BOL***KS!
Author
Discussion

UKBob

Original Poster:

16,277 posts

295 months

Tuesday 20th June 2006
quotequote all
I took a great deal of images recently, 30D on large/fine jpeg setting, and they seem to be growing in file size when I save as .jpg 12 in photoshop (the highest setting)

Is this normal? Does canon's fine setting have less data in it than photoshops highest setting?

I fear Ive somehow cocked things up. You're not allowed to reduce image file sizes by saving at a high compression then resave (at a higher file size) at a lower compression when submitting to stock agencies. For the obvious reason that the more data there the better.

and but mostly

Dobbo, if you even mention shooting raw again

UKBob

Original Poster:

16,277 posts

295 months

Tuesday 20th June 2006
quotequote all
Is there any way to check what .jpg setting a photo is currently saved at in photoshop, without resaving it?

southpaw

5,999 posts

255 months

Tuesday 20th June 2006
quotequote all
I found this, photoshop setting 12 is a bigger file. I think about 8 for me gives the same file size. No idea why as some extra data doesn't appear magically

chris.mapey

4,778 posts

297 months

Tuesday 20th June 2006
quotequote all


Just shoot in RAW & be a man

Speak soon...

Chris

Gemm

1,833 posts

245 months

Tuesday 20th June 2006
quotequote all
Have you set the camera's parameter correctly? You should be able to save the JPEG in 1-10, where 10 is the best quality.

poah

2,142 posts

258 months

Tuesday 20th June 2006
quotequote all
UKBob said:
I took a great deal of images recently, 30D on large/fine jpeg setting, and they seem to be growing in file size when I save as .jpg 12 in photoshop (the highest setting)

Is this normal? Does canon's fine setting have less data in it than photoshops highest setting?

I fear Ive somehow cocked things up. You're not allowed to reduce image file sizes by saving at a high compression then resave (at a higher file size) at a lower compression when submitting to stock agencies. For the obvious reason that the more data there the better.

and but mostly

Dobbo, if you even mention shooting raw again


yes they go from around 3.5 up to 5. if you save from raw they come out about 4. like wise if you save a small file at 12 it increases it in size.

UKBob

Original Poster:

16,277 posts

295 months

Tuesday 20th June 2006
quotequote all
southpaw said:
I found this, photoshop setting 12 is a bigger file. I think about 8 for me gives the same file size. No idea why as some extra data doesn't appear magically
Lets hope you're right. I'll test it tomorrow. Nearly a full days work went into that shoot (shot over 2 days)

chris.mapey said:
Just shoot in RAW & be a man

Speak soon...

Chris
Wotcha mapey

Im afraid. Its too soon. Im just not ready

UKBob

Original Poster:

16,277 posts

295 months

Tuesday 20th June 2006
quotequote all
Gemm said:
Have you set the camera's parameter correctly? You should be able to save the JPEG in 1-10, where 10 is the best quality.
Hmm, looks like there is quite a few settings, but it boils down to

1) Fine (royal princess setting)
2) not quite so fine (gypsy cleaner setting)

coupled with the ability to shoot in different sizes, plus raw, or without raw. I'll do some tests in the morning.

poah said:
yes they go from around 3.5 up to 5. if you save from raw they come out about 4. like wise if you save a small file at 12 it increases it in size.
Megabytes? Mine were as low as 1.something megs, on an 8mp camera!

dcw@pr

3,516 posts

273 months

Tuesday 20th June 2006
quotequote all
imo 12 is pointless for DSC pics, it is always overkill. I save at 11 for important stuff, but to be honest I can't tell the difference between 10 and 11. Even 9 is adequate 99% of the time

UKBob

Original Poster:

16,277 posts

295 months

Tuesday 20th June 2006
quotequote all
dcw@pr said:
imo 12 is pointless for DSC pics, it is always overkill. I save at 11 for important stuff, but to be honest I can't tell the difference between 10 and 11. Even 9 is adequate 99% of the time
Stock agencies say images must be saved at PS 12, so I have to go with that.

I went through some old images. Looked at their file size. Saved in PS elements at a file size which was equivelent to that file size

(ie, I saw that an image was 2.5 megs, and re-saved the image after cleaning it in PS at a setting which was also 2.5 megs) then I read that images below PS 12 wont be accepted, opened them again resaved at PS12, and they were all declined.

So however lossles the compression appears to be, the powers that be can spot it a mile off, every time.

Gemm

1,833 posts

245 months

Tuesday 20th June 2006
quotequote all
UKBob said:
Hmm, looks like there is quite a few settings, but it boils down to

1) Fine (royal princess setting)
2) not quite so fine (gypsy cleaner setting)

coupled with the ability to shoot in different sizes, plus raw, or without raw. I'll do some tests in the morning.


I mean other than image sizes (L, M, S), isn't there a separate JPEG Quality settings in the menu where you can set it between 1 and 10? (Maybe it's different in 30D....)

Edited by Gemm on Tuesday 20th June 23:02

Oakey

27,984 posts

246 months

Friday 23rd June 2006
quotequote all
What's the big problem with shooting in RAW? I'd never go back to JPEG and I'm really kicking myself that when I first got my 20D and went to NYC last year I shot everything in JPEG. RAW is fantastic and even helps to save images that may otherwise have been 'lost' (ie, looked naff)

monkeyhanger

9,267 posts

272 months

Friday 23rd June 2006
quotequote all
Oakey said:
What's the big problem with shooting in RAW?



Have to agree with that.

Archive the RAW files to DVD then you have back-ups if you bugger up the JPEGS. Decent RAW conversion software will apply your in-camera JPEG settings anyway so the conversion process is hardly scary.

Another option is get some big CF cards and shoot RAW+Large Fine JPEG. Might be the best of both worlds

size13

2,033 posts

287 months

Friday 23rd June 2006
quotequote all
I always shoot in RAW now, I took a mix the other weekend as I was limited for space.
After running them through RawShooter Pro, the converted images a 100x better than those take as jpeg.

I then bought another 3 1gb cards!

Just my 2p!

tog

4,964 posts

258 months

Friday 23rd June 2006
quotequote all
UKBob said:
Megabytes? Mine were as low as 1.something megs, on an 8mp camera!


If that's straight from the camera at 1MB, then the camera is overcompressing them. My 8MP EOS1 usually gives jpgs around 5-7MB, depending on ISO and subject obviously.

UKBob

Original Poster:

16,277 posts

295 months

Friday 23rd June 2006
quotequote all
tog said:
UKBob said:
Megabytes? Mine were as low as 1.something megs, on an 8mp camera!


If that's straight from the camera at 1MB, then the camera is overcompressing them. My 8MP EOS1 usually gives jpgs around 5-7MB, depending on ISO and subject obviously.
1.8 megs iirc. Admitedly they were small bowls of food shot on white, but others were as low as 2-3 megs. Going to test this weekend when I have time, but suspect others are right about PS's low compression being virtually nonexistant as regards dataloss.