I would like to answer by way of analogy. RAW is the cow. (Everything is there in the file) JPEG is a platter of swedish meatballs. (Someone has taken the raw material and made something from it.) Many things about the two might even be identifiable still. The fact remains that the process is not reversible. The nature of the original is less versatile as ...



Top 50 recent answers are included