Converting to JPG

[MT Net]

So I am 3 months into shooting RAW with my new DSLR Canon. I was wondering if there is a proper workflow when converting RAW to JPG. On some photos, especially HDR pics, I am somewhat disapointed in the results. Some photos show color gradiation, you know, what appears to be hard breaklines of colors in deep blue skies.

Yes, I did a search here and didn't find much. Maybe a helpful tutorial by those who are in the know?

[Steve Foss]

MT, I never convert RAW directly to JPEG. When I open a raw file I quickly first save it as a TIFF and work on it as a TIFF in photoshop. I only need to convert to JPEG for a few specific clients or to post onine, and I've done some HDR work with that workflow and had none of the problems you describe.

And I never work on a JPEG image when post processing. It's all TIFFs for me. When I have to convert to JPEG, it's the last step I take in the workflow.

What I have seen happen is that if saving for Web or using save as and selecting JPEG, choosing too low a quality level can force enough compression to erode subtle color gradations, making them look blotchy and producing harsh color transitions. I never save for Web at less than a 90 percent quality level, and when using save as in order to convert a high res file to JPEG form for electronic shipping to a client, I always leave the compression setting at its lowest compression (which is the highest number, 12, on the scale).

This workflow has produced excellent results. Others certainly will have other workflow habits that do quite well for them.

We can help you more directly if you tell us your camera, your software and describe your workflow.

[mmeyer]

MT, that's a good question with lots of possible answers. When shooting in raw, I'll make adjustments in Camera Raw then open it in CS3. After I'm done doing my work I save as a tiff. After I save as a tiff I close the raw (dng) file without saving. Then I'll make a jpeg file before I close the tiff.

I might be doing things all wrong but that's how I've been doing it so far.

I hope this isn't hijacking your thread but I have a question in this area as well. I had been shooting raw always until I got my new camera and I started shooting jpegs. I don't know why but I did. Well, I've been much happier with the results from my jpegs and I haven't had to do as much pp to them. What am I losing with jpegs and and what point will I notice the difference? I always save in the lowest compression settings and I always keep the original without any mods.

[Steve Foss]

 Originally Posted By: mmeyer

Well, I've been much happier with the results from my jpegs and I haven't had to do as much pp to them. What am I losing with jpegs and and what point will I notice the difference? I always save in the lowest compression settings and I always keep the original without any mods.

You're probably happier with the jpegs because in-camera settings allow you to bump jpeg contrast, saturation and sharpening at capture, and your camera may already be set to increase those elements slightly (check the owner's manual on that.)

With raw images those settings don't effect the image because raw (nef) for Nikonians, are just that, raw data.

So if the in-camera jpeg settings are boosted a bit and you typically add saturation, contrast and sharpening in pp, which most do, the camera is saving you steps in pp.

However, if you are shooting in a high-contrast situation to begin with, in-camera added contrast will more easily blow out highlights and darken shadows, making it impossible in pp to bring some of those details back. And oversaturation or sharpening at capture can degrade an image, too.

When using jpegs, which I sometimes do at capture, I make sure my in-camera settings are at their lowest. I want total control of the image and don't feel comfortable allowing the camera to do my thinking for me. Often enough, my thinking is different than the camera's.

As for the inherent quality difference between jpeg and raw, jpeg format is a smaller file because, even at the lowest compression setting, jpegs will collapse adjacent pixels of similar color/texture into a single pixel, which makes the file smaller, and then upon opening will replace the pixels but with the same color. That can sometimes eliminate fine detail, texture or color subtlety, which generally is only evident when you try big enlargements. And of course if you repeatedly save a jpeg as a jpeg, even with low compression, there is some compression, so the jpeg keeps working to compress itself further. It takes a lot of resaving, but that can eventually degrade IQ even more.

And raw allows a much better expression of color and detail because there is not that type of compression and because of the vast improvement in color depth/variety available in a raw vs a jpeg image. Jpeg is captured in 8-bit color, while raw/nef is from 12 bit on up. Again, this is most evident with big enlargements. At one point I printed two 20x30 prints of the same image, one an 8-bit jpeg and one a tiff from a 12-bit raw image, and the raw was significantly more detailed and subtle than the jpeg.

There are many applications for which jpeg will save workflow time and be completely adequate, such as most newpaper and magazine printing, online posting and transmission. But when ultimate quality is the goal, immediately saving the raw or nef file as a tiff upon opening will ensure that every iota of detail you captured in your image will stay there and not be sacrificed to the computer gods of speed/expediency. And except in certain circumstances when I know I'm not going to want to preserve the capability of making a really large fine art print someday, I'd rather keep that capability by capturing in raw and later converting to jpeg at the end of my workflow when needed.

Sorry that took so long, but it's not a simple answer.

[mmeyer]

Thanks for explaining that Steve. I think I'll go back to raw and work on my pp to achieve the results that I've been happy with in jpegs.

One more quick one, when you send out a file to be printed do you send a tiff or jpeg?

[Steve Foss]

Depends on the lab. I transmit most of my work as lowest-compression jpegs because that's how my lab wants them. For truly big enlargements I use a different lab and send them a tiff on CD or electronically to their FTP site.

[mmeyer]

Thanks Steve.

MT, Sorry for jumping on your thread.

[MT Net]

No apologies needed. This is quite enlightening to learn more about RAW vs JPG.

One of the reasons I purchesed my DSLR was due to frustrations with what I couldn't achieve with my point and shoot camera. And it is much easier for HDR work with RAW.

My camera is the Canon Rebel XTI (400D) I have the 17-85mm IS lens and a pretty cool plasticy 50mm f1.8.

I use Canon's Digital Photo Professional for RAW manipulations. My Photoshop version is Elements 5.0, and Photomatix for HDR work.

I do have the trial verison of Lightroom, the jury is out on that. I need to save up for the 10-22mm wide angle and the 70-300mm IS.

OK, So after I download my pics. I open an image, saveas a new file name. Then I mess with this new RAW file to make the settings I desire. Convert to JPG. If necessary, I open up this new JPG file in Elements 5.0, do some more messing around and save once again. Then I upload to flickr, then upload to my daily photoblog.

So, it would appear that my weakest link here is the conversion to JPG? When uploading to flickr, or other such accounts, am I able to upload tiff files, or am I stuck with JPGs?

Thanks, this has been a great help.

[mmeyer]

I would save the raw file as a tiff and work on that. Then when you're finished processing, save a new file as a jpeg. This way you'll have 3 files of the same image. I save them as the same name so I always know where it came from.

You can only upload jpegs to flickr.

Hope this helps.

Care to share your photoblog site?

[Steve Foss]

MT, as MM and I have said, good to convert immediately to tiff and work off that file.

And you haven't talked about how you save to jpeg. I know my response was long, but in there I talked about making sure you are saving your jpeg at the highest quality setting. If using the "save for Web" feature in PS, go to 90 percent or better (I use 90-100 percent). If using "save as" and selecting jpeg, choose the lowest compression setting when it prompts you to pick one (12 is generally the lowest setting).

Also, size your horizontal images in PS to 700 or 800 pixels across and your vertical images to 400 or 500 pixels across before saving them as jpegs and uploading them to a photo hosting site. By sizing them yourself before uploading you eliminate any potential image quality issues, because if they are too big some hosting sites knock the size down on their own.

Try that and see if it helps.

IMO, you're better off saving up for the glass than dropping money on Lightroom. With DPP as a raw converter and PS Elements 5 to do your post processing, you've got plenty of what you need to produce wonderful images.

Your 50mm f1.8 is called the "nifty fifty," and for good reason. Cheap as dirt and tremendously sharp (not to mention a nice wide max aperture), it's about the best $85 a person can spend on a lens.

[MT Net]

Thanks, Mike and Steve. Remember I am still a novice by all this photography business, especially in DSLR and RAW foemat. my address is northmetro(dot)blogspot(dot)c o m Until recently, most photos were taken with my older Canon S2, the S5, or my wife's A710.

Funny thing is, Steve, I have no idea what the actual setting values are. Canon Digital Photo Proessional has a menu pulldown to "Convert and Save".

The following comes up:

Save as type:

Exif-JPEG

Exif-TIFF 8bit

TIFF 16bit

Exif-TIFF 8bit and Exif-JPEG

TIFF 16bit and Exif-JPEG

Image Quality is a slider from 1 to 10 ( I'm assuming 10 is the highest quality for Canon)

and output resolution at 350 dpi

I can also Resize the setting pixels.

That typed, and without much knowledge in what all this means, I usually leave it on 10, the highest setting, and at Exif-JPEG.

This conversion happens after I manipulate the settings in RAW.

Great, thanks a lot, I really appriciate this help.

[mmeyer]

Great site MT. The photos are very good. It looks like you know what you're doing.

[Steve Foss]

MT, choose exif-TIFF 8 bit, and then save it as a TIFF file before working on it. If you select the TIFF conversion option, you probably won't get the quality slider because there's no compression with a TIFF file. If you do still get the quality slider, choose the highest quality.

Once it's saved as a TIFF, close it in DPP and open it in Elements to do your post processing. Then you will be working on a nice sized file that can be printed in a wide variety of sizes. When completely finished with what you want to do, size the image as mentioned, use save as to convert to jpeg or save for web (if that version of Elements has the save for Web feature), and then look back at my previous post and select the quality settings mentioned.

Give that one a try and see where it gets you.

Because some commands in PS Elements 5 will be different than in PS CS2 (I use CS2), I can't lead you through my workflow process command by command (sorry about that), but the workflow I mentioned is pretty standard, and I know some folks here use Elements so maybe they'll step up with a step by step.

[Dbl]

Let me add a bit of information and some food for thought. I will start by saying RAW is no doubt a format that will allow for a wider latitude in exposure and color gamut. On the other hand I shoot on the average of 75,000 ot 100,000 JPEG's per year. A properly exposed JPEG will give you results that will be very difficult to pick from a file that is shot in RAW. Now an image that is off in exposure or white balance will very likely give you better results in RAW. You have a wider color gamut and higher bit file so naturally more data to work with. If you are happy with that read no further.

One of my main problems with this whole "which to shoot" debate is that I hear time and time again about shoot in RAW because you can correct for your under-overexposure, in-correct white balance, etc. We have entered the age of the lazy photographer. Shoot as close as you can and fix it in PP. I grew up shooting slide film which provided very little room for error. This forced me to get my results correct or I would loose a number of photos on a roll. I have carried that over to my digital shooting and I would care to bet that even a die hard pixel peeper will have a difficult choice picking two average sized prints side by side one JPEG and the other RAW. As Steve mentioned you might see a difference at a very large print size but how many are doing enlargements of that scale?

There is another important fact to consider here. I am going to quote from a site devoted to the compatibility of RAW in the future and the ability to archive those files. It is a site called openraw.org. This is direct from their web site.

 Quote:

In the short history of digital photography, manufacturers have released numerous cameras with constantly evolving RAW formats. This has lead to the existence of a vast number of RAW "dialects," even within each major brand, that store image and camera setting data in a different manner.

In some cases manufacturers have even encrypted the data within newer RAW files. Intentionally or not this encryption has placed full access to the images stored in these files out of reach of the photographers that took them. Unless, of course, they limit themselves to tools sold by the camera manufacturer.

To date, this vast number of RAW formats has been hidden by the transparent support offered in RAW converter software, provided by both the camera manufacturer and various third parties. At the time of writing, the open source dcraw converter currently supports more than 200 formats. However, as manufacturers lose interest in their discontinued products, and drop support for them, the true impact of all of these "dialects" will be felt.

Photographers will find their older images inaccessible, as future software versions lose support for older cameras. In the worst cases, entire brands may disappear, as has already happened with Contax.

Closed, proprietary, RAW file formats present many immediate and future challenges for photographers and anyone who uses digital images. These problems include:

Limiting processing choices and creative freedom.

Access to the raw image data provides more control over the process of creating a final image. Public documentation of RAW file formats makes it easier for alternative processing software to be developed. This will give photographers more options to realize their creative vision

Reducing choices for software that matches work flow needs.

Most image processing software is tailored to one type of work flow, but the needs of photographers vary widely. News photographers may need to batch process a large number of images in a short time while fine art photographers may spend hours with each photo fine tuning incredible details. Only open RAW file formats allow 3rd party developers to create the wide variety of image processing software necessary to allow all photographers to work effectively.

Increased probability that as time passes a RAW file will be unreadable or cannot be used to reproduce the photographer's original interpretation.

Many photographers already have extensive archives of RAW files but are just now realizing the risk of using RAW formats as their primary archival storage. No one can predict how long a particular RAW file will be supported by a camera manufacturer (not even the company itself). If the format of a RAW file is not documented publicly, how can the owner of the file be assured of its long term value and usability? Open documentation of RAW file formats does not guarantee that software will be available to process the RAW files of the past, but it makes it more likely. Open documentation will encourage the creation of backward-compatible software even after official support is dropped or the camera manufacturer ceases business.

Increased costs and slowed development of image processing software.

With over 200 RAW format types, reverse-engineering every type has become a daunting task. Developers of cataloging, archiving and processing software are required to spend valuable resources decoding and interpreting the proprietary formats. Additionally, most image file formats allow for extra data that can be used to organize and describe images. This data is critical for efficient work flow in many sectors of the photography business. Due to lack of documentation, however, many developers restrict the addition of extra data by their software because of the real risk of making the file unreadable.

This is important information to consider. For those that advocate storing in RAW you would be safer to store in PSD or TIFF like Steve recommends (at twice the file size) or store your original JPEG to insure you will have access to your photos in the future. If you store in JPEG it is important to only work with a copy of the original file, never on the original itself. Just opening and closing a JPEG will not harm the file. If you open make a change to the file, cropping, sharpening, etc. and then save degradation will begin. It has been shown it will take well over 100 saves before significant degradation will occur. All that aside if you only work on the copy of the original you will have no problems.

I print on the average 2 or 3 files per week at 20" x 30" all of which are shot in large JPEG and saved at quality 10 not 12. Many of these files are in the range of 2 - 5 megs. Two of the labs I use REQUIRE JPEG's to be saved at level 10. I will quote from my photo hosting service Smugmug;

 Quote:

The result of years of debate and contests in forums is:

No one has been able to tell the difference between images stored at Photo shop JPEG 12 and JPEG 10 settings, but JPEG 10 images are less than a third the size.

We tell our customers to save at JPEG 10 for psychological comfort, but for our own photographs, critical prints of million-dollar cars shot at Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance that hang in expensive mansions, we're perfectly comfortable with JPEG 8.

In 1,000,000 photographs shipped, only a handful of people noticed a JPEG artifact. We've seen many prints returned, almost always for color, contrast, exposure, or lack of unsharp mask — hardly ever for compression.

There are three compression scales that matter:

1. Photoshop Save As... Good for saving files for print. Bad for saving for display. Scale: 1-12. In general, we recommend JPG 10, which is lab quality.

2. Photoshop Save for Web... Good for saving for display. Bad for saving for print. Scale: 1-100.

3. IJG (Independent JPEG Group, RIP, which developed free JPEG utilities). Programmers like IJG and use it in photo sharing sites and Internet browser software. Scale: 1-100.

The bigger the number the higher the perceived quality. Mostly.

It's like calories in food. More calories = better taste. Mostly. Not always.

How could a bigger number mean lower quality? If the image had already been saved at a lower quality (say, JPEG 8) then saving it at higher (say, JPEG 10) will make it both bigger and lower quality. This would happen if your camera was set for the medium compression setting, for example, when the photo was shot.

All this information is meant to provoke thought. Don't fall into the trap of RAW is the only correct format and anything else won't provide acceptable results! Give some thought as to how you will use your photos and rest assured that if you shoot JPEG with proper exposure you can produce results that are virtually indistinguishable to RAW. There is a boat load of information on this topic on the web and in print. Spend some time to inform yourself of the strengths and weaknesses of each for your situation and then go out and shoot and do what ever makes you happy.

[mmeyer]

 Originally Posted By: Dbl

All this information is meant to provoke thought.

Wow, that is some great insight. Thanks for adding that Dan. It's a little deep for 6:30 in the morning but I may have to consider it some more. It's so hard to know as a person starting out. You hear so many strong opinions one way or another. It's not often you hear actual facts.

Thanks again Dan.

[Steve Foss]

Great reading, Dan! Excellent info and a fun discussion to have. It's always good to reconsider and ponder and weigh the options. With digital photography still a relatively new (and fast-developing) technology and market, keeping up on all of it can be a blindingly difficult experience.

And I'm in full agreement that raw is no cure-all (especially with underexposed images) and may, in the end, be problematic as camera manufacturers may abandon their formats down the road. Adobe has already addressed this to some degree with their dng format, which is their own raw equivalent, and offers a free downloadable raw to dng converter, but nobody really knows where this thing is going. I fully support an open raw format, and I know Adobe has pushed for cameras to add an Adobe dng or raw option at capture.

While I switch back and forth from raw to jpeg at will depending on the situation, here are two factors that keep me shooting raw for my nature work.

1. My aforementioned comparison of raw and jpeg 20x30 fine art prints. I did notice a difference when comparing my own work side by side, and that continues to sway me in the direction of that format. I have to add that I was satisfied with the quality of the jpeg version in the comparison, too. But when the time comes a client wants to pay me big money for a truly large print (say, 4 feet by 6 feet) made from my 6 and 8 Mp images, based on the comparison I'm confident the raw image will "fall apart" slower than the jpeg. And I also should add that I've printed a 20x30 wolf image that was captured jpeg on a 6.3 Mp sensor. And it was shot at iso800. It makes a beautiful sharp print.

2. Raw does allow more manipulation of the image than jpeg because of all the adjustments available before the image is actually opened, and I especially like the ability to recover highlights that are slightly blown. This capability has allowed me to slightly overexpose some images on purpose, knowing I could get those lightly blown highlights back and also knowing that, in slightly overexposing, I was able to get as much detail and as little noise as possible in the shadows.

As Dan suggested, it's a choice each photographer makes, and it should be made based on available information, the situation one is in and on personal preference.

In the end, I'm pretty darn happy both formats are available, because I see them as tools, and sometimes one tool fits the job better than the other. Just depends on what the job is. And I've never understood the passions drawn out by the frequent argument about which is better (gladly non of that here). I mean, a person might as well start a shouting match over which saw is "better," a circular saw or a jigsaw. Each has its uses.

And it should be noted that, while the raw question is one that serious amateurs and pros may ponder, for the casual photographer who's just out there to have fun and take digital pics of family, friends, nature, fish in the boat, etc., this discussion is pretty advanced and may be interesting but not of real value.

Enjoy, everyone!

[finnbay]

Very good points on both sides of the aisle. Nothing I can add except that the situation many times dictates the format. I have done work for some clients who require shooting in jpeg and insist on receiving the images unedited. I tend to shoot in RAW most of the time because I have gotten used to using it, but it does increase the workflow time if you have a lot of shots.

[Steve Foss]

MT, there's some really nice work on your blog.

I played around with DPP this morning, and I think the problem you mentioned to start this thread may simply be that you're saving your final jpeg for online posting at too low a quality.

If your Elements 5 has a "save for Web" option under the "file" pulldown, try using that and saving the image as a jpeg of 90 percent or better. If it doesn't, just use the "save as" and select the highest IQ jpeg setting.

Either of those should eliminate the harsh color divisions you've been seeing.

Another possibility is if you are saturating your images pretty heavily (I have no idea if you are or not). If so, it's easier for those color gradations to jump out at you on the monitor. A heavily saturated image saved as a lower quality jpeg will really emphasize those borders in color changes.

So, in DPP if you convert the image to an 8-bit TIFF, then work on it in Elements as a TIFF and switch to JPEG at the end, that oughta be a solid workflow. You can also upgrade to the latest version of Elements and bypass DPP altogether. I think the latest version is Elements 7? It will be able to open your 400D raw images, allowing you to eliminate the added step of using DPP. Photoshop's camera raw converter is excellent, and I know buying an Elements upgrade is pretty darn cheap.

Please let us know how that goes, and we'll help some more if it doesn't take care of business for you.

[MT Net]

Thanks again and for the comps. All this time I've switch wo JPEG early in the first 1/3 of my workflow. And you are probably right aboiut over saturating, except I never went beyong 15%. I'll tone down that a bit too.

I already have begun to mess around and change up my workflow as you have suggested, and I must say the results are much improved. I have a couple added steps, Converting RAW to TIFF, correct, then save to JPEG.

As I have said, I am a hbbyist. Before I bought Elements 5.0, I was using Picasa's freeware. Elements was a great improvement. However I may have to purchase 7.0.

Thanks again, this has been quite informative. Thank you Dbl for that piece of information that I had never heard before.

[Steve Foss]

Looks like you're on track, MT. If you're keeping saturation at or below 15 percent you are probably fine and don't need to knock that down any further.

I don't know pricing exactly, but Elements isn't too expensive, and I know upgrades are much cheaper.

Keep having fun, man!

[Dbl]

I think this has been an excellent discussion and as Steve said sometimes these fall into a my way or the highway type shouting matches. Steve your follow up to my post is excellent advice and it for the most part is how my work flow goes. I couldn't agree more and I am glad that both formats are out there as well because I think each has its strength's.

I just want people to understand it is OK to shoot JPEG, for most of my work I could not be happier with the results. I am confronted with less than ideal shooting conditions the vast majority of the time, such as shooting softball in the rain last night, back lighted subjects, etc.

Just don't feel you have to shoot one way or the other because that is what everyone says you should do. When I shoot nature I often shoot RAW + JPEG but often just use the JPEG file, but I do like having the RAW. For now I keep that format for storage along with the original JPEG.

Steve is right this discussion may be of no benefit to the average person but I think for those that are looking for a balance or guidance in their own work flow it can be useful to have some points to ponder.

The bottom line is go out shoot photos and refine your own work flow and enjoy what this is really all about...taking pictures!

[Steve Foss]

Dan, that's great advice. I'd forgotten to mention the raw+jpeg solution. Sometimes it takes a village to give advice.

I've also been shooting raw+large jpeg in some situations, and have been doing that more and more. It does fill the camera buffer faster, but now that prices for memory cards seem to be hitting rock bottom, filling cards too quickly isn't as much of an issue.

Then I process whichever file I need. In most cases that's the jpeg because I don't need the advantages of raw for huge enlargements so far. But if I have challenges with the image that make it better for me to pre-process with the power and flexibility of the raw converter, I can do that.

Best of both worlds, you see.