pixels, pixels, pixels

Kilree

Great. I think that is the answer. In one of my recent folders of 39 .cr2 files and the same number of .jpegs I would have saved over 150 megs by doing doing it this way. I can't see any downside other than the time it takes to process on PC which actually wasn't too long. I did notice that the processed jpegs were a bit smaller in file size 3.20MB as against 3.74MB in one case for the original so I suppose I must be losing something somewhere although I can't see where.

sineadw

The jpeg file format compresses the image, so that accounts for the smaller file size. You don't lose visible picture quality if you keep the compression level low (I always choose 12 - the higher the number the less compression).

Does that way described above open all the raw files at once? If so it'd be very heavy on the pc. I asked the same question last week and someone (can't remember who - sorry!) showed me a great way to batch convert to Jpeg. Go to file>Scripts>Image Processor... The rest is fairly straightforward You can even run an action on them all while you're at it, resize for the web etc.. And it runs pretty quickly.

elven

Eh, are we talking about shooting in raw just in case you screw up the exposure, and if you get home and they turn out ok you just batch process them to jpg?

Otherwise, what on earth is the point in shooting raw and batch processing to jpg? You'd be as well shooting in jpg in the first place!!!

There's a lot of talk about how raw files are better quality - at the end of the day when you flatten it and save it as a jog it's going to be the same quality as what would have come out of your camera. The huge difference is in the amount of manipulation you can apply to a raw file before getting side effects like posterisation and artifacts, like you would if you were working on a jpg that has already had saturation, sharpening and compression applied. So, raw files are better for people who want to do more messing about with stuff in photoshop, basically...

5uspect

elven wrote:

Eh, are we talking about shooting in raw just in case you screw up the exposure, and if you get home and they turn out ok you just batch process them to jpg?

Otherwise, what on earth is the point in shooting raw and batch processing to jpg? You'd be as well shooting in jpg in the first place!!!

There's a lot of talk about how raw files are better quality - at the end of the day when you flatten it and save it as a jog it's going to be the same quality as what would have come out of your camera. The huge difference is in the amount of manipulation you can apply to a raw file before getting side effects like posterisation and artifacts, like you would if you were working on a jpg that has already had saturation, sharpening and compression applied. So, raw files are better for people who want to do more messing about with stuff in photoshop, basically...

Some people like to have both TBH. You can quickly browse through jpegs on a PC, upload them to the web etc but its great to have the RAWs also for future use. I think lots of people would shoot in RAW+Large.

Shooting an Large+RAW is heavy on camera memory so I just suggested a handy way of quickly processing and saving to jpeg (or any file type for that matter) so you only have to shoot in RAW saving some extra space on the camera.

Opening lots of files in the Camera Raw Window isn't too stressful as long as you don't go thru them individually changing bit and pieces. Opening a bunch and selecting all then saving is almost as fast as a script. A script would be more efficient definitely.

Kilree

sineadw wrote:

The jpeg file format compresses the image, so that accounts for the smaller file size. You don't lose visible picture quality if you keep the compression level low (I always choose 12 - the higher the number the less compression).

Does that way described above open all the raw files at once? If so it'd be very heavy on the pc. I asked the same question last week and someone (can't remember who - sorry!) showed me a great way to batch convert to Jpeg. Go to file>Scripts>Image Processor... The rest is fairly straightforward You can even run an action on them all while you're at it, resize for the web etc.. And it runs pretty quickly.

Sinead, I was making the point that the shot in question was taken both in RAW and jpeg on the camera. When I converted the RAW image into jpeg without any manipulation in photoshop the resulting file size was smaller than the original jpeg taken by the camera. I realise that all jpeg files are compressed. On Elven's point I think that shooting in RAW gives far more options for manipulation on the shots which might require it. On the other hand for those shots that don't need manipulation you can batch process whatever you like into jpeg. Also it is a kind of failsafe if you do get things screwed up on exposure or shooting mode (ie landscape, standard etc.) As far as I can see it's the best of both worlds.