Image quality

Bagger

New member
This seems to be "Question Night in Baggerville"!
I've always shot in NEF+JPEG Fine...that was when I had access to PS/Nikon Capture...now, as I limp back into "hobbying" I find that I no longer need the RAW quality "negative"...thus, I've been shooting in JPEG Fine...K. Rockwell suggests that there is little to no difference in "viewing" if a photo is shot in "normal"...so, have I been wasting space using FINE?
P.S. I have no intentions of printing large photos...those years are gone...I have walls covered in D70 photos...I just enjoy taking photos now...thanx, for any input you can give...

...john
 

stmv

Senior Member
heck for sharing on computers,, the Iphone4 does fine, slrs are for total control, and lens changing ability. and like you state large prints,

laughs,, the old Rockwell myth,, no,, did not waste time,, IF you edited you RAW.. I use my JPEG for 75% and 25% RAW, but most of my large prints are from my RAW.

Personally,, I keep my JPEGs on Vivid,, with a slight bump in saturation.
 

WayneF

Senior Member
Why do you need to limit image size? Just to save file storage space? A one terabyte external disk drive is not that expensive now. Why compromise image quality?

You do have choices. The camera menus allows you set Size of the JPG images, and/or also their Quality. There are these two properties.

D3100 images can be 14 megapixels (large).
Three size choices, Large, Medium or Small.
Large will easy print 11x17 inches or more, and even Small will still print a fine 5x7 inch print (if you don't crop much).

Quality is Fine, Medium, or Basic. Normally, a reasonable goal is "as good as possible". Best JPG is really none too good. Why should we aim for less? But if we can't appreciate this advantage, we have choices.

D3100 manual page 187 shows typical file sizes for these choices.

Large is 4608x3072 pixels, or about 14 megapixels, which is x3 RGB data, or about 40 MB before compression.

Page 187 says Fine compresses it to 6.8 MB, or to 17% of uncompressed size. That is already quite awesome compression.

Normal goes to 3.4MB, or to 8%. IMO, that is about the minimum limit that is acceptable for JPG. Even best JPG suffers a little. Here is a look at JPG compression quality:
What does JPG Quality Losses Mean?

You really don't have to suffer lower quality. Who aims for lower quality? If file size is a problem, and you're sure you won't need large prints, then maybe try Small size. If you're sure... there is no going back if you end up with your prize image, it's too late then.

An alternative is to resample them smaller later (for archiving), after you're sure you won't want larger.

But Small will print 5x7, and is still larger than your monitor screen. Seems like it can at least it can be good quality though. If I had your goals, I would limit size, but not quality. But my own notion is why limit it at all? If you really don't much care about your images, just buy a little compact camera or a cell phone.
 
Last edited:
Keep it on Fine>>Large. As soon as you don't do that you will be the first person to get a chance to shoot a real UFO with little green men coming out of it. YOu really won't be close enough to get the shot without cropping the final print. Oh wait a minute you were shooting small and now that once in a lifetime shot is all blurry and pixalated. There goes your million dollar shot.

RAW / JPEG Fine
fine.jpg

JPEG Basic
basic.jpg
 
Last edited:

STM

Senior Member
Your first mistake is taking anything Kenny boys says without a boulder-sized grain of salt. He is full of more crap than a Christmas turkey when it comes to a lot of things. Shooting in RAW offers you a lot more flexibility when it comes to post processing or correcting exposure errors than does a straight .jpg. If you are determined to work only in .jpg rather than RAW, then you really should to stick with fine.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
This seems to be "Question Night in Baggerville"!
I've always shot in NEF+JPEG Fine...that was when I had access to PS/Nikon Capture...now, as I limp back into "hobbying" I find that I no longer need the RAW quality "negative"...thus, I've been shooting in JPEG Fine...K. Rockwell suggests that there is little to no difference in "viewing" if a photo is shot in "normal"...so, have I been wasting space using FINE?
P.S. I have no intentions of printing large photos...those years are gone...I have walls covered in D70 photos...I just enjoy taking photos now...thanx, for any input you can give...
Here's my take on the RAW vs. JPG thing... An eight-bit JPG (and all JPG's are eight-bit) can address 256 levels of luminance per color-channel, or 16.7 million colors total.

A "low-end" twelve-bit RAW file can address 4,096 levels of luminance per color-channel, or 68.7 billion colors in total. That's sixteen times the numbers of available colors than you can get with a JPG. Now, I used the phrase "low end" because even my D5100 shot fourteen-bit color which registers four times as many values as twelve-bit color does (or, about 275 billion), or sixty-four times as many colors as the eight-bit JPG file.

Now, if someone thinks a format that irrevocably tosses away that much color rendition and tonality (easily 4,000 times as much tonality) is just the greatest thing to come along since the invention of the lens pen, then we'll simply have to agree to disagree (sorry Ken). I do think .jpg's are just fine for a lot of things, but to say they equate with RAW files in any way is just short of delusional in my opinion. Once you start learning how to do post processing you'll wish every shot you had ever taken was available in RAW.

I've never understood the concept of buying an expensive DSLR and then cutting it's proverbial balls off and turning into an over-priced point-and-shoot by doing nothing but taking JPG's in full Auto, yet it's something I see all the time. You paid for the processing power and image quality only RAW files can provide, why not use what you've paid for?



...
 
Last edited:

AC016

Senior Member
Oh no, not this question again, lol. I really think it boils down to you. What do you want to do? Do you just want to take a bunch of pictures and then throw them up onto a website? Or would you rather take your time and try to get the most out of your camera and pictures? I shot RAW a few times and I will tell you that in one of those instances, shooting raw helped me. The D80 has a tendency to over expose in really bright sunlight, so you have to dial in -0.7 and this really brings things back right. However, I did not know this when I was shooting with my D80 one bright sunny day. When I got back home, I noticed the over exposure in my pics. But..... I shot them all in RAW. Therefore, I just adjusted the exposure slide to -0.7 and all was good. As you know, you can do a plethora of other adjustments with a RAW file. THough, it does mean that you have to sit in front of a computer for many hours. Right now, I shoot mostly JPEG because I don't want to sit in front of a PC for hours and I have gotten to learn both my cameras metering systems pretty well.
In all honesty, there is no right or wrong answer for everyone. One suggestion would be to try your best to get it right in camera first, but shoot in RAW + JPEG fine. That way, you can correct the photos if need be and you can also post to any websites quickly.
Whatever your choice, good shooting :)
Just wanted to add a few things: Your camera is a multi tool. It's primary function is to take pictures, but it can do so in multiple ways. All the functions on your camera are there for a reason and have a purpose. I really don't buy into the statement, "you have a fine tuned piece of equipment, use it to its fullest and shoot RAW". If all you do is shoot RAW, you are not using your camera to it's fullest extent. There are so many other functions to use and many other formats to shoot in.
There is a reason and use for JPEG basic: if all you need is small files and if all you are going to do is post to websites or email quickly. It is about what is needed. It's about having choices.
Keep in mind that when your camera shoots in JPEG, it is first getting the RAW data from the sensor and converting that data into JPEG format, all thanks to the processor that our cameras have. So, if that is not using ones camera to it's fullest degree, I don't know what is.
Shooting RAW is great, but it is not for everyone. Some folks just want to take pictures and have the joy of looking at them later on or on a rainy day.
 
Last edited:

co2jae

Senior Member
As someone who has always been and likely will always be a "hobbyist" here is my take on RAW and JPEG. I agree with AC016 and anyone else who said shoot in both. Having a D7000 I have the bonus of 2 memory cards so I just set my camera to put RAW on card 1 and JPEG on card 2. After I view the shots in JPEG I can easily pull the RAW version from the other card if I need it and just delete whatever I dont want to keep. I would suggest dropping a few extra bucks on a high speed large capacity memory card for cameras with only 1 card slot to shoot both RAW and JPEG. After all, you spend hundreds (sometimes thousands) for a body and the same for lenses, why not get a capable memory card that should fill the bill for well under $100? Also, as noted by previous post, why spend the money for DSLR equipment and then not use it to its full capacity? You wouldn't buy a sports car and never take it out of 2nd gear would you?
 
Last edited:

jwstl

Senior Member
Keep in mind that when your camera shoots in JPEG, it is first getting the RAW data from the sensor and converting that data into JPEG format, all thanks to the processor that our cameras have. So, if that is not using ones camera to it's fullest degree, I don't know what is.

That's one of the many reasons why I shoot Raw at all times. I want to have control over how the jpeg looks when and if I create one. Sure, there's some contol over the look of the jpeg in camera but not nearly as much as when creating one from a Raw file using good software. The cameras' processors are good but not good enough for me. It's about taking that processing away from the camera.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 

WeeHector

Senior Member
Exactly what I would have said but with a bit more balls. Processing NEF might be a bit more work but is it worth losing the shot of a lifetime just for a bit of convenience?
 

WayneF

Senior Member
Processing NEF might be a bit more work but is it worth losing the shot of a lifetime just for a bit of convenience?

But with either Raw or JPG, without a little more work, all we have is an unprocessed image out of the camera, with hopeful generic settings made without seeing results, and without the necessary tweaking they all need. Raw just makes that be very easy to do, and the best possible result.

But the OP issue was not Raw or JPG, he already dismissed Raw. He just wants a picture, without being too fussy. Raw is for the fussy ones. :)
 

Bagger

New member
Why do you need to limit image size? Just to save file storage space? A one terabyte external disk drive is not that expensive now. Why compromise image quality?

You do have choices. The camera menus allows you set Size of the JPG images, and/or also their Quality. There are these two properties.

D3100 images can be 14 megapixels (large).
Three size choices, Large, Medium or Small.
Large will easy print 11x17 inches or more, and even Small will still print a fine 5x7 inch print (if you don't crop much).

Quality is Fine, Medium, or Basic. Normally, a reasonable goal is "as good as possible". Best JPG is really none too good. Why should we aim for less? But if we can't appreciate this advantage, we have choices.

D3100 manual page 187 shows typical file sizes for these choices.

Large is 4608x3072 pixels, or about 14 megapixels, which is x3 RGB data, or about 40 MB before compression.

Page 187 says Fine compresses it to 6.8 MB, or to 17% of uncompressed size. That is already quite awesome compression.

Normal goes to 3.4MB, or to 8%. IMO, that is about the minimum limit that is acceptable for JPG. Even best JPG suffers a little. Here is a look at JPG compression quality:
What does JPG Quality Losses Mean?

You really don't have to suffer lower quality. Who aims for lower quality? If file size is a problem, and you're sure you won't need large prints, then maybe try Small size. If you're sure... there is no going back if you end up with your prize image, it's too late then.

An alternative is to resample them smaller later (for archiving), after you're sure you won't want larger.

But Small will print 5x7, and is still larger than your monitor screen. Seems like it can at least it can be good quality though. If I had your goals, I would limit size, but not quality. But my own notion is why limit it at all? If you really don't much care about your images, just buy a little compact camera or a cell phone.

Info much appreciated...think I'll head back to RAW/FINE!

​...john
 

Bagger

New member
Why do you need to limit image size? Just to save file storage space? A one terabyte external disk drive is not that expensive now. Why compromise image quality?

You do have choices. The camera menus allows you set Size of the JPG images, and/or also their Quality. There are these two properties.

D3100 images can be 14 megapixels (large).
Three size choices, Large, Medium or Small.
Large will easy print 11x17 inches or more, and even Small will still print a fine 5x7 inch print (if you don't crop much).

Quality is Fine, Medium, or Basic. Normally, a reasonable goal is "as good as possible". Best JPG is really none too good. Why should we aim for less? But if we can't appreciate this advantage, we have choices.

D3100 manual page 187 shows typical file sizes for these choices.

Large is 4608x3072 pixels, or about 14 megapixels, which is x3 RGB data, or about 40 MB before compression.

Page 187 says Fine compresses it to 6.8 MB, or to 17% of uncompressed size. That is already quite awesome compression.

Normal goes to 3.4MB, or to 8%. IMO, that is about the minimum limit that is acceptable for JPG. Even best JPG suffers a little. Here is a look at JPG compression quality:
What does JPG Quality Losses Mean?

You really don't have to suffer lower quality. Who aims for lower quality? If file size is a problem, and you're sure you won't need large prints, then maybe try Small size. If you're sure... there is no going back if you end up with your prize image, it's too late then.

An alternative is to resample them smaller later (for archiving), after you're sure you won't want larger.

But Small will print 5x7, and is still larger than your monitor screen. Seems like it can at least it can be good quality though. If I had your goals, I would limit size, but not quality. But my own notion is why limit it at all? If you really don't much care about your images, just buy a little compact camera or a cell phone.

Your time/feedback is appreciated...I DO have an external terra byte drive...time to start filling it up!

​l..john
 

Bagger

New member
Exactly what I would have said but with a bit more balls. Processing NEF might be a bit more work but is it worth losing the shot of a lifetime just for a bit of convenience?

Point taken with ALL of the Nikonite feedback for my question...thanx to ALL who took the time to respond...all part of re-capturing any previous elements on my learning curve!

​...john
 

MinnBen

Senior Member
I have been reading the discussion about jpeg versus raw for a couple of months (when I got my D3100). There is a compelling case, I believe, if one cares to go to the trouble to do a lot of post-processing. I have only dabbled there, but am willing to give it a try. My question, though, is just how much work IS this? Seems like if I went out and too several dozen pictures, I would have to spend hours with this. Or, if I came back from a trip with several hundred pictures, it would take me weeks. I have lots of time, so that's possible, but is this really the way it works? Or am I looking at this incorrectly?

​Thanks so much for your comments here.
 

WayneF

Senior Member
No, not that long at all. Maybe worst case could average as much as, say, ten seconds per picture. And yes, a vacation trip with a thousand pictures would be worst case. Surely varies, but maybe up to three hours? Maybe longer, it depends on how bad they were, how hard they are. Because every such picture is probably in a different situation, white balance, exposure, etc. To get it right, you may have to try a few things on a few of them. But now you can - you have the luxury of actually seeing the result you got, so that you know what it needs. You just tweak it in. You cannot do that in the camera, before you take it, or even reach the scene.

Isn't a long vacation of 1000 pictures worth three more hours to enhance your photos? Edit is not the right word, the operation is correcting your images.

What is the alternative? Leave them like they are? If you really don't care, then so be it, but we simply cannot get WB and exposure right on all of them out of the camera. Really not on even many of them once you gain some skill in looking at them, and know the difference, and realize that they need help. When you see them made right, then you know. If you want them fixed, you have to fix them. Raw simply offers the best, most powerful, most range, most versatile tools, makes it be nearly trivial, which is why Raw is wildly popular (with those that care). By good tools, I mean NOT like any photo editor, but tools designed for camera images, tools named White Balance and Exposure... the things you need to do.

Yes, first day might be harder, but you get real good at it, real fast. You sort of glance at one, click White Balance, click exposure, maybe crop it, and go to the next. Sure, a few will take a little more, maybe even worse needing another try, or two (and no good like they are). But some will be alike, and of course, there are more things yet you could do. But don't doubt for a second that IT WILL change your photographic life. Your friends will say "your camera sure does take good pictures". :)

Best case is a hundred pictures in the same situation, or of only a few situations, little variation. Like a portrait session with flash. White balance and exposure are all the same situation, and you can do all one hundred at once, in the same one click, same few seconds. Possibly including cropping too, but yes, you do have to go through and look at each one, for a second or two, just to check. A few might be exceptions, esp cropping (subjects move).

After you fix them, then you simply output them to JPG for use. 1000 could take a few minutes, but it's a batch, you can go have coffee. Then you have what you would have had out of the camera, except they are better, and good, all fixed now. You will want to calibrate your monitor, with something like Spyder, so you are working towards the correct goal.

I'd invite you to look at Why shoot Raw? (about this subject)
 
Last edited:

Just-Clayton

Senior Member
I just started to use more raw shots. I am finding I have more playing room to adjust the picture to my liking. Especially, when it comes to portraits. I have more control overall.
 

AC016

Senior Member
No, not that long at all. Maybe worst case could average as much as, say, ten seconds per picture. And yes, a vacation trip with a thousand pictures would be worst case. Surely varies, but maybe up to three hours? Maybe longer, it depends on how bad they were, how hard they are. Because every such picture is probably in a different situation, white balance, exposure, etc. To get it right, you may have to try a few things on a few of them. But now you can - you have the luxury of actually seeing the result you got, so that you know what it needs. You just tweak it in. You cannot do that in the camera, before you take it, or even reach the scene.

Isn't a long vacation of 1000 pictures worth three more hours to enhance your photos? Edit is not the right word, the operation is correcting your images.

What is the alternative? Leave them like they are? If you really don't care, then so be it, but we simply cannot get WB and exposure right on all of them out of the camera. Really not on even many of them once you gain some skill in looking at them, and know the difference, and realize that they need help. When you see them made right, then you know. If you want them fixed, you have to fix them. Raw simply offers the best, most powerful, most range, most versatile tools, makes it be nearly trivial, which is why Raw is wildly popular (with those that care). By good tools, I mean NOT like any photo editor, but tools designed for camera images, tools named White Balance and Exposure... the things you need to do.

Yes, first day might be harder, but you get real good at it, real fast. You sort of glance at one, click White Balance, click exposure, maybe crop it, and go to the next. Sure, a few will take a little more, maybe even worse needing another try, or two (and no good like they are). But some will be alike, and of course, there are more things yet you could do. But don't doubt for a second that IT WILL change your photographic life. Your friends will say "your camera sure does take good pictures". :)

Best case is a hundred pictures in the same situation, or of only a few situations, little variation. Like a portrait session with flash. White balance and exposure are all the same situation, and you can do all one hundred at once, in the same one click, same few seconds. Possibly including cropping too, but yes, you do have to go through and look at each one, for a second or two, just to check. A few might be exceptions, esp cropping (subjects move).

After you fix them, then you simply output them to JPG for use. 1000 could take a few minutes, but it's a batch, you can go have coffee. Then you have what you would have had out of the camera, except they are better, and good, all fixed now. You will want to calibrate your monitor, with something like Spyder, so you are working towards the correct goal.

I'd invite you to look at Why shoot Raw? (about this subject)

​i think we have to consider the users level of knowledge with a program such as photoshop. If you know it real well, then 10 seconds. If you are just begining, it just may be a very long day for someone, lol
 

WayneF

Senior Member
A little experience is a wonderful thing. The way you acquire it is to wade in. :)

The Photoshop reputation is about the basic image editor. It has tons of options and features, like CMYK for commercial prepress, etc. Lots of it is arcane and difficult, but the basic operations are not hard.

But Adobe Raw in Photoshop is a different module, with Raw tools, tools named White Balance and Exposure, very much like the camera, except of course you can actually see the image first before you decide, so you Know what it needs. This visual inspection and second change is a great thing. Just make it be right.

Again, I would invite you to Why shoot Raw? to see some of it.

The same Adobe Raw model is in Lightroom too, at a very affordable price, and it is very popular.
 
​i think we have to consider the users level of knowledge with a program such as photoshop. If you know it real well, then 10 seconds. If you are just begining, it just may be a very long day for someone, lol

I agree. A beginner will be a lot better off starting off with JPEG Fine Large and using a basic program like ViewNX2 and adjusting brightness, contrast and sharpness and then cropping to suit.

Learn and get comfortable with all modes of the camera and then and only then advance to something more complex like Lightroom or heaven forbid PhotoShop CS6.

To many people tell a beginner to start by shooting Manual and RAW. That could be enough to frustrate a newbie to to the point they get frustrated and quit. Start in Program and let them see some beautiful photos. Then progress to A and S and then manual when they are ready.

Post Processing RAW only when they are ready.
 
Top