Vagueness and the Aftermath - A sporadic diary

[Woodsey]

im nots sure how to explain it exactly but when you edit the raw file initially, you are making adjustments without any loss as the RAW file is the exact image from the sensor, put it another way, RAW is like film that has been exposed but not developed and jpeg is film that has been developed already.
So when we adjust exposure, white balance, contrast, vibrance etc etc on a raw image we are actually changing the original image, once the image is a jpeg your are making and then saving the adjustments you make incurring losses to the original image.
I suppose you are right in the sense that there is not much difference but i think once you start shooting raw the process of making adjustments seems to become easier.
I have been editing images at work this week and there was a noticeable difference as one shoot we did we forgot to set the camera to raw and only had jpegs to work with and there was a noticeable difference to me.

Thank you.

I understand the principle, it's just that I have never been able to see any difference.

Once a jpg is saved, opening and closing the file doesn't incur further losses does it?

No

[EvilPie]

im nots sure how to explain it exactly but when you edit the raw file initially, you are making adjustments without any loss as the RAW file is the exact image from the sensor, put it another way, RAW is like film that has been exposed but not developed and jpeg is film that has been developed already.
So when we adjust exposure, white balance, contrast, vibrance etc etc on a raw image we are actually changing the original image, once the image is a jpeg your are making and then saving the adjustments you make incurring losses to the original image.
I suppose you are right in the sense that there is not much difference but i think once you start shooting raw the process of making adjustments seems to become easier.
I have been editing images at work this week and there was a noticeable difference as one shoot we did we forgot to set the camera to raw and only had jpegs to work with and there was a noticeable difference to me.

Thank you.

I understand the principle, it's just that I have never been able to see any difference.

Once a jpg is saved, opening and closing the file doesn't incur further losses does it?

Definitely not. Moving it to a new folder on your hard drive won't either.

Copying it to a differently folder is where there is the apparent loss.

Whether you'd ever notice that though is highly doubtful.

[RED-DOG]

im nots sure how to explain it exactly but when you edit the raw file initially, you are making adjustments without any loss as the RAW file is the exact image from the sensor, put it another way, RAW is like film that has been exposed but not developed and jpeg is film that has been developed already.
So when we adjust exposure, white balance, contrast, vibrance etc etc on a raw image we are actually changing the original image, once the image is a jpeg your are making and then saving the adjustments you make incurring losses to the original image.
I suppose you are right in the sense that there is not much difference but i think once you start shooting raw the process of making adjustments seems to become easier.
I have been editing images at work this week and there was a noticeable difference as one shoot we did we forgot to set the camera to raw and only had jpegs to work with and there was a noticeable difference to me.

Thank you.

I understand the principle, it's just that I have never been able to see any difference.

Once a jpg is saved, opening and closing the file doesn't incur further losses does it?

Definitely not. Moving it to a new folder on your hard drive won't either.

Copying it to a differently folder is where there is the apparent loss.

Whether you'd ever notice that though is highly doubtful.

Hang on Matt, this is where confusion sets in. What's the difference between a new folder and a different folder?

[EvilPie]

im nots sure how to explain it exactly but when you edit the raw file initially, you are making adjustments without any loss as the RAW file is the exact image from the sensor, put it another way, RAW is like film that has been exposed but not developed and jpeg is film that has been developed already.
So when we adjust exposure, white balance, contrast, vibrance etc etc on a raw image we are actually changing the original image, once the image is a jpeg your are making and then saving the adjustments you make incurring losses to the original image.
I suppose you are right in the sense that there is not much difference but i think once you start shooting raw the process of making adjustments seems to become easier.
I have been editing images at work this week and there was a noticeable difference as one shoot we did we forgot to set the camera to raw and only had jpegs to work with and there was a noticeable difference to me.

Thank you.

I understand the principle, it's just that I have never been able to see any difference.

Once a jpg is saved, opening and closing the file doesn't incur further losses does it?

Definitely not. Moving it to a new folder on your hard drive won't either.

Copying it to a differently folder is where there is the apparent loss.

Whether you'd ever notice that though is highly doubtful.

Hang on Matt, this is where confusion sets in. What's the difference between a new folder and a different folder?

Sorry Tom. That's not where the difference is. The difference is moving it and copying it.

When you move it between 2 folders in your hard drive it doesn't alter the file in any way because you just move the original file.

When you copy it the original file stays as it is and the new copied one apparently will have some minor differences.

[RED-DOG]

im nots sure how to explain it exactly but when you edit the raw file initially, you are making adjustments without any loss as the RAW file is the exact image from the sensor, put it another way, RAW is like film that has been exposed but not developed and jpeg is film that has been developed already.
So when we adjust exposure, white balance, contrast, vibrance etc etc on a raw image we are actually changing the original image, once the image is a jpeg your are making and then saving the adjustments you make incurring losses to the original image.
I suppose you are right in the sense that there is not much difference but i think once you start shooting raw the process of making adjustments seems to become easier.
I have been editing images at work this week and there was a noticeable difference as one shoot we did we forgot to set the camera to raw and only had jpegs to work with and there was a noticeable difference to me.

Thank you.

I understand the principle, it's just that I have never been able to see any difference.

Once a jpg is saved, opening and closing the file doesn't incur further losses does it?

Definitely not. Moving it to a new folder on your hard drive won't either.

Copying it to a differently folder is where there is the apparent loss.

Whether you'd ever notice that though is highly doubtful.

Hang on Matt, this is where confusion sets in. What's the difference between a new folder and a different folder?

Sorry Tom. That's not where the difference is. The difference is moving it and copying it.

When you move it between 2 folders in your hard drive it doesn't alter the file in any way because you just move the original file.

When you copy it the original file stays as it is and the new copied one apparently will have some minor differences.

So it's not where you put it, it's how you get it there?

[EvilPie]

im nots sure how to explain it exactly but when you edit the raw file initially, you are making adjustments without any loss as the RAW file is the exact image from the sensor, put it another way, RAW is like film that has been exposed but not developed and jpeg is film that has been developed already.
So when we adjust exposure, white balance, contrast, vibrance etc etc on a raw image we are actually changing the original image, once the image is a jpeg your are making and then saving the adjustments you make incurring losses to the original image.
I suppose you are right in the sense that there is not much difference but i think once you start shooting raw the process of making adjustments seems to become easier.
I have been editing images at work this week and there was a noticeable difference as one shoot we did we forgot to set the camera to raw and only had jpegs to work with and there was a noticeable difference to me.

Thank you.

I understand the principle, it's just that I have never been able to see any difference.

Once a jpg is saved, opening and closing the file doesn't incur further losses does it?

Definitely not. Moving it to a new folder on your hard drive won't either.

Copying it to a differently folder is where there is the apparent loss.

Whether you'd ever notice that though is highly doubtful.

Hang on Matt, this is where confusion sets in. What's the difference between a new folder and a different folder?

Sorry Tom. That's not where the difference is. The difference is moving it and copying it.

When you move it between 2 folders in your hard drive it doesn't alter the file in any way because you just move the original file.

When you copy it the original file stays as it is and the new copied one apparently will have some minor differences.

So it's not where you put it, it's how you get it there?

Yes.

One thing I'm not sure of is if you move a file to a new folder in a different hard drive.

I assume that this actually involves copying it and deleting the old one but I don't know for certain.

One way to tell is to see how long it takes for the file to move.

If it's instant then it hasn't been changed. If it takes any time then it has.

This is tricky with 500k files though because it may seem instant even though it's not.

You'd be able to tell with a folder full of files easily enough though.

[RED-DOG]

Obviously you have to copy the file at least once, (Otherwise you wouldn't have a copy of it) but now that I come to think of it, I've never 'moved' a file. I always copy & paste or drag em to where I want em.

How do you move em?

[technolog]

I can't say it with absolute certainty but I would be amazed if there was an iota of difference when copying any file. The copy should be just that - an exact copy.

The only time you should experience any degradation is when you edit the jpeg & re-save it.

[Woodsey]

I can't say it with absolute certainty but I would be amazed if there was an iota of difference when copying any file. The copy should be just that - an exact copy.

The only time you should experience any degradation is when you edit the jpeg & re-save it.

That was my thought too, never heard anything to the contrary.

[gatso]

this all sounds like bullshit though as I have no actual knowledge of the subject I'm not prepared to stake my bullshit detecting reputation on it

you can surely copy a digital file as many times as you want and each copy will be identical

claims that there's degradation sound like the claims by by dodgy salesmen that you really need a gold plated £500 hdmi cable to transfer the image properly

[RED-DOG]

I can't say it with absolute certainty but I would be amazed if there was an iota of difference when copying any file. The copy should be just that - an exact copy.

The only time you should experience any degradation is when you edit the jpeg & re-save it.

Not that I think it would make enough difference to matter, but as I understand it, jpegs take up less room than TIFF or RAw because they compress the data. This is achieved by removing the information that humans don't register very well anyway (Like colours that are outside our visible spectrum for example).

When you make a copy, the data is uncompressed and then re-compressed, which results in further loss. (I think).

I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.

[RED-DOG]

http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/guides/digital/jpeg_tiff_or_raw_1.html

[technolog]

http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/guides/digital/jpeg_tiff_or_raw_1.html

Wouldn't disagree with any of that Tom. However it doesn't say that you lose image information when you make a copy. It's when you edit the image and re-save that loss will occur.

[Jon MW]

...
Every time you modify and resave a JPEG image, it loses more data.
May not be as sharp out of the camera as TIFF or RAW modes, due to initial camera compression.
...

Those are the two important bits about jpg imo.

The second one confirms that you're only losing data through compression with the initial camera compression.

Regards the first point - how many times do you modify your images?
If you take the photo - edit it - then save it. You've lost  data on the initial compression then a little bit more with the edit - that's why it's hardly ever going to make a difference.

[Tractor]

http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/guides/digital/jpeg_tiff_or_raw_1.html

Wouldn't disagree with any of that Tom. However it doesn't say that you lose image information when you make a copy. It's when you edit the image and re-save that loss will occur.

This was my thinking too, one thing i always do with jpegs is to make a duplicate before doing any editing that way i still have my original jpeg to fall back on if the edit goes tits up.