Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
They aren't, actually. 1.6 mb average.
Ken Rockwell is dangerous to photography
- Thread starter Bungle73
- Start date
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Oh, I am surprised.
I tried max quality and size (I think it was TIFF also) on one of my cameras and ended up with something ridiculous like a 60mb file which froze the camera for minutes
In order to get such a small file size using TIFF, they must be lo-resolution images, or they are being saved with jpeg compression. A typical 5MP image is going to be between 6-9MB using LZW compression.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
They're black and white.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Actually I'm wrong. I just checked. They're all 6669kb. The images that I've cropped and altered were 1.6 mb approx., and the altered images seem to have become jpegs.
That's still petty small. I've just tested it in photoshop with some 5MP black and white images. They are between 3.5 and 6MB in size using LZW compression.
That make more sense.
Bungle, I have no idea who Gavin Hoey is and much less what he said "in one of his videos". Stop watching videos and get out with your own camera to get real experience. You need to make lots of mistakes. That is how you learn. There is no short cut.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Bernie Gunther do you prefer RAW or Jpeg?
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Don't care.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Spoilsport !!
RoyReed
Must fly!
I always shoot RAW.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Because it is the maximum you can get out of your camera, or because it gives you the greatest editing possibilities?
ToothlessFerret
Well-Known Member
When I'm shooting digital - almost always RAW so that I can correct my shitty exposure and white balance after.
Ken told me to. He talks to me in my head.
Ken told me to. He talks to me in my head.
RoyReed
Must fly!
Because it gives me most control - even though I usually do the minimum amount of editing.
fractionMan
Custom Title
I'm setting my fuji to shoot BW and colour at the same time. That way if the exposure is crap I can show people the black and white version and call it "arty".
Stop watching? Um, why? Gavin Hoey is a professional photographer of some repute, who has nearly 183,000 subscribers on YouTube, also makes videos for Adorama's YT Channel who are a big camera store in America, and who makes very interesting, informative and inspiring videos.
How did you learn photography? Was it by blundering around in the dark trying to work out everything for yourself, or was it by seeking the advice of people who know what they were talking about? I'm guessing it was the latter. With something as complicated as photography and photo editing why would I want to re-invent to the wheel?
And it was by "watching videos" that I learned the basics, like how to compose a photograph, and how manage exposure.
And I do take lots of photographs. I am usually mucking about with my camera every day, and I have over a thousand images on Flickr. They're not all any good because some were taken before I knew my ISO from my F-Stop.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
I spent an unhealthy amount of time on the www.dpreview.com forums when I started out with digital photography. It was a steep learning curve on things digital but for that dpreview was good. For the more artistic side of it, composition and the like, it was slightly less good.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
I have 5 x 258mb Smartmedia memory cards. (if anyone can remember them), they take about 52 x 2.4mb 6mpx jpeg fine images. Were I to switch to RAW I would get only a few images per card.
paul russell999
Well-Known Member
To get back to the point (?) - Ken Rockwell has great technical knowledge but he has some funny ideas... He has a habit of trying cameras out for usability rather than pixel peeping the files. Which is sort of good, but he takes it to extremes - all that stuff about just shooting 5 megapixel, basic quality jpegs is plain odd. If you happen to take a fantastic picture and need to print it biiiiig - you will regret following his advice. I know he will claim to have printed 3 megapixel images the size of a house but...
editor
hiraethified
Mainly, yes and I managed to do OK, I reckon.
editor
hiraethified
But, to be fair to the fella, I suspect that the sort of people he's targeting with his site are unlikely to ever have the need to print out a billboard sized print.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
I can remember looking at basic jpeg and comparing to fine but not really seeing much difference. In fact I might go back and check the review of my camera to see what they said back then.
I have never printed larger than 10x15 inches. That isn't to say that I never would print larger.
I have never printed larger than 10x15 inches. That isn't to say that I never would print larger.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
There really isn't a noticeable difference IME - oh, you might be able to find some tiny piece of difference in compression artefacts in the deep shadows or something but for all intents and purposes no. Of course this could depend on the camera, because they'll all have different definitions of "standard" and "high" quality %.
The value of using RAW also depends on the camera really. I use RAW with my Lumixes because I don't like what Panasonic does to colours with the in-camera JPEG conversion. I never shoot RAW on the Ricoh GR because the JPEGs are beautiful. I keep hearing people insisting that RAW has more detail in the highlights and shadows but I can only assume they are using some weird cameras that have heavy clipping of top and bottom levels, because on every one I've used it's at worst a different type of noise (and in many cases the noise on the RAW is uglier).
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
In general it astounds me how superstitious photographers can be. I suppose really it's just like anything else, particularly on the internet, but people will cling on to something they heard once and flame you unmercifully for even suggesting it might be untrue or simply irrelevant.
I once had somebody try to convince me that TIFFs were better than PNGs because PNGs were lossier. Right, those two lossless formats, one of them loses more information. Mmm.
I once had somebody try to convince me that TIFFs were better than PNGs because PNGs were lossier. Right, those two lossless formats, one of them loses more information. Mmm.
editor
hiraethified
Yes, but what happens WHEN YOU ZOOM RIGHT IN TO PIXEL LEVEL? That is the important thing. The pixels.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
RAW pixels are obviously better than cooked jaypegged pixels. Because they're RAW. Not just raw, RAW, in capitals, for SRS photographers.
It does. RAW files give the ability to drag much more detail out of the shadows and the highlights in the image than a JPEG file does. When your camera creates a JPEG it throws a ton of information away, that's why RAW files are so big - all that detail captured by the sensor is still there. I know I'm going to get slammed again for mentioning another video, but I'm going to anyway. Just look at what this guy does. He turns an average looking photo into an amazing looking one, and all with the power of a RAW file:
I'll stick with RAW, thanks.
Similar threads
