Low-res jpg looks awesome !

I developed my 4M RAW images. I developed a picture using 100% jpg quality which resulted in a 3,519KB file and the same picture using 61% resolution (240ppi) which resulted in a 453KB file. I printed both on 8x10 and could see a difference, but not nearly as much as I had thought. Focusing on a hair in the picture, I could tell one was a tiny bit darker. WOW !!!! 3.5M vs. 45K... that's almost 10% and close to no degradation. Am I missing something or should I convert my whole database to files that are in the 900KB range IF I ASSUME I''LL NEVER PRINT LARGER THAN AN 8X10 NOR TRY TO ZOOM IN ON ANYTHING ??



Sorry if this sounds stupid to the professionals.. whom I can imagine are wincing at this point :).



Thanks,

-Ed
Low-res jpg looks awesome !
I would keep them as raw, it is the original.

Why would you want to make them all into low res jpegs anyway?
Low-res jpg looks awesome !
RAW is your negative, and while it's good you can get good prints from a much smaller file, one day you may wish to redevelop from RAW, and/or print much larger. Or crop, or .....

%26gt;IF I ASSUME I''LL NEVER PRINT LARGER THAN AN 8X10 NOR TRY TO ZOOM IN ON ANYTHING ??



I don't think you should assume this. What if some amazing new technology provides you w/the opportunity to make 16x20 prints of unbelievable quality for cheap? (for example)



I like the way LR runs w/small files in the library, so I shoot RAW+jpg on my camera (D-80), stash the RAWs away (ext. HD) and load those jpgs into LR. They're small, fine JPGs w/enough data for the size image you mention, if needed, and LR is nice and speedy. (Also, my laptop HD is not filling up too fast) I don't have to postprocess each RAW, either.



Works for me, but I just can't ''burn that bridge'' and toss those RAWs.



jeff

Addendum:



The enhancement of LR's speed by using smaller library files applies to Importing, Exporting, Printing, Web module.



There should be no noticeable increase in speed while working in Library, Develop, or SlideShow modules, as I understand it. These modules use the previews, which have been built during Import.



jeff

Hi Jeff,



the workflow you described by shooting Raw + JPG stashing the RAW files away and using solely the jpgs only uses a fraction of the potential of LR.



I heard the statements of a very good photographer saying that he isn't good enough to shoot jpg. What he tried to say was that he needs the adjustments you only get with raw files.



Try adjusting White Balance with a Raw file and the corresponding jpg. This is like day and night. And this is just one example.



regards

Chris

%26gt;the workflow you described by shooting Raw + JPG stashing the RAW files away and using solely the jpgs only uses a fraction of the potential of LR.



I agree, and for me this fraction is probably 9/10. ;)



When I've botched the exposure, the RAW file can be quite helpful for detail recovery, i.e. the highlights. Otherwise, the JPG is fine, especially as LR always works with the original library file. One reiteration of a fine-quality JPG is no problem, IMO, and one reiteration will get you wherever you want to go in LR. It's great!



%26gt;Try adjusting White Balance with a Raw file and the corresponding jpg. This is like day and night.



I think that's too generalized. If the camera has selected the correct WB, there should be no diff. After all, the camera is working with the same RAW data. So far, my D-80 has nailed it. Another reason I keep those RAWs is for the occasion when the camera blows it. When that occurs, you are correct - I'll use the RAW file to adjust the WB, not that botched JPG, which I'll discard. This hasn't happened, yet.



Keep in mind also, that I'm not (at this time) doing any special effects to my images, such as Greyscale, Sepia tone, etc. So if the in-camera generated JPG has accurate WB and I've exposed it correctly, I crop and sharpen in PP, and that's about it, having applied my camera-calibration preset on import. Maybe some shadow recovery, too. BTW, I have in-camera sharpening set to NONE.



Coming from years in the darkroom and from scanning film, this workflow is so rewarding and easy that I shoot more photos. :) The in-camera processing (sharpening not included) is so good that the JPGs save me PP time/effort for most images.



I appreciate your comments just the same, Chris. If I'm wrong about this, I'd like to know, and the sooner the better. :)



thanks,



jeff



PS: someone will ask, ''What about Capture NX?'' Just like NikonScan software before it, Capture NX sucks, on toast, IMO. Great camera company, they need to stay out of the software business. NX is a clunky, slow, pretty app. No, thanks. The D-80 makes a fine JPG.

Jeff,



I use a D70 and I agree that the nikon jpgs are quite good. But let me make two remarks here.



1. I like using my 50mm f1.4 lens to shoot indoor without flash. This gives a very natural light especially if you try to capture action on a stage. But in this use case I rarely get good WB in the jpgs with my D70 and I rely heavily on RAW.



2. I switched to Raw a year ago using Photoshop CS2, Bridge and PhotoKit Sharpener. After comparing my JPGs with JPGs created with my Raw work flow including Capture sharpening resizing and Output sharpening for the Monitor I realized that the switch to this workflow had more impact regarding to image quality than as going from 3 to 6Megaixels. It was just WOW!

Unfortunately this work flow is not (yet) there with LR. I still use the ImageProcessor script with PhotoKit Sharpener Actions to render the JPGs for the slideshows. But all I want to say is that the switch to RAW made a huge difference to the quality of my pictures.



Chris