# "Image Quality": JPEG normal vs. JPEG fine



## a1157814a

What's the difference? Does fine produce bigger images? Does the image actually have BETTER QUALITY?


----------



## tsaraleksi

It refers to the strength of the compression being applied to the image. When a JPEG is saved, the computer/camera looks for areas of like color and saves them as one unit. When you turn up the compression, it becomes less choosy about what constitutes like colors, which can result in getting weird blocky spots, especially in finely graded areas like the sky. 

So 'fine' has more detail/accuracy than 'normal' though you'd have to test to see if it's a different that is a concern to you. Considering how inexpensive memory cards are these days, why not shoot for higher quality?


----------



## Jurence

JPEG works by looking at the color, and finding all instances of that color in an image, recording their coordinates. By "Fine" it is more distinct on the variations of color, so just off red is not the same as red, therefore higher quality.


----------



## danjchau

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


----------



## dtornabene1

While tsaraleksi answered your question, I have one for you.  Why are you shooting in JPEG?  Always, I mean ALWAYS shoot RAW.  Now if you are using a camera without this ability, ignor my advice.

-Nick


----------



## lvcrtrs

danjchau said:


> If you shoot jpeg, I would reccomend to always shoot with highest quality possible unless you are limited with space or anything along the lines of that. You can always compress the image later.


 
I have my new D90 on Medium Fine becuase I was told that would be ok if I never printed over an 8x10. I can move up to Large Fine. Can you explain what "compress the image" is. Thank you, Sherry


----------



## ANDS!

dtornabene1 said:


> While tsaraleksi answered your question, I have one for you.  Why are you shooting in JPEG?  Always, I mean ALWAYS shoot RAW.  Now if you are using a camera without this ability, ignor my advice.
> 
> -Nick



Even when shooting fast action sports?  Theres a time and place for every image format.  A time and place.



> Can you explain what "compress the image" is.



Essentially you are reducing the file size, by compressing the "RAW" data (which is uncompressed - well technically so, although some cameras do offer RAW compression).


----------



## tsaraleksi

If I don't have to move pictures right away, I tend to shoot raw for sports as well-- heck, in such uncontrolled shooting environments raw is actually more valuable than in say, a studio shoot that you can control. If you have a camera that is severely limited when shooting raw I can understand, though I shot raw sports on the 20D with its 6 frame buffer and was alright. 

For me, jpeg is for when I have to get something done right away, which is, I think, why it's widely used in some professional circles.


----------



## lvcrtrs

Quote:
Can you explain what "compress the image" is.

Essentially you are reducing the file size, by compressing the "RAW" data (which is uncompressed - well technically so, although some cameras do offer RAW compression). 
__________________
So compressing an image is only related to RAW not shooting in jpgs, Right?


----------



## tsaraleksi

No compression does not usually refer to raw shooting, it's for jpeg. The jpeg compression means that the computer finds areas of like color and treats them like one piece of information rather than individual pixels. As you turn up the compression, it considers less and less similar colors to be the same, which reduces the detail/accuracy of the image in favor of smaller file size. This is also why a jpeg image of a blank wall of one color is going to be much smaller in terms of megabites than one of a very detailed scene.


----------



## Overread

agreed JPEG is often used by journalists that have to have the shot taken, processed and on the web/to the printers in very short spaces of time, so they sacrifice the quality and added editing bonuses for speed - its also a good mode for holidays with family where you might get a lot of shots that you don't want to process and just want them for memories.

Also I don't recomend people to start working in RAW - much better that they work in JPEG (or in JPEG + RAW) in the early days till they get their feet with editing since all RAW shots need to be edited. People need to be confident with levels, contrast, brightness, basic understanding of white balance, sharpening, noise removal and a smattering of curves helps as well. Starting off in RAW is jumping in the deep end


----------



## danjchau

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


----------



## majorpayne66

Overread said:


> Also I don't recomend people to start working in RAW - much better that they work in JPEG (or in JPEG + RAW) in the early days till they get their feet with editing since all RAW shots need to be edited. People need to be confident with levels, contrast, brightness, basic understanding of white balance, sharpening, noise removal and a smattering of curves helps as well. Starting off in RAW is jumping in the deep end



Not trying to jack this thread, just thought I would jump in.
I am shooting JPEG fine because I want to learn photography first and have little interest in learning to edit. I am just starting to edit some images with PP and am happy for now.. Sounds like I should move to JPEG+RAW for future editing. Is this right ? Can you elaborate on what JPEG+RAW does?


----------



## tsaraleksi

danjchau said:


> Jpeg can be compressed and lowered in file sizes many ways. The physical size of the image can be reduced, the dpi can be reduced, the quality can be reduced (as stated above), and obviously the format can change the size of the file. If you do a lot of web graphics and design, or uploading, reducing the file sizes of images is very important. When referring to RAW, I'm guessing that you guys mean converting RAW to Jpeg.



Sure, but in your camera, jpeg compression refers to what I'm talking about. You can also change the image size, but that is a different parameter. 

Raw+Jpeg is pretty straightforward: it just gives you both a raw file and a jpeg file for a given picture.


----------



## kundalini

tsaraleksi said:


> No compression does not usually refer to raw shooting....


 Nikon does offer a Compressed NEF file format on the D300 (and a few other models I believe).


----------



## tsaraleksi

kundalini said:


> Nikon does offer a Compressed NEF file format on the D300 (and a few other models I believe).



Interesting-- how does that work? I assume it's not the same as the sRAW stuff Canon has brought out (ie smaller res raw files).


----------



## kundalini

tsaraleksi said:


> Interesting-- how does that work? I assume it's not the same as the sRAW stuff Canon has brought out (ie smaller res raw files).


 
I will quote from Thom Hogans Complete Guide for the D300:


> The D300 supports two types of compressed NEF files. One version is said to be lossless (and labeled as such in the camera), while the other is said by Nikon to be either virtually lossless or visually lossless, meaning that results visually indistinguishable from those that would be produced by the original data can be recovered.
> 
> *Lossless compressed NEF* truly lossless
> *Compressed NEF *visually lossless
> 
> Visually lossless isnt quite the same as lossless. In the truly lossless version the original data is recovered exactly when the data is later uncompressed, so we dont have to worry about or discuss further what happens with the data in the *Lossless compressed NEF* option.
> 
> In the visually lossless version (*Compressed NEF*) you get some of the original data back (in the shadows and some mid-tones), but the highlights are posterized in a way that is consistent with the human visions capabilities. We _do_ need to discuss how this works, as it ca produce visual effects in your images.
> 
> Im not sure Id term the methodology Nikon uses for the visually lossless format as compression, but heres how it works: when photosite data comes off the ADC, it has 12 or 14 bits of value to it. Lets use 12-bits to keep things simple. A 12-bit value from the ADC of 0 would represent no data(black), a value of 4095 would represent saturation(white). If that was the way we stored the data, wed need 12 bits to store each photosites data. In order to reduce storage size, the D300 (and other Nikon DSLR bodies) include a special method of compressing NEF data (*Compressed NEF* set via the D300 SHOOTING menu) which works as follows:
> 
> · Shadow and low mid-range values as passed on as is.
> · High mid-range and highlights values are split into groups (essentially, neighboring values are rounded to a central value; for example values of 1023, 1024 and 1025 might all be grouped together and stored as a single value). The manner in which this is done isnt linear. The last possible group value (almost white) has more adjacent values in its group than the first. This non-linearity is designed to correspond to the way our eye is able to distinguish between bright tones.
> 
> Thus, there are significantly fewer than 4096 values possible in the scheme for a 12-bit data and significantly less than 16384 values for the 14-bit data. The resulting compressed data is further compressed using a somewhat traditional method that looks at adjacent differences and is truly lossless; the final data is also packed across byte boundaries for space efficiency. The result is that the 12 bits of original data stores in about 6 bits (and 14 bits of original data stores in about 7 bits).


 

Interested in how to get the 12 bit of data back?


----------



## McKaso

A few good articles with samples to show the the effects of compression on a jpeg file and how it compares to raw files. 

Steve's Digicams - Tech Corner - October 2004

Jpeg Compression - photo.net

JPEG Vs. RAW: The Advantages and Disadvantages Explained - - PopPhotoJanuary/February 2006

RAW vs JPG


----------



## dtornabene1

Quote: Originally Posted by *dtornabene1* 

 
_While tsaraleksi answered your question, I have one for you. Why are you shooting in JPEG? Always, I mean ALWAYS shoot RAW. Now if you are using a camera without this ability, ignor my advice.

-Nick_




ANDS! said:


> Even when shooting fast action sports? Theres a time and place for every image format. A time and place.
> 
> Get a faster memory card or camera.  Always shoot in RAW.
> 
> Compression should only be a concern when dealing with pp (post production) and not always then.  There are many, albeit higher-end, labs that will take popular RAW formats.
> 
> -Nick


----------



## Overread

majorpayne66 said:


> Not trying to jack this thread, just thought I would jump in.
> I am shooting JPEG fine because I want to learn photography first and have little interest in learning to edit. I am just starting to edit some images with PP and am happy for now.. Sounds like I should move to JPEG+RAW for future editing. Is this right ? Can you elaborate on what JPEG+RAW does?



JPEG+RAW will save you 2 copies of every photo you take = one will be a JPEG verion and the other will be a RAW version. Thus you will be able to work with both - thus meaning that in the future when you can and want to edit in RAW you can come back and re-edit older photos. However the downside is that this does eat up more card space so you can take fewer shots on a set card size. YOu also have to store the photos on your computer as well. 

As for the JPEG vs RAW argument there are times when one wants to have photos that don't need editing to be usable, when they don't have space for enough RAWs on their memory card, when they don't like having to edit every shot or when speed of processing is required.

JPEG allows this to be the case and thus has a purpose as a save formate - for many pros and amteurs the advantages of RAW nearly always win out over JPEG but one has to appraoch the choice with an understanding as to why they have chosen to use a mode rather than just blindly following the doctrine that one is better over the other


----------



## majorpayne66

Thanks as always Overread.  Sooooooooooooo, sounds like I should use it as just another setting. Likley wont use RAW for say a Birthday party, but I should use RAW when I head up to the mountains.


----------



## sabbath999

majorpayne66 said:


> Sounds like I should move to JPEG+RAW for future editing. Is this right ? Can you elaborate on what JPEG+RAW does?


In addition to what everybody else has said, JPEG + RAW gives you a unique look at what your camera's processors are doing to the JPEG files.

I do find it humorous when my photography friends spend hours trying to make their RAW images look as good as the JPEG companion shots... 

Obviously, RAW can save you when you miss (or in some situations where you have multiple white balance issues, like for example underwater photography with flash and an ambient background). 

More often than not when I shoot RAW + JPEG I just use the JPEG because my camera nailed it in the first place... EXCEPT when I use my D40, which annoyingly only uses basic compression on JPEGS when shooting JPEG + RAW and there is a huge difference between Basic and Fine on that camera.


----------



## majorpayne66

Thanks for the input Sabbath, Now that I know when to use RAW and JPEG I think it would be beneficial just to leave it in JPEG+RAW, especially with the cost of 8gb cards dropping in price. I picked one up a couple months ago for $35. That is cheap insurance.
Having options is good!


----------



## itf

i read through this whole thread but still dont get what the difference is between jpeg NORMAL and jpeg FINE.  Everyone is just comparing RAW and Jpeg.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

itf said:


> i read through this whole thread but still dont get what the difference is between jpeg NORMAL and jpeg FINE. Everyone is just comparing RAW and Jpeg.





tsaraleksi said:


> It refers to the strength of the compression being applied to the image. When a JPEG is saved, the computer/camera looks for areas of like color and saves them as one unit. When you turn up the compression, it becomes less choosy about what constitutes like colors, which can result in getting weird blocky spots, especially in finely graded areas like the sky.
> 
> So 'fine' has more detail/accuracy than 'normal' though you'd have to test to see if it's a different that is a concern to you. Considering how inexpensive memory cards are these days, why not shoot for higher quality?


 
:thumbup:


----------



## Derrel

JPEG Fine is typically compressed at a 4:1 ratio, while JPEG Normal is often done at 10:1 compression. With today's very large Large-size captures, 40x60 inch straight out of camera file sizes have become the norm, and so 10:1 compression on huge 12,14,15,18,21,and 24 megapixels files is NOT a big loss of quality.

JPEG-Fine compression can be selected on Small, Medium, and Large sized captures. Same with the Normal compression level--it too can be applied to Small,Medium, and Large sized captures on most cameras.

Fine and Normal are descriptors of compression levels; image sizes are typically described as small,medium,large, although some cameras also have an extra-large (full-sized image) as well as the option called "Super-Fine" compression, which is the absolute minimum amount of compression.


----------



## speechlessprince

hey guys, im just wondering whats the lens of that camera in the picture of TPF Sponsor ... i've been looking for it, it looks great.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

shooting in jpeg is the debil?


----------

