Sunset in Kruger

by MrFrench

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

Here’s a Bash script for Mac OS X or Linux. #!/bin/bash read -p "Delete JPEGs when DNG exists? Ctrl-C to cancel. [Enter] to continue: " for FILE in *.dng; do JPG_FILE=$(echo "$FILE" | sed "s/dng/jpg/g") rmtrash "${JPG_FILE}" 1>/dev/null done rmtrash is a utility that moves files to the Trash, instead of deleting them outright. You can get it from ...


0

The problem you're running into is that there are two standards for CMYK JPEGs: the standard used by Adobe, and the standard used by everybody else. The two standards disagree on whether "100%" on a channel means fully-saturated or fully-unsaturated, with the result that files saved in a program using one standard will appear inverted when opened in a ...


0

I am wondering what is your viewing program? The information is giving you is a little strange, becouse YCbCr is a step in compressing jpg files, not a color model, which would be RGB, (and cmyk). For a good conversion yo need a program that handles the cmyk files correctly, this is readint the colour profile embeded with it. If it has one. You can use ...


2

File size is one good reason. My 5DII spits out raw files at around 24MB each and when converted to 16Bit TIFFs they weigh in at around 126MB, uncompressed. With compression they can still hit around 70MB which isn't as memory card friendly as the initial 24MB. Your question mentions .PNG files - the uncompressed 16Bit .PNG equivalent is still 115MB so ...


5

Wouldn't it be useful to have a 24-bit RGB format (taking advantae of the camera's automatic processing modes)? Not really. Raw files are actually very space efficient, since they only store one greyscale channel, in 12 or 14 bit per pixel. A lossless 24bit format will inevitably create larger files, while dropping 4 or 6 bits of dynamic range. A 48bit ...


6

The JPEG format is very good for final output, filesizes are small and with the highest quality settings artifacts are pretty much invisible. It's only if you start editing a JPEG that you will see artifacts and the limited dynamic range. So it's a bad format if you plan to later edit images. If you plan to later edit images than RAW is far better than ...


4

Some do — for example, most or all Pentax models and higher-end Nikons support TIFF (which, as Raheel Khan notes in a comment above, is better for metadata than PNG). So, there you go. If this is important to you, you can choose a camera which has it. However, it seems that it's not important enough to most consumers to make it something people decide on — I ...



Top 50 recent answers are included