Rotate images, very lossy

[Ronnie Vernon MVP]

I have never worked with the RAW format, I usually simply take the picture
and the camera is set to save as jpg files. I immediately convert to tif (or
sometimes the proprietary PSP, PS format) and then open the photos up in
either Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro or Irfanview.

I perform the editing (rotating, lighten, darken, sharpen, etc) and then
save as jpg. I have never been able to 'visually detect' any major quality
loss doing things this way. Of course, if I were a professional
photographer, I would probably be doing things differently.

 

[Romane]

Ronnie

If your camera will do raw format, it is worth playing/experimenting with.
As everything, there are for's and against's.

In very crude terms, you get what the camera sees, and can adjust it on the
computer for various factors (white balance etc etc etc) - think of it as
adjusting the factors that went into the photo at the moment the frame was
taken, after the frame has been taken. Every frame I take is in both raw and
jpg - the jpg is for quickly checking for composition and other qualities
that make the difference between a good photo and an average one, the raw to
be able to then make necessary adjustments to the good frames to reduce the
need for post editing (and the resultant risk of for example artifacts etc
such as you mention). Compare the same frame in raw and jpg, and the
differences are usually obvious. Plus, only one lot of loss, the final save
to a jpg - you are not already working from a stage of loss trying to reduce
loss.

That, and I *never* work off the original, only ever work from a copy; you
stuff it, you can at least go back and get another copy to work from; you
stuff the original, it is stuffed.

R.

 

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 17:52:36 -0700, "Ronnie Vernon MVP"

I have never worked with the RAW format, I usually simply take the picture
and the camera is set to save as jpg files.

That's what my camera is set to do. I don't mind large picture files,
so I use as hi-quality as I can, but haven't checked whether I can
keep pics out of JPEG on the camera. Also, I don't want to have to
install camera software to manage Raw formats.

I immediately convert to tif (or sometimes the proprietary PSP,
PS format) and then open the photos up in either Photoshop,
Paint Shop Pro or Irfanview.

I usually operate via IrfanView, as it's rare that I need to chase
pixels. One gotcha is to operate while in "full screen" or other
scaled view, in case IView uses this scale-deformed material instead
of the original file when it manipulates it. I always blow out to
full (natural) size when manipulating, and if I resample to make
smaller for on-screen display, I generally divide by a round number of
pixels (Half button, or 20%, 25%, 50% etc. size)

I perform the editing (rotating, lighten, darken, sharpen, etc)

Generally I do gamma, rather than any other color tweaks. In
particular, brightness sucks as you wash out your black, which
punching up the gamma will keep. Expect graininess and color
threshold effects if pushing gamma up to and beyond 2.0 or so.

and then save as jpg. I have never been able to 'visually
detect' any major quality loss doing things this way.

Look at skylines, power cables against a flat blue sky, etc. and
expect to see tramiline effects (especially if sharpened). Some of
that will be the sharpening process, some will be JPEGism.

Of course, if I were a professional
photographer, I would probably be doing things differently.

Me2; I could spend money on costly gear and 'ware, for starters!

BTW: Here's a tip if you find flash is too bright for macro work; hold
a piece of white plastic or paper over the flash, being careful not to
obscure it or the ranging sensor with your fingers.

The flash will make an ominous pop and there may be more smoke than
usual, but I haven't fried a flash yet.

Some of these capacitor pics were done using that technique:

http://cquirke.spaces.live.com/photos/cns!C7DAB1E724AB8C23!176/

--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

IRC is just multiplayer notepad.

 

[theclyde]

determines the jpg quality. Maybe not a setting per se

but there must be code that determines the algorithm.
Even cameras usually give you at least two choices.

Vista is not about giving users choices, it is about making their life
easier by taking away choices.

 

[Ronnie Vernon MVP]

Romane

Thanks for all of this information. My current camera doesn't have RAW
capability, but this may be something that I will be sure to check on my
next camera purchase.

 

[Ronnie Vernon MVP]

That's what my camera is set to do. I don't mind large picture files,
so I use as hi-quality as I can, but haven't checked whether I can
keep pics out of JPEG on the camera. Also, I don't want to have to
install camera software to manage Raw formats.

My camera has an option to record in the TIF format, but this results in
eating up the space in the memory card very fast.

Generally I do gamma, rather than any other color tweaks. In
particular, brightness sucks as you wash out your black, which
punching up the gamma will keep. Expect graininess and color
threshold effects if pushing gamma up to and beyond 2.0 or so.

I use gamma, but I have found that using adjustment layers in PS or PSP
works very well to just selectively work on certain areas of a photo to get
rid of shadows, etc.

Look at skylines, power cables against a flat blue sky, etc. and
expect to see tramiline effects (especially if sharpened). Some of
that will be the sharpening process, some will be JPEGism.

I have seen the same effect with jpeg, PS and PSP has an option to remove
jpeg artifacts, but I haven't seen a major difference when using this?

Me2; I could spend money on costly gear and 'ware, for starters!

BTW: Here's a tip if you find flash is too bright for macro work; hold
a piece of white plastic or paper over the flash, being careful not to
obscure it or the ranging sensor with your fingers.

The flash will make an ominous pop and there may be more smoke than
usual, but I haven't fried a flash yet.

Some of these capacitor pics were done using that technique:

http://cquirke.spaces.live.com/photos/cns!C7DAB1E724AB8C23!176/

Thanks for the tips, I'll give this a try.