Calling all smart people

[alwayslooking]

Greetings to all,

In a recent topic posted called "Lessons from a newbie" a very active member posted this comment about getting advice on this forum:

***************

"Welcome. You will find a lot of dumb people here. You will find a lot of smart people here. You will find a lot of people who know a lot of things. You will find a lot of people who know nothing. But they all sound the same, so be careful."

***************

So, let's find out who knows what.

Fact: The G3 manual states that image quality is improved by INCREASING compression.

Another fact: JPEG compression is known to cause image degradation.

The question: What is happening here? Is Canon condescending to us "prosumers" or what?

I need some smart people to sort this out if possible.

Thanks for your help!

[phili1]

Well you have made a statement, would you be kind enough to tell us where in the book you read this. I do not rememnber that being said but would have to evaluate the contex it was said in first.

They may have meant that to conserve space if your not going to print beyond a certain size that more compression can be better because it does not take up hard drive space.

So you know JPG coompression does not degrade from the original output even if you open it several times. It degrades when you save it after altering it in an editing program, say you adjust it in levels. Now this is up for grabs because I have found that one or two adjustments does not show up even in an 8 x 10 blow up, it shows up for larger prints.

You have to keep in mind that prosumer camera people for the most part do no make many prints larger then 5 x 7 and the Camera Mfg tend to write there books for that segment of the market.


Anyway we cant give you an evaluation of your comment until we read what was said.

If you go to page 58 where Canon expalins the benifits of Raw (revesabile compression) verse Jpg none revesabile.

I shoot JPG fine and convert what I want for blow up to Tiff so I can edit them without degrading. The reason I do is the amount of pictures I can put on a Compact card
123 verse 65. When I get an image tank the I probobly will shoot 100% raw.

Hope that answered your questions.

[alwayslooking]

Hi Phili1, thanks for your fast and comprehensive reply.

My source is the table on resolution and compression on page 55.

In short, I agree with your thoughts and approach.

I started this post because I want to print high quality images (no larger than 8x10) but I don't like all the processing of raw images. I don't have the time, patience and RAM *LOL* to deal with these.

What I am doing is converting to PSD and working from there.

Sound like a good plan???

[phili1]

I use Large super fine and that will produce 13 x 19 awsome prints. I took christmas pics of my grand children and crop them in half and they made super sharp 8 x 10 portraits. You can go to share photo, I posted a test post from pbase and used one of the portraits.

Raw is the pro's choice because they can do post white balance and color adjustments. All you have to do is convert the jpg into a Tiff and adjust away with no loss.

[4walls]

I like to shoot everything in Superfine Large JPG mode as a rule. Every so often though, if the lighting is a bit weird, I will hit the FUNC button on my G3 to save as RAW.

One advantage to RAW that is often overlooked especially with the new version of Photoshop (CS), is upsampling. Users of Photoshop are able to upsample their files in the raw mode (linear) to obtain a better enlargement. You can also download linear converters from the internet to do the same thing, but I prefer to stay in one program.

Linear conversion programs here:
- www.breezesys.com
- http://www.morpheusmultimedia.com/ps/ps2.html

Now you don't have to go making huge prints to get benefits from this, I often will zoom out a little more than usual and then crop on the computer to the desired amount. This adds a lot of flexibility to your photos.

[Brian Tilley]

To get back to the original thrust of this thread, alwayslooking wrote:
"Fact: The G3 manual states that image quality is improved by INCREASING compression. "

I don't see anything on page 55 of the manual, or anywhere else, that states we can get better quality by increasing compression.
It appears to me to state, or at least imply, just the opposite.

As you move from superfine to fine, or fine to normal, you increase compression and (generally) decrease quality.

"Image quality" is of course a subjective concept, but I think most would agree that with increased compression, and smaller file size, comes lower quality.

[Deckyon]

"Welcome. You will find a lot of dumb people here. You will find a lot of smart people here. You will find a lot of people who know a lot of things. You will find a lot of people who know nothing. But they all sound the same, so be careful."

I actually find this an insulting statement. Everyone else should too. I mean, do we know just who he is talking about here?

[phili1]

I think it was ment as a joke.

You forgot this part of his statement.

Fortunately, those of us who know something will usually point out those who know little and you should be safe. Nonetheless, I could be someone who knows nothing, and therefore am leading you astray.

[John_T]

...that's why I have the little diclaimer at the bottom. I would never deliberately lead someone astray, but sometimes find myself walking on thin ice. It's so nice having all the smarties around here who pull me out before I freeze my iggies off.

...and let's not forget that some of our greatest citizens, amazingly enough, once started life as children. Gotta crawl before you can walk, and fall on your nut a few times before you can run...

[Andy_T]

"Welcome. You will find a lot of dumb people here. You will find a lot of smart people here. You will find a lot of people who know a lot of things. You will find a lot of people who know nothing. But they all sound the same, so be careful."

I actually find this an insulting statement. Everyone else should too. I mean, do we know just who he is talking about here?

I don't agree with you.

Only people who think they might be considered dumb, clueless or both by their fellow forum readers have the right to be offended by this statement :)

Regards,
Andy

[pradeep1]

"Welcome. You will find a lot of dumb people here. You will find a lot of smart people here. You will find a lot of people who know a lot of things. You will find a lot of people who know nothing. But they all sound the same, so be careful."

I actually find this an insulting statement. Everyone else should too. I mean, do we know just who he is talking about here?

I was the one who wrote this original line. I certainly did not mean it for you, Brad. It was meant as a joke, with the butt being those one-time posters who spout their flawed wisdom and disappear. I was also trying to encourage newbies to take a person's history on this board into account when they take advice from that person.

But if I have hurt anyone's feelings, here is a small gift to make peace:

http://sprakash.home.att.net/photos/bluepath.jpg

"The Blue Path"
Copyright (c) 2003 Pradeep Satyaprakash

Enjoy,

[Laziferous]

"Welcome. You will find a lot of dumb people here. You will find a lot of smart people here. You will find a lot of people who know a lot of things. You will find a lot of people who know nothing. But they all sound the same, so be careful."

I actually find this an insulting statement. Everyone else should too. I mean, do we know just who he is talking about here?

I think it's funny... because I'm both moderately intelligent, and moderately idiotic :D :shock: :wink: It's all in good fun.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Hmmmm.

I don't have anythimg to add,...

... just had to drop in and reply, as the thread was titled,

Calling all smart people

:wink: :roll:

[pradeep1]

Funny CyberDyne

[Deckyon]

"Welcome. You will find a lot of dumb people here. You will find a lot of smart people here. You will find a lot of people who know a lot of things. You will find a lot of people who know nothing. But they all sound the same, so be careful."

Andythaler
Think about the statement from the viewpoint of someone just comming on to this site. Would you know who to listen to? Would it make this seem to be a viable source of good information? Whether it was meant as a joke or not, this is not the kind of statement which will give people a sense of "these people can help me" but rather a "so who do I listen to?"

pradeep1
I never took this as though you meant it at me personally. I know how you write and knew it was a joke. But, as I said above to Andy, those who do not know you have no idea if you are joking or not. As with ANY internet board/chat room, so much can be misconstrued even if it not meant to do so. Statements like the above really lend themselves to misinterpretation. A qualification immediatly after like "It was meant as a joke, with the butt being those one-time posters who spout their flawed wisdom and disappear. I was also trying to encourage newbies to take a person's history on this board into account when they take advice from that person." would have been better.

To those who think I am taking this out of context, again. Look at the original statement as a brand new user to this site, knowing no one here, and ask yourself, is this a place I want to post? How do I know who to trust to give good information?

[sayers]

What a funny thread, I thought this would be an appropriate place for my first thread. Maybe I'm new and this is my first post and you will probably never hear from me again but maybe I'm actually old and have been reading this site for months and finally just decided to post and instead of contributing something from my vast range of knowledge I'll offer these ramblings... One thing I have noticed is that some people take words typed on forums so serously (not specific to this site)!! But remember this board is not the end all be all of taking pictures (I know I have Photography for Dummies right here beside me!) Either way, just because I read something on here I don't necessarly believe it. If a new or a "top contributor" told me that holding my G3 upside down would make it take better pictures I wouldn't just take it for fact. Just because I hear that the 420 is a great flash doesn't mean I won't read reviews and get advice elsewhere. I imagine most would probably do the same if they don't they probably deserve to get mislead and are bound to take horrible pictures for the rest of their life. How would I know, as a newbie..., that a top contributor is not actualy the top contributor of crap information to this site? Well it's been fun!

and by the way the G3 really does take better pictures if held upside down..........

[phili1]

NO kidding I will have to try it.

[CyberDyneSystems]

How would I know, as a newbie..., that a top contributor is not actualy the top contributor of crap information to this site?

:roll:

er,.. that's ME! My Sig says it all :mrgreen:

[Seveneer]

Andythaler
Think about the statement from the viewpoint of someone just comming on to this site. Would you know who to listen to? Would it make this seem to be a viable source of good information? Whether it was meant as a joke or not, this is not the kind of statement which will give people a sense of "these people can help me" but rather a "so who do I listen to?"


As a newbie here I'd like to say that I read the original comment last night a good 2 hours before joining up and sending my first post. I took it in good faith and it even made me smile as I have learned exactly this through using other forums.

I've been around long enough to draw my own conclusions as to whether or not to take someone's advice.

Oh yeah.... I know nothing about what was printed on page 55 of the G3 manual. :wink:

All the best,
/Phil.

[4walls]

...blah, blah, blah... and by the way the G3 really does take better pictures if held upside down..........

I tried shooting upside down to see how the camera's sensor would handle the orientation. Downloaded the pic to my computer, opened it in Photoshop and VOILA, it was upside-down.

[pradeep1]

How would I know, as a newbie..., that a top contributor is not actualy the top contributor of crap information to this site? Well it's been fun!

and by the way the G3 really does take better pictures if held upside down..........

Usually, people will shoot you down, point out your obvious mistakes, and ridicule you well enough that you will run scared if you are spouting off nonsense in a public forum. Also, all your posts are archived, so people can read what other stuff you have written, and that usually lends some credibility to one's musings.

This whole thread is funny, since almost of all the people who are taking part in this discussion are neither offended nor hurt. We are all just being goofy in welcoming a new member. Hence, my gift offering to Brad.

Take Care,

[sayers]

This board is great! I would like to say thanks to all who contribute, I have gotten lots of valuable information from this site! I bought a G3 about 6 months ago as my first really good camera (as compared to disposables) and I must say that things I have learned from posts here have helped me take some great pictures. My friends and family are not as happy though due to the fact they all now permanently see flash spots from my continuous picture taking!!

[doggizmo]

What a waste of time, go out and take some pictures :lol:

[John_T]

...not such a waste Doggy, a good craftsman knows his tools thoroughly...

[alwayslooking]

As you move from superfine to fine, or fine to normal, you increase compression and (generally) decrease quality.



Hello Brian,

Sorry I took so long to get back to this post. I was away.

I assumed that the word "superfine" meant more compression. I think the terminology is a little confusing but maybe it's just me.

My mistake... but that's what these forums are all about... learning.

Thanks for your help.

Phil

[PacAce]

So you know JPG coompression does not degrade from the original output even if you open it several times. It degrades when you save it after altering it in an editing program, say you adjust it in levels.

I'd just like to make one little clarification here as the statement above is a wee bit misleading. The fact of the matter is that JPG compression DOES degrade the original image. Now it IS true that no further degradation will occur as long as the JPG file is not edited again but the "damage" was already done to a small degree when it was first converted to JPEG. Each successive editing of the file just makes it worse.

[Louie]

Since I got my New camera a used G2, I've been taking a lot of pictures but it all turned out bad. So, I took more pictures hoping to hit the jactpot but, nothing! I almost throw the damm camera to trash when I thought of dropping by again to this forum to learn more, I might be missing something. And Viola upon these treads I know I could still laugh ispite of all those bad pictures. Thanks Guys!!!!

What BAD PICTURES? ? ? PHOTOGRAPHY IS FUN..

[phili1]

My statement was correct. I said it does not degrad from the original output orwhen you open it but when you alter it ,that was the question at hand

You are talking about the difference of saving it in a tiff format verse a jpg when you compress you loose information in a jpg initally. Even though this happens not you not me or anybody can tell that this has happened. If you continue to alter it in an editing program you develop jaggies (artifacts)that are noticable. Now most people do not blow up beyond 5 x 7 so jpg is a good system to store them. I have altered as an experiment a jpg with levels,contrast and cropping to see what would happen and got a super 8x10 with no noticable effects. So its there but its not that noticable. Now I sometimes blow up to 13 x 19 and so when I know I am blowing up a picture I convert to tiff and alter. Now I know I have raw but 65 pictures verse 123 for jpg fine, I shoot jpg, untill I can afford an image tank.

[alwayslooking]

I use Large super fine and that will produce 13 x 19 awsome prints. I took christmas pics of my grand children and crop them in half and they made super sharp 8 x 10 portraits. You can go to share photo, I posted a test post from pbase and used one of the portraits.


Hi phili1,

Sorry to get back so late on this. It is exciting to know that I am not limited to 8x10. Please help... where can I find the "shared photo" you are referring to :?:

Thanks

Phil

[PacAce]

My statement was correct. I said it does not degrad from the original output orwhen you open it but when you alter it ,that was the question at hand


But it DOES. The original image (the image that comes from the CCD in the case of the G3) IS degraded when it gets converted to JPEG in the camera. The fact the one can not notice the degradation does not alter the fact that it is degraded from the original. That is the reason people who don't want event the slightest hint of degradation from the camera shoot RAW. They'll then convert to TIFF so that they can edit the files and save it as many times as they wish without degradation. The image may eventually end up as a JPG file when no further editing is going to be done and is ready for the web or printer.

[phili1]

Boy you are not reading what I said. I agree that in the initial conversion it does degrade. The question at hand was does opening and closing a jpg degrade it and the answer is no it does not but if you alter it does.

I agree that Tiff is better and I agree that is why allot of people shoot Raw because of it but I also know about 5 pros who shoot JPG as well. It depends on what yop want.

BUt none the less I give way to more knowleedgeable people so I went back to an article that Tim Grey of Lepp assoc wrote answering a question about JPG. Now they are world famous nature photographers who are very knwolegable in all aspects of digital photography and here is what he says.

Tim Grey reply.
This is one of those technicality questions where I tend to get a bit pedantic. Technically, whenever you use the standard JPEG format the compression is lossy. Therefore, detail is being lost. However, at a quality level of 12 the loss is so minimal that you would have a very difficult time finding any problems in the image before and after saving. I wouldn't recommend using JPEG, even at the highest quality, for archival quality images or those that will be interpolated up later. However, for transmitting files electronically for printing it actually works quite well.

[PacAce]

Boy you are not reading what I said. I agree that in the initial conversion it does degrade. The question at hand was does opening and closing a jpg degrade it and the answer is no it does not but if you alter it does.

I agree that Tiff is better and I agree that is why allot of people shoot Raw because of it but I also know about 5 pros who shoot JPG as well. It depends on what yop want.

BUt none the less I give way to more knowleedgeable people so I went back to an article that Tim Grey of Lepp assoc wrote answering a question about JPG. Now they are world famous nature photographers who are very knwolegable in all aspects of digital photography and here is what he says.

Tim Grey reply.
This is one of those technicality questions where I tend to get a bit pedantic. Technically, whenever you use the standard JPEG format the compression is lossy. Therefore, detail is being lost. However, at a quality level of 12 the loss is so minimal that you would have a very difficult time finding any problems in the image before and after saving. I wouldn't recommend using JPEG, even at the highest quality, for archival quality images or those that will be interpolated up later. However, for transmitting files electronically for printing it actually works quite well.

Sorry, Phil. I wasn't trying to get into an argument with you. All I was trying to do was clarify the original statement you made for the benefit of anybody else who might read it:

So you know JPG coompression does not degrade from the original output even if you open it several times.

I guess the confusion arose from how the words "original output" was interpretted. I read that to mean the output from the camera's sensor.

Cheers.

:)

[phili1]

No problem, we meant the same thing I will be more specific in the future.

By the way I wiil shoot my important pictures raw. I am in the throws of buying breeze browser as I can not get adobe plug in for 7 anymore and as I understand it breeze browser is better.

[PacAce]

By the way I wiil shoot my important pictures raw. I am in the throws of buying breeze browser as I can not get adobe plug in for 7 anymore and as I understand it breeze browser is better.

A very wise move, Phil. You'll find that shooting RAW and working with the converted TIFF file will give you more latitude for editing the images. It'll involve a little more effort on your part, I must admit, but it'll all be worth it when you see how much better your final images come out.

Good luck.