High Force

The drop in quality is when we change an image and re-save. If we make no changes then there will be no degradation.

Sorry Philip you are right, a common misconception I have fallen under. It does degrade however every time you open a JPEG to edit and save even if selecting 100% so JPEGs straight from the camera would suffer from this.

Many of the better RAW editors also handle JPEGs (eg Sagelight, Lightroom, Silkypix etc ), and they also perform 'non-destructive' editing ..... this is achieved by the ongoing work you do being held in memory, in a sort of 'live state', until you are finished. Only when clicking 'save' is the completed new version of the image written into the storage format (JPEG) and any compression involved is applied.

So it is not necessary to lose any quality from camera JPEGs caused by any single editing session, if you wish to avoid that. Opening, editing and re-saving a single JPEG multiple times would of course lead to some loss, but really we mostly work on a photo right through to completion in one session I'd have thought .... ?

I avoid any chance of this sort of degradation by saving my original JPEGs (not all of them, just the ones I choose to edit, the better ones) as lossless TIFFs ...... these I call my 'Master Files', and the TIFF is used in the editing programme or multiple programmes and saved at the end of each session. There is no compression loss caused by this process, so editing can be carried out over an extended time and in different sessions as convenient until the image is 'perfected' ..... (it has to be perfected, right ).

This is also a convenient format to use if needing to use different programs for different purposes .... so I might do my levels, colours and sharpening in Photoshop, but then want to use a Distortion Correction tool in DxO ....... the TIFF can be loaded into the other program in the exact form and state it came out of Photoshop.

When finished and final JPEGs are saved, one for Web, one for Print, then I can delete the 'Master File' TIFF ..... its unlikely to be ever needed again. I keep my original RAWs and unedited Camera JPEGs in archive folders and backed up.

Good info there, Nigel. It makes good sense to work on a copy of the original JPEG during one editing session, so it is re-saved only once (and at low compression), and, when two (or more) different software editors are involved, to save the intermediate file in a lossless format. If this sort of procedure is followed, I would doubt that anyone would perceive any JPEG image degradation at typical image sizes and viewing distances, unless they have the vision of an eagle or a vivid imagination!

Philip

Sorry Nigel, I think I am missing the point - if you are going to edit then why not just use RAW? I save to a TIFF as well when exporting to DXO Viewpoint (triples the file size by the way) before saving as a PDF.

I do agree Rob, and tend to use RAW when there is likely to be more attention put onto individual images. JPEGs I use when taking many of the same sort together as it does remove one stage of processing and saves time.

The TIff suggestion was just a way to edit JPEGs without incurring compression loss if needing to use more than 1 program or having to continue your work at different times. I use the TIff for RAW files as well, as I use Sagelight for the RAW editing, save as a TIff, then open that into PhotoShop for the finishing touches. Again, this is just a means to transfer the image between programs while retaining 16bits and no loss of quality.

When done via the interface of a photo manager program it's all really quick and easy .....just a right click on the TIff and choose 'Open File With .....'. If PhotoShop is already running then the image is there in a few seconds.

But we shouldn't he heading towards any RAW vs JPEG debate ...... It was Johns image that makes me think I am very likely to choose JPEGs more often with a K1, as there are certainly no compromises evident!

There is a PS pluggin or standalone program Better JPEG that corrects some Jpg artifacts on import and just saves the blocks that have been edited on re-save. Costs $30 each.

http://www.betterjpeg.com/index.htm

--

That could save the need for a "master Tiff", sure. I find that the times I use JPEG tend to be when the lighting is uniform and dynamic range is fairly under control (eg when taking lots of flash photos with the same setup) .... These situations invariably need very little processing anyway, often it is straight into PS for a tiny tweak and cropping, so no need for any Tiff.

If one takes images with RAW+JPEG, the RAW file will always be, just that, a RAW file! That then leaves the jpeg file created by the camera with whichever settings have been used. If like John's jpeg image it is already as you want it then the RAW file could be dispensed with. However if it isn't right then one would still has the raw file to process to get the required result. If John just had to have a colour version of his waterfall for a colour photo competition with a £1,000 prize, he'd either have to colour it in himself or go without if the raw file wasn't available!

Or shoot one in colour as well. However, it's a state of mind thing. If I'm going to shoot in black and white then I like to, generally, get in black and white mode of thinking. If I do want a colour version and I haven't shot one, then indeed it is my hard luck!

John, there's a Leica with your name on it!

I do agree, it's a state of mind thing. This I know from when I used to shoot film, we perceive different things when choosing monochrome.

Its interesting to see how different photographers process their work. For me I shoot exclusively in RAW and always in colour although many of my images end up in black and white. I see colour or mono quite often before I take the picture but still leave the final decision until processing in Photoshop. But that's me. Others have their preferred way of doing things.
David

An impressive image of a great location.

I've shot "in camera B&W" with an X100 but always in colour and converted later with my Pentax kit.

This image shows clearly what can be achieved with in camera processing. Had John not mentioned the technique he used, I doubt anyone would have known different.

Best regards

Lovely picture John, so suited to b+w.