Lossless Conversion

[Markulous]

Of course RAW exists as an image format, complete with specification! Just that it tends to be unique to each camera and the full spec usually isn't publicly available!

Originally Posted by OldBoy

Firstly to degrade a Jpeg you would have to save it thousands of time before you notices the image been degraded.

So why have I noticed it after only a few saves (I was editing/saving an existing file - I've never shot a JPG on a camera that supports RAW)? JPGs *will* lose info on each save!

The argument over whether to shoot RAW or JPG and edit lossless or lossy will go on forever but lossy will lose info and lossless won't! Message ends!

[beatnik69]

I think what Dukatum means is that raw is not an acronym so doesn't need capitalisation ie it should really be written as raw not RAW.

[Dukatum]

Originally Posted by Ashleyj

Maybe so but everyone and their mother refers to it as RAW so will you please get off your hobby horse.
---------
Ashley
"Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway."

Oh dear me, seems kind of two-faced to have a signature like this, yet making a post like that. Some people!
Not only did you come over as a jack-****, but you added nothing to the OP.

beatnik69 is spot on.

Markulous : Just out of interest, are you ensuring that you are saving the JPGs at maximum possibly quality? Most applications save them at 80-90% of quality by default.

[Markulous]

Originally Posted by beatnik69

I think what Dukatum means is that raw is not an acronym so doesn't need capitalisation ie it should really be written as raw not RAW.

{shrugs} As the acronyms are in caps, I've always used caps for RAW. Probably to differentiate from something in it's raw state (as a faintly irrelevant issue I always use RAW when discussing BARF diets for dogs for the same reason!)

Originally Posted by Dukatum

Markulous : Just out of interest, are you ensuring that you are saving the JPGs at maximum possibly quality? Most applications save them at 80-90% of quality by default.

You can change the %age quality?........

I jest! 100%, of course!

[OldBoy]

Originally Posted by Markulous

So why have I noticed it after only a few saves (I was editing/saving an existing file - I've never shot a JPG on a camera that supports RAW)? JPGs *will* lose info on each save!

The argument over whether to shoot RAW or JPG and edit lossless or lossy will go on forever but lossy will lose info and lossless won't! Message ends!

I shoot Raw plus fine Jpeg and use the Jpeg file most of the time. Althought you can't control what pixels are thrown away when saving a Jpeg, I still think you would be hard pushed to see any difference after a hundred saves. Stating the obvious doesn't negate the argument. of which format should be used. The person asking the original question has been told the Jpegs lose detail, whilst this is true upto a point, from reading between the lines I don't think this user needs to use anything except Jpegs. It might be that her PC and or software isn't up to handling large file sizes so, Jpegs would be just fine. Others reading the answers might also think they need to save their files as anything except Jpegs when it might not apply to them. In the commerical world Jpegs rule hence, why photos are summitted to image libraries as Jpegs.

[2Beers]

Surely the benefit of shooting in RAW format is that it has more detail available to enable editing your images and enable you to recover more detail E.G from a blown sky etc.
Whereas a JPEG is a compressed image which by its definition loses information which can never be recovered no matter how hard you try.

[greenwing]

Originally Posted by 2Beers

Surely the benefit of shooting in RAW format is that it has more detail available to enable editing your images and enable you to recover more detail E.G from a blown sky etc.
Whereas a JPEG is a compressed image which by its definition loses information which can never be recovered no matter how hard you try.

I think that there are two things going on. Raw gives you the ability to adjust stuff like white balance, sharpening etc after the shot, anything else bakes these things into the image, which can make it difficult to adjust them later. JPEG then compounds the problem by losing some of the data (in the reduction from 12 or more bits per colour to 8 bits) and then doing a lossy compression of the data.

Chris