# Jpeg Image quality



## Raydee (Jun 21, 2008)

What image quality do you guys shoot at? I was told to use Jpeg normal but I think Jpeg High looks a little better most of the time. What do you guys use?


----------



## tirediron (Jun 21, 2008)

Always shoot on the highest quality you can "afford" to based on your available memory.  If you camera has an option to shoot RAW, I would recommend that.  Remember, you can take detail out to make the picture smaller, you can't really put it back in.


----------



## Overread (Jun 21, 2008)

I agree - shoot with the highest quality you can get away with. I would stick to either high quality JPEG or RAW if you camera will suppore RAW (or if you have space RAW+JPEG)
The argument as to which is better between RAW and high quality JPEG is long and full of pluggers for both  so find one that you like to use.


----------



## taracor (Jun 24, 2008)

I disagree.  Jpeg normal (or high if that looks better to you) is suitable for MOST things.  The only time I would shoot RAW is if I am taking 1 meticulously planed out photo in a perfect studio setting that I knew I was going to later modify.  

For everything else I use jpeg.  The quality difference isn't really big enough if you don't plan on making huge enlargements or doing heavy editing.

That also depends on your camera though, I mean if your Jpeg quality is not too great even on high, then by all means, use what looks better to you, but most of the time Jpeg will cut it.

However if you prefer RAW over Jpeg for ANY reason, go for it, it's all a matter of preference.  There is no right setting.

Also, some cameras can shoot straight to TIFF.  That might be an option for you.  (Tiff is lossless)


----------



## Jon, The Elder (Jun 25, 2008)

Why would anyone spend all that time and money on good gear, and then only use part of its capabilities?

I'm always surprised when this subject is brought up.


----------



## reg (Jun 25, 2008)

Jon said:


> Why would anyone spend all that time and money on good gear, and then only use part of its capabilities?



Because it's chic, just like buying a Canon 1Ds mkIII then asking what Av,Tv, etc. is (anyone remember that guy?)


----------



## Moglex (Jun 26, 2008)

Jon said:


> Why would anyone spend all that time and money on good gear, and then only use part of its capabilities?
> 
> I'm always surprised when this subject is brought up.



Well, since the manufacturers put it on there people clearlywant it (?)

Of course it may be that people got into the mindset of having to make a choice when memory was a lot more expensive.

I got a 8GB card for my 350D for £16 that stores virtually 1000 shots RAW but when a 250MB card was the latest mind blowing thing it would only have had the capacity of a 36 exp film at the same quality.


----------



## MeesterMichael (Jul 1, 2008)

I've always shot in RAW.  The thing that I like about it is that you can store all of your images in a lossless format.  I can go back to any picture that I've ever taken and it is in the same quality as the day I shot it.  Just my $.02


----------



## Dave Hoffmann (Jul 1, 2008)

Memory is cheap.  Why limit the quality of your image?   Shoot RAW.  You can always create a small JPG with it, but you can never go the other way.


----------



## nymtber (Jul 2, 2008)

Yep, shoot RAW, get an external hard drive, that way you can take the WHOLE hard drive with you to visit family/friends and show off your pics! 

If I wanted a quick snapshot to put online, then yes id switch to the highest quality JPEG my A200 offers. But even then a RAW takes only a few moments to convert to a jpeg that would look the same or better than the camera's processor is capable of...At least with photoshop CS3....


----------



## D-50 (Jul 2, 2008)

No reason to ever shoot Jpeg unless you have one memory card for a whole weekend of shooting and you need hundreds or photos.  Always shoot in highest quality you can. You can always convert RAW to JPEG or TIFF but not the other way.  The first time you recover a shot due to improper settings you will be sold on the benefit of RAW.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jul 2, 2008)

Jon said:


> Why would anyone spend all that time and money on good gear, and then only use part of its capabilities?
> 
> I'm always surprised when this subject is brought up.



Because a hobbyist who knows how to set up their camera can shoot jpeg and not really miss much of anything.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 3, 2008)

dEARlEADER said:


> Because a hobbyist who knows how to set up their camera can shoot jpeg and not really miss much of anything.



Except of course the ability to edit a photo without causing posterisation due to the low bitrate. I wonder if any D300 owners post this question. After all 14bit NEFs are a huge selling point for higher end DSLRs.


----------



## Mav (Jul 3, 2008)

Ah yes, another JPEG vs RAW debate filled with all of the usual nonsense, especially about JPEGs! 


I've specifically tested JPEG Basic, Normal, and Fine on both my D40 and D80 even looking at stuff at 200% or 400% magnification.  Most of the time even BASIC is just fine, but I stick with Normal really more as a "feel good" thing than an "I actually need it" thing.  Oh and I can push expsoure a stop or two, adjust white balance, edit sky shots and have zero posterization, and overall have no visible loss in quality shooting JPEG.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 3, 2008)

Mav said:


> <snipped>
> .... Oh and I can push expsoure a stop or two, adjust white balance, edit sky shots and have zero posterization, and overall have no visible loss in quality shooting JPEG.


 Wow!


----------



## Jon, The Elder (Jul 3, 2008)

> Because a hobbyist who knows how to set up their camera can shoot jpeg and not really miss much of anything.



dEARlEADER.....you might want to go back and read the OP's beginning.  Doesn't say a thing about RAW vs. Jpeg.  _*It is about .Jpeg quality settings*_


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jul 3, 2008)

Jon said:


> dEARlEADER.....you might want to go back and read the OP's beginning.  Doesn't say a thing about RAW vs. Jpeg.  _*It is about .Jpeg quality settings*_



sorry Jon.... I thought your statement inferred the use of RAW as the only way to shoot with DSLR....


----------



## Jeff Canes (Jul 3, 2008)

IMO if the exposure is correct straight out of the camera JPG is fine most of the time


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jul 3, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Except of course the ability to edit a photo without causing posterisation due to the low bitrate. I wonder if any D300 owners post this question. After all 14bit NEFs are a huge selling point for higher end DSLRs.



funny.. i don't seem to miss all them bits..... and my jpegs don't look like Frakenstien after the small amount of editing I do to them....

strange world....


----------



## Garbz (Jul 4, 2008)

Mav said:


> Ah yes, another JPEG vs RAW debate filled with all of the usual nonsense, especially about JPEGs!



Nonsense is only nonsense if it is not true or related to the topic at hand. For every photo you post not effected by posterisation I'm sure I can find one that is. If it hasn't effected you then good for you and I hope you continue your lucky streak, however this is not fiction, nonesense, or even in some circumstances a case small enough to ignore. 

The fact is any changes involve algorithms that make estimations. In many situations these estimations cause posterisation, in many situations they don't. If you have a higher bitrate to begin with then the estimations are based more on actual values than on estimates and thus lower posterisation effects. 

dEARIEADER posterisation doesn't mean Frankenstein photos until you edit something out of the photography realm and into graphical art, at which point the posterisation itself looks like an artistic effect. Pushing or pulling half a stop here and there is not likely to show anything.

It's about latitude people. If you're happy with your editing and rarely need to break out some massive curve work which would benefit from the extra data then enjoy. Me I prefer having the extra data to work with when I need it. I never keep it. I archive in JPEG in the end anyway, but is the extra bitspace really going to take up that much more space on our cheap 8gb cards?


----------



## Jon, The Elder (Jul 4, 2008)

> It's about latitude people.



Yup.....and the rest of Garbz answer works for me.


----------

