 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / April 2006newbie question
I have searched for jpeg compression programs, even downloaded a couple and tried them out, but can't seem to get them to work for me. I've used Nikon's Nikon View4 software to load image files at different resolutions (same as taken, 1040x728, 640x480, etc... numbers not exact) and that's what I really need, but the software is clunky and slow and doesn't work properly all the time. I've used Nikon's PictureProject software and could not find any option to let me change the resolution at the time of uploading photos from the memory card to the computer. I'd also like to find a simple way to crop digital images, preferably just a click and drag rectangle that allows you to specify the part of the full image that you want to save as the new, cropped image. So, if I load my images as taken, (fine, large jpegs that average about 2mb each) what is your recommendation for software that would quickly, easily, and simply allow me to compress a chosen image to a smaller size (specifically, 640x480 for easy web posting and viewing) and crop anything I don't want in the image? Thank in advance for your suggestions. C.T. http://www.irfanview.com/ > http://www.irfanview.com/ Strongly 2nd that for the tasks that you mentioned... Photoshop Elements > I'd also like to find a simple way to crop digital images, preferably > just a click and drag rectangle that allows you to specify the part of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > size (specifically, 640x480 for easy web posting and viewing) and crop > anything I don't want in the image? If all you want to do is quickly resize an image, Microsoft has a program in their Powertoys set you can install for Windows XP free. Just right click the photo you want to change, select Resize, and the program gives you a number of selections to choose. It keeps your original the same, and creates a copy in the size you want. I use it all the time for eBay listings. >I have searched for jpeg compression programs, even downloaded a couple > and tried them out, but can't seem to get them to work for me. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > C.T. > If all you want to do is quickly resize an image, Microsoft has a program in > their Powertoys set you can install for Windows XP free. Just right click > the photo you want to change, select Resize, and the program gives you a > number of selections to choose. It keeps your original the same, and > creates a copy in the size you want. I use it all the time for eBay > listings. Sheldon; thanks very much for this answer. I've installed the software and it solves the resizing issue for me perfectly. I'm now going to look at some of the cropping suggestions. Thanks everyone for your time and suggestions - I greatly appreciate them! -- C.T. >If all you want to do is quickly resize an image, Microsoft has a program in >their Powertoys set you can install for Windows XP free. Just right click >the photo you want to change, select Resize, and the program gives you a >number of selections to choose. It keeps your original the same, and >creates a copy in the size you want. I use it all the time for eBay >listings. Does it preserve exif info and color space profile info? -- Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) http://EdwardGRuf.com >I have searched for jpeg compression programs, even downloaded a couple > and tried them out, but can't seem to get them to work for me. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > size (specifically, 640x480 for easy web posting and viewing) and crop > anything I don't want in the image? Although I mainly use Nikon Capture 4 for editing & batch processing, the free Picture Project Software will make easy work of batch resizing your import of images to a choice of 7 popular resolutions at 5 compression ratios. Just select the pictures you want and use file > export jpeg/tiff. Picture Project also has a good cropping tool. I would not be without picture project as it is a very good tool for organising & reviewing my collections, although it does not have the range of advanced editing options of Nikon Capture. >I'd also like to find a simple way to crop digital images, preferably >just a click and drag rectangle that allows you to specify the part of >the full image that you want to save as the new, cropped image. I suggest jpegcrop. It is freeware and the cropping is lossless. It can also rotate losslessly, but I use IrfanView for that. Also freeware. See: http://sylvana.net/jpegcrop/ http://irfanview.com/ >So, if I load my images as taken, (fine, large jpegs that average about >2mb each) what is your recommendation for software that would quickly, >easily, and simply allow me to compress a chosen image to a smaller >size (specifically, 640x480 for easy web posting and viewing) and crop >anything I don't want in the image? For resizing I use Easy Thumbnails. Again it is freeware. Find it at: http://www.fookes.com/ezthumbs/index.php?2.8 I use its command line mode. I have my album building program call it. I have an algorithm I derived that reduces the image, with the reduction always by a number that divides into the dimensions evenly. And card readers are cheap, and a convenient way to transfer the images to you PC. Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms). Don Wiss wrote (in article <vgbg429f6dtteks5eakbh7e3pvtullm6vo@4ax.com>): >> I'd also like to find a simple way to crop digital images, preferably >> just a click and drag rectangle that allows you to specify the part of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > http://sylvana.net/jpegcrop/ > http://irfanview.com/ Not to hijack this thread, but why does anyone use jpeg anymore, especially once they are off the memory card? PNG has been out over a decade, not to mention a number of other less web-friendly formats. If you want tiny images for the web, and GIF doesn't cut it, okay, but for serious photography, I have no idea why you would ever work in jpeg if you could avoid it.  SignatureRandy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw > Don Wiss wrote > (in article <vgbg429f6dtteks5eakbh7e3pvtullm6vo@4ax.com>): [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > GIF doesn't cut it, okay, but for serious photography, I have no > idea why you would ever work in jpeg if you could avoid it. Very few cameras store images in PNG, and conversion from jpeg to another format is lossy. One can work in RAW of course, if one's camera stores as RAW, which some do not, but there you can run into storage space limitations. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) J. Clarke wrote (in article <e2bmdv01ai7@news1.newsguy.com>): >> Don Wiss wrote >> (in article <vgbg429f6dtteks5eakbh7e3pvtullm6vo@4ax.com>): [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Very few cameras store images in PNG, and conversion from jpeg to another > format is lossy. I realize that. > One can work in RAW of course, if one's camera stores as RAW, which some do > not, but there you can run into storage space limitations. I meant to say something about RAW, which is all I shoot in, but left it out. I still see references from time to time which make it appear that people with the capability to shoot RAW, wind up converting to jpeg from RAW, which seems counterintuitive, unless all you care about is consuming less disk space, hence my post. SignatureRandy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw > I meant to say something about RAW, which is all I shoot in, but > left it out. I still see references from time to time which > make it appear that people with the capability to shoot RAW, > wind up converting to jpeg from RAW, which seems > counterintuitive, unless all you care about is consuming less > disk space, hence my post. There are other reasons one might choose to shoot and have the camera make the JPEGs and there are reasons one might convert to and save JPEGs. That's not to say that those who work exclusively in RAW-> TIFF, or PS are wrong, nor wrongheaded. Only the blind insistence that there's but one true path to good photography is wrongheaded. But you'll find several adherents hereabouts to any given singular view. -- John McWilliams John McWilliams wrote (in article <7tednQ7yoK9I8NTZnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@comcast.com>): >> I meant to say something about RAW, which is all I shoot in, but >> left it out. I still see references from time to time which [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > photography is wrongheaded. But you'll find several adherents hereabouts > to any given singular view. I wasn't calling for a "one true path" here, I was wondering about those that will spend a LOT of money on a digital SLR and the associated glass, capture a high-quality image, then store it (intentionally) in a known-lossy format. Seems completely counter-productive, religious issues aside. SignatureRandy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw >I wasn't calling for a "one true path" here, I was wondering >about those that will spend a LOT of money on a digital SLR and >the associated glass, capture a high-quality image, then store >it (intentionally) in a known-lossy format. Seems completely >counter-productive, religious issues aside. But some people only take pictures for the web. And some people take a lot of pictures, and don't have the time to process them in Photoshop. So the best path from the camera -> web is as lossless as possible. Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms). Don Wiss wrote (in article <qpti42l7rq820qbtgp8cmilekuv14glpll@4ax.com>): >> I wasn't calling for a "one true path" here, I was wondering >> about those that will spend a LOT of money on a digital SLR and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > But some people only take pictures for the web. That's fine, but keeping an original around in a lossless format, and saving a smaller version for the web makes a lot of sense. > And some people take a lot > of pictures, and don't have the time to process them in Photoshop. With or without photoshop, a lossless format has a lot going for it. With hard drive prices plummeting while capacities continue to increase, it's not like disk space is the issue it once was. > So the > best path from the camera -> web is as lossless as possible. Exactly. SignatureRandy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw >> But some people only take pictures for the web. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >it. With hard drive prices plummeting while capacities continue >to increase, it's not like disk space is the issue it once was. On my last trip I took over 1000 pictures. This includes the ones that got stitched into panoramas. I do not carry a laptop with me. How much space would they take in raw? And how much time would it take to convert the 500 non-panoramas to jpg? And does PTGui take raw? No. So I'd have to convert over 1000 pictures. Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms). According to Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com>: [ ... ] > On my last trip I took over 1000 pictures. This includes the ones that got > stitched into panoramas. I do not carry a laptop with me. How much space > would they take in raw? I don't know. What camera? What size of raw does that camera take? I just got a 4GB CF card for my Nikon D70. It claims something like 712 shots in RAW, with 20 in Fine/Medium JPEG already on the card. This suggests that 1000 shots could be handled by the 4GB plus the two 1G CF cards which I already had -- with *this* camera. Actually, it would probably hold at least 1068 shots with the combination of CF cards which I now have on hand -- and probably a bit more, as the camera tends to be conservative when estimating how many shots it can fit into a given space. As an example, with the Fine/Medium images which are the only thing that I have actually *filled* a 1GB CF card, the initial estimate was 521 shots with an empty CF card, and the actual total was closer to 760 (IIRC). But I suspect that it can get a closer estimate with the RAW images, because there is little (if any) compression, in RAW, and IIRC, one of the things that the firmware upgrade to match the D70s did was to improve the accuracy of estimates of number of RAW images which would fit the remaining space. > And how much time would it take to convert the 500 non-panoramas to jpg? Probably quite a while -- even if you do it in batch mode -- you would want the computer to be on a good UPS to protect against power failures in mid-processing. > And does PTGui take raw? No. So I'd have to convert over 1000 pictures. I have no idea. And *which* raw? On unix, it is fairly easy to do it in batch mode using dcraw and a shell script. I understand that Photoshop has a batch mode built in, if you are on Windows or on a Mac. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- >According to Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com>: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I don't know. What camera? What size of raw does that camera >take? I have a D200. I have no idea the size. >> And how much time would it take to convert the 500 non-panoramas to jpg? > > Probably quite a while -- even if you do it in batch mode -- you >would want the computer to be on a good UPS to protect against power >failures in mid-processing. That is one thing I don't have to worry about here in Brooklyn. We've only had three power failures in the last 50 (or more) years. But if I moved to where the power lines were above ground you can be sure I'd have a UPS. Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms). According to Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com>: > >According to Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com>: [ ... ] > >> On my last trip I took over 1000 pictures. This includes the ones that got > >> stitched into panoramas. I do not carry a laptop with me. How much space [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I have a D200. I have no idea the size. Set the D200 to raw and take a shot. copy it to your computer, and do a listing of the directory to find the size. (On Windows, you'll probably have to adjust the format of the list program to get that kind of detail.) Going into a directory of images taken in raw mode with the D70 last 4th of July, I find the smallest of the raw images is on the order of 4449651 bytes (4.4 MB), and the largest on the order of 6011073 (6.0 MB), so you might need to take a dozen shots or so to get the range. Anyway -- once you have that size, take the largest of them and muliply it by 1000 to see how much space you would need. (After all -- it was *your* question, or was that intended to be a retorical question? [ ... ] > That is one thing I don't have to worry about here in Brooklyn. We've only > had three power failures in the last 50 (or more) years. But if I moved to > where the power lines were above ground you can be sure I'd have a UPS. That helps. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- According to DoN. Nichols <dnichols@d-and-d.com>: > According to Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com>: > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > probably have to adjust the format of the list program to get that kind > of detail.) For that matter -- the D200 should have the same display that the D70 has -- when you change the resolution, it should tell you how many images that it is *sure* that it can fit into the remaining space. Do what with an empty CF card of known capacity, and you now have the basis to determine how many GB of CF you will need to hold your 1000+ images. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- > For that matter -- the D200 should have the same display that >the D70 has -- when you change the resolution, it should tell you how >many images that it is *sure* that it can fit into the remaining space. >Do what with an empty CF card of known capacity, and you now have the >basis to determine how many GB of CF you will need to hold your 1000+ >images. Not quite. The D200 computes the number assuming the images are in uncompressed NEF. If one sets the camera to use compressed NEF, the value shown on the camera will be quite a bit lower than what it can actually hold. See p. 196 of the fine manual. -- Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) http://EdwardGRuf.com According to Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) <egruf_usenet2@cox.net>: > > For that matter -- the D200 should have the same display that > >the D70 has -- when you change the resolution, it should tell you how [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > shown on the camera will be quite a bit lower than what it can actually > hold. See p. 196 of the fine manual. If I *had* the fine manual, I would, but since I don't have a D200, and have not yet tried to download a manual for a camera which I don't (yet) have, I'll have to pass on that. I did not know that there *was* a choice between compressed and uncompressed NEF. In any case -- it will give you a worst-case number of images which you are *sure* to be able to fit on the CF card. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- >Anyway -- once you have that size, take the largest of them and muliply >it by 1000 to see how much space you would need. (After all -- it was >*your* question, or was that intended to be a retorical question? It was intended to be rhetorical. No matter the size I'm not going to start saving my individual pictures in raw. I do not want to have to convert them for the web. I have taken about 11-12,000 pictures since getting my first digital camera. Over 6,000 are on the web. I have never edited a single picture yet. (I only crop losslessly.) I do not know how to use Photoshop. I have no intention of selling my pictures. I couldn't be bothered. Raw just adds aggravation. I might start saving the pictures going into a stitched panorama in raw. For those I now crank up the jpeg to fine. But I'm not sure if the hassle of converting to TIFF is worth it. By the time the picture is shrunk to web size I bet people won't be able to tell the difference. I do not have a color printer. Nor do I plan to buy one. The only pictures I've printed are architectural details of my house for restoration purposes. And for those I e-mail the picture to work and print on a laser printer. Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms). > Set the D200 to raw and take a shot. copy it to your computer, >and do a listing of the directory to find the size. (On Windows, you'll [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> had three power failures in the last 50 (or more) years. But if I moved to >> where the power lines were above ground you can be sure I'd have a UPS. Or even easier, just look at the table provided on p.196 of the Fine Manual. These are for the full uncompressed NEF files which is what the in camera algorithm uses. If one chooses to save to compressed NEF, the files size drops 40-50% and more can be stored, though the count remaining shown in the camera won't reflect this fact. -- Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) http://EdwardGRuf.com According to Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) <egruf_usenet2@cox.net>: > > Set the D200 to raw and take a shot. copy it to your computer, > >and do a listing of the directory to find the size. (On Windows, you'll > >probably have to adjust the format of the list program to get that kind > >of detail.) [ ... ] > Or even easier, just look at the table provided on p.196 of the Fine > Manual. These are for the full uncompressed NEF files which is what the in > camera algorithm uses. If one chooses to save to compressed NEF, the files > size drops 40-50% and more can be stored, though the count remaining shown > in the camera won't reflect this fact. O.K. Something to be fixed when the next firmware upgrade is released, I guess. :-) Of course, the amount of compression varies with the detail in the image. If you've got large areas of blown highlights, you are going to get a lot more compression than if you have close-up, high detail photos of something like herringbone tweed. :-) Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- >>> But some people only take pictures for the web. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >stitched into panoramas. I do not carry a laptop with me. How much space >would they take in raw? I suspect your question is rhetorical, but about 4 cubic inches (4x 2GB CF cards from an 8Mpix sensor). >And how much time would it take to convert the 500 non-panoramas to jpg? >And does PTGui take raw? No. So I'd have to convert over 1000 pictures. I believe there are applications which will batch process but this rather defeats the advantage of RAW, however RAW is another tool and should be use where it is the right tool for the job and not everywhere just because you own it. SignatureIan G8ILZ Don Wiss wrote (in article <oi1j4253hortms3362hd13pgdsavorh5qk@4ax.com>): >>> But some people only take pictures for the web. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > stitched into panoramas. I do not carry a laptop with me. How much space > would they take in raw? Depends on the camera obviously, but CF cards are cheap now. I've yet to run out of space on a trip. I guess my view on it (which doesn't need to be shared by anyone else) is that if a picture is worth taking, it's worth having at the best possible quality. You can always reduce it later if you it needs to be, but you can't get back what you didn't have to begin with. Plus, it's easy to delete those you don't like. It's probably why I never shot anything but slides with my 35mm gear also. > And how much time would it take to convert the 500 non-panoramas to jpg? Why do they need to be converted to jpg? It's the second worse color image format of all time, next to gif. > And does PTGui take raw? No. So I'd have to convert over 1000 pictures. No, but it does take tiff's, which allow you to avoid jpg entirely. SignatureRandy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw >> And does PTGui take raw? No. So I'd have to convert over 1000 pictures. > > No, but it does take tiff's, which allow you to avoid jpg > entirely. Is there any program which does not load jpegs? I've been converting my RAW to DNG & now I can't use some programs with those, at least I know I can get to the jpegs. >Don Wiss wrote >(in article <oi1j4253hortms3362hd13pgdsavorh5qk@4ax.com>): >> And does PTGui take raw? No. So I'd have to convert over 1000 pictures. > >No, but it does take tiff's, which allow you to avoid jpg >entirely. That's not what his point was. He'd still have to convert. and if shooting a D200 that's 1000 X 56MB = 5+GB of file space. I find it extremely hard to find any appreciable difference using the highest quality JPG output of RSE compared to tiff, and lately I've been using AutoStitch for panos which doesn't take tiffs as input. -- Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) http://EdwardGRuf.com >> And how much time would it take to convert the 500 non-panoramas to >> jpg? > > Why do they need to be converted to jpg? Because that's what most other people know and use regularly, if you intend to do anything with your images that involves anyone but you seeing viewing the file, you'll need it to be in a format others are accustomed to. And that's why the world hasn't been rushing to change default formats - we're all waiting for everyone else to do so first. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ Marc Sabatella wrote (in article <5MqdnbYI2NGwEtfZnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com>): >>> And how much time would it take to convert the 500 non-panoramas to >>> jpg? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > accustomed to. And that's why the world hasn't been rushing to change > default formats - we're all waiting for everyone else to do so first. A surprising number of people use PNG over JPG now, and it works in web browsers also. It's been a standard format for over a decade, isn't lossy, and works on the web. The images are larger, but you don't lose quality every time you save the file. SignatureRandy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw >A surprising number of people use PNG over JPG now, and it works >in web browsers also. It's been a standard format for over a >decade, isn't lossy, and works on the web. The images are >larger, but you don't lose quality every time you save the file. So what for the web? One saves their final image as a jpg for the web. Who said anything about multiple saves? Why use png instead of your image editor's native format if that's what you are worried about? -- Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) http://EdwardGRuf.com Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote (in article <4rjl429ro94f5bdkpdah4sl85dgrjsdm5g@4ax.com>): >> A surprising number of people use PNG over JPG now, and it works >> in web browsers also. It's been a standard format for over a >> decade, isn't lossy, and works on the web. The images are >> larger, but you don't lose quality every time you save the file. > > So what for the web? One saves their final image as a jpg for the web. Not necessarily. There is nothing to prevent you from using PNG on the web. > Who said anything about multiple saves? Because people invariably wind up making changes either on their own, or at someone else's request. > Why use png instead of your image editor's native format if > that's what you are worried about? a) it's lossless b) it works on the web, email, etc. without conversion to something else. SignatureRandy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw >Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote >(in article <4rjl429ro94f5bdkpdah4sl85dgrjsdm5g@4ax.com>): >> Who said anything about multiple saves? > >Because people invariably wind up making changes either on their >own, or at someone else's request. The jpg is the final e-mail or web product that's all. >> Why use png instead of your image editor's native format if >> that's what you are worried about? > >a) it's lossless Only on saving, not on editing like PSD, PSP with layers. >b) it works on the web, email, etc. without conversion to >something else. But is larger and one still can't undo editing as one can with layers. -- Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) http://EdwardGRuf.com > I still see references from time to time which > make it appear that people with the capability to shoot RAW, > wind up converting to jpeg from RAW, which seems > counterintuitive, unless all you care about is consuming less > disk space, hence my post. That's what I do. High qual jpeg (I use 11 out of 12 in photoshop) is plenty good for storing an adjusted image to print and still a bit smaller than png or tiff, RAW is for archiving to DVD or external HD but I couldn't possibly store all those on my 80GB laptop drive. The point of RAW is if you need to stretch the exposure & make significant adjustments, once that's done, jpeg is fine for all but the most wildly extravagant shots. If I need to re-do an image I go back to RAW. I don't even bother saving PSDs with adjustment layers, they are huge & messy & if I need to re-visit, I'll probably have better skills in adjusting so who cares what my first take was. Jpegs are for consistency and simplicity also, it allows me to quickly browse my archives and will always be easy & compatible to open for anyone in the future. SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.