(no subject)
Jan. 6th, 2006 10:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vriad_leeok now i'm going to abstain from posting for as long as i can hold out. because i took a vacation to read books you know rather than post dog pictures you know. and for those interested in photography i should note that working with RAW gives you a whole dazzling lot of advantages in the way of improving poorly exposed/color-fucked-up pictures. but it increases the processing time by about the same degree. so there. be well. send my regards. last word, last word, it's my last word in a long t...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-06 07:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-06 07:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-06 08:26 pm (UTC)(just joking!)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-06 08:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-06 07:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-06 07:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-06 08:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-06 08:32 pm (UTC)but
do whatever is good for you
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-06 09:41 pm (UTC)*Am about to start reading Les frêres Karamazov, feels like exile as well*
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-06 09:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-07 03:17 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-07 07:51 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-07 07:02 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-07 09:04 am (UTC)If so, and your software handles PNG files, you can safely save them in that format without losing information. PNG files will still be larger than JPEGs, but nowhere near as large as RAW files. Your hard-disk will love you for not working in RAW files...
PNG uses a lossless (http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=define%3Alossless) form of compression, while JPEG doesn't. (http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=define%3Alossy) Actually, I think if you save a JPEG at 100% compression then no data is lost, but I've never looked into this so don't quote me on it.
As to whether you use PNG files on the Web though is up to you. Browsers support the format, but the files will be bigger, so...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-07 12:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-07 08:56 pm (UTC)As I understand it, digital cameras capture a RAW image of what the camera sees - ie 4 (or possibly 3) bytes per pixel, thus a 1024 * 768 image uses 3145728 bytes, meaning about 3 megs. As large resolution images will eat up storage (in the camera) rather quickly, they then compress them one way or another, JPEG being one of the ways they could do so. (Which is what my cheap camera does.)
I'm assuming though that yours uses a compression method that doesn't lose any information. But that would all be in the camera, whereas your "tuning" is done in the computer, right? Or wrong... ;-)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-07 10:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-07 10:41 pm (UTC)Though "up to 6 mb - raw file size is varying from shot to shot" must mean there's some compression there - just not lossy compression. For instance, a 2048x1536 image at 4 bytes per pixel requires over 12megs of storage, and you take photos bigger than 2048x1536, right?
Though maybe you don't choose image-size in decent digital cameras?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-07 10:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-07 02:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-07 10:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-08 04:46 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-08 12:32 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-08 09:10 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-08 12:33 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-08 09:09 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-08 09:07 am (UTC)