Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

raw


eddie1 e2
3 12 United Kingdom
13 Mar 2012 1:26AM
how do people manage to get raw pictures on this site. I have to convert my raw images to j peg before I can upload them.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
13 Mar 2012 1:28AM

Quote:how do people manage to get raw pictures on this site


They don't. Smile
eddie1 e2
3 12 United Kingdom
13 Mar 2012 1:37AM
when you look at the information it says raw.mine says jpeg.
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
13 Mar 2012 1:42AM
All it means is the photo was originally shot as RAW. It has to be converted to JPEG before upload. Hope that helps. Smile
MrGoatsmilk 6 1.5k England
13 Mar 2012 6:58AM
RAW is your digital cameras version of a negative, basically it's what has been captured by the camera and is ready for editing as it contains all the unprocessed information recorded by the camera when you took the shot.

Once you have edited how you want and like. Such as Sharpen, contrast, saturation etc etc then you save your finished item as a jpeg (there are several others you can save as too). Make sure you save the RAW as is, then if needed you can work on the photo again, as working on the jpeg you have just produced will degrade the image and gets worse each time you do so.

If you are taking shots say for Ebay etc you may as well set the camera to jpeg as your not really going to want to spend too much time editing the shots, but for photo's that you want to print, keep, show off etc best to shoot in RAW for the best possible outcome and editing options as the file contains more information from the start.


File types



HTH

Stu
peterjones 12 4.0k 1 United Kingdom
13 Mar 2012 7:43AM
A few thoughts: I shoot almost entirely in RAW however if I wish to use some images for the web, Ebay or whatever I will shoot in RAW and JPEG simultaneously.

When you process a RAW image in ACR, L/R or your choice of software the application leaves the RAW file alone; ACR for example will store any changes you have made in an XMP file stored alongside your RAW image.

The decision whether to shot RAW or not is a personal decision: today's DSLRs produce finished JPEG images of such high quality there is a case for taking your pictures at the best quality JPEG for example some top wedding photographers take all their pictures at the best quality JPEGs and pass the whole lot to their processors for output exactly what we used to do with film; others who output their images to third party processors will pay a bit more and use RAW; personally I post process all my own images.

Finally repeated opening and closing of an image in JPEG format will degrade the file (try it with a blue sky repeatedly and enjoy the results!) ; if you have taken JPEG and feel you need to open and close it repeatedly say to work on it I suggest save the new JPEG initially as a PSD or TIFF file then subsequent opening and closing won't degrade your image.

Peter.
lobsterboy e2
11 14.2k 13 United Kingdom
13 Mar 2012 7:54AM

Quote:repeated opening and closing of an image in JPEG format will degrade the file

A very minor point but it should be : repeated opening and saving of an image in JPEG format will degrade the file.
Just opening it to look at it should make no difference.
peterjones 12 4.0k 1 United Kingdom
13 Mar 2012 8:23AM
thanks; I didn't make it clear if you open and close a JPEG file without making any changes you will not degrade it; if you open and save repeatedly then it will degrade; apologies and thanks to lobsterboy Grin
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
13 Mar 2012 12:49PM
The degrading on re-saving is much overstated. We did an experiment on EPZ about 8 years ago, repeatedly saving a JPEG eight times, as I recall. The only discernible difference to the eye was a slight colour shift..... and you really had to look for it.

But there is never a need to resave a JPEG more than just once. Just convert to TIFF or PSD format and use that as the 'master' copy, even if you have shot in JPEG.

But I think I have already answered the OP's actual question in my second posting. Wink
MeanGreeny 9 3.7k England
13 Mar 2012 3:20PM

Quote:We did an experiment on EPZ about 8 years ago, repeatedly saving a JPEG eight times, as I recall. The only discernible difference to the eye was a slight colour shift..... and you really had to look for it.


Just curious - since I never use JPG much - saved at what quality? The highest presumably?
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
13 Mar 2012 3:24PM

Quote:The degrading on re-saving is much overstated. We did an experiment on EPZ about 8 years ago, repeatedly saving a JPEG eight times, as I recall. The only discernible difference to the eye was a slight colour shift..... and you really had to look for it.


I htink the one criticism was (and correct me if I am wrong) that you opened/saved and apparently if that is all you do the program does no further ocmpression. If you open-edit-save that is where the degradation occurs. But I still agree that if you resave with minimal compression you need to really go some to lose significant detail.
The best thing with jpeg is to convert to TIFF before editing which gives a 'best compromise' for an awful lot of photographers.
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
13 Mar 2012 3:31PM

Quote:I htink the one criticism was (and correct me if I am wrong) that you opened/saved and apparently if that is all you do the program does no further ocmpression. If you open-edit-save that is where the degradation occurs. But I still agree that if you resave with minimal compression you need to really go some to lose significant detail


It's so long ago now I forget what we actually did. But I think we merely opened and re-saved several times. So you could be right.


Quote:The best thing with jpeg is to convert to TIFF before editing which gives a 'best compromise' for an awful lot of photographers


Yes, this is the point I am making. There is never any actual need to resave a JPEG, time after time. Just immediately convert to a lossless format like TIFF, to be used as your digital negative, and you can delete the original JPEG if you want to.
User_Removed 10 3.3k 4 United Kingdom
13 Mar 2012 3:46PM

Quote:The best thing with jpeg is to convert to TIFF before editing


Why?

Why not just open the JPEG, edit it, save it as another format or print it. Why convert it to a TIFF first, why the extra step?
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
13 Mar 2012 4:21PM
If the editing will be done in more than one session where repeat saving is required then you will get the gradual data loss with resultant loss in image quality. But as i said above, for most people, they will not even notice the reduction unless viewing large on screen.
User_Removed 5 4.6k 1 Scotland
13 Mar 2012 10:28PM

Quote:Thanks; I didn't make it clear if you open and close a JPEG file without making any changes you will not degrade it; if you open and save repeatedly then it will degrade; apologies and thanks to lobsterboy Grin


Peter,

I have absolutely no quarrel with what you write on the Forum, even when you are wrong. (After all, a divergence of views is what such discussions are all about.)

BUT WOULD YOU PLEASE CHANGE YOUR AVATAR! It fair turns my stomach every time I see it.

Please.

.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.