Digital Photos (was: Reno Suite...)

"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

"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.

"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

"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" 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

"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.

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/

"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.

"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.

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