I hate to be picky too because I readily admit that you could easily show me the results of a raw, .tif, and .jpg out of camera and 99 times out a 100, I probably could not tell the difference.
However, given the vast difference in size between the file formats, knowing that .jpg is by nature lossy, I still believe something IS being lost, besides just the bytes saved due to compression. It's just that our eyes may not readily perceive it. I recognize that it's the same number of pixels captured in a raw file vs. a .jpg. I will happily accept being wrong on this issue. With film it was easy. A transparency from the film in camera was a 1st generation image. A negative was too, but to readily view it, it needed to be made positive (usually a print) which was a 2nd generation image. For that matter a print or projection of a slide was second generation as well, as is of course, any photo we view online or in print. So it can get pretty silly. For me it was about having the best 1st gen image to work from. Raw surely must be the best, with .tif coming in second, and .jpg 3rd. The problem I have, in principle only, with shooting .jpgs is that I don't view them as a 1st gen image. One can believe that they are, because that's what the camera spits out, but are they? Tom C. >From: keith_w <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode >Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:09:02 -0700 > >Kenneth Waller wrote: > > Tom > > Given that something is lost on the initial jpeg capture, > >You know, I hate to be picky about this, but...nothing is actually LOST, >per >se, on initial capture of a jpeg image. >What's there is there, as your lens/camera system captures it and delivers >it >to the sensor. Just because you have chosen to capture an image as a jpeg >doesn't mean you've selected an inferior image format. > >Whatever the sensor passes along by way of the camera's internal software, >which apparently identifies it as a jpeg, or tiff or raw image, is what it >is. >How can any of that be classified as a "loss?" > >The image captured as a tiff or a jpeg is converted by the camera's >internal >firmware (I suppose ?) to be what it is. Same with RAW. > >Any losses that occur to any image captured and saved happen after the >photog >grabs hold of the image and messes around with it! > > >...everything I been > > taught tells me that its only after numerous jpeg re-savings, that the > > continued losses become evident. > > > > Kenneth Waller > >That's as I understand it. >However, as *I* understand it, just opening it and viewing it, and closing >it >again does NOT bring about a deterioration. >You have to "save" it time after time for the degradation to take place. > > >keith whaley > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >[email protected] >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
