Photography Holy Wars

[Master Mason]

whether it's ok or not to just take someone elses photos for scrapbooking


vest or bag for WDW...or any location shoot for that matter..

Hey you forgot Lens cradle or let it hang

 

[meyernl]

wow and to think I bought my Nikon D40 because it felt better in my hands than the Canon (kinda like my criteria for buying a car is the quantity and location of cup holders and where I can put my purse...)

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Memory stick vs the rest of the world

CF vs SD

Buy local vs buy online

sRGB only vs other colorspaces

dye vs pigment

Is a crop factor or focal length multiplier

Is deep linking OK?

What constitutes "fair use"

German vs Japanese

White vs black (lenses)

Ball head vs other types of heads

Turn off vs leave on

AA vs proprietary batteries

Is a person reasonably equipped to shoot at WDW or are they a shambling mound of photo equipment

Is it art?

Can you change elements in the scene you are shooting or must you shoot it as is?

At what point is post processing cheating?

Bayer vs Foveon

6:4 vs 4:3

Close-up filter vs extension tubes

Should an HDR look natural or unique

Can amateurs photographers give away pictures where pros are working?

Is it high key?

 

[JR6ooo4]

Dis Photo Forum vs All others!


Mikeeee

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Dis Photo Forum vs All others!


Mikeeee

Others?

 

[WillCAD]

Equipment vs. skill

Learned skill vs. inate talent

Education vs. experience

Helpful vs. pushy

MarkBarbieri vs. Ansel Adams

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Equipment vs. skill

Learned skill vs. inate talent

Education vs. experience

Helpful vs. pushy

MarkBarbieri vs. Ansel Adams

I don't want to sound braggy, but I can definitely outshoot Ansel Adams any day of the week with one hand tied behind my tripod. Now if he were still alive, the situation would be reversed, but that's another story.


I have tip toed around starting a JPEG quality holy war. I have inferred from several statements recently that some people output 100% or maximum quality JPEGs as their standard use file and others almost never go to 100%.

 

[NostalgicDad]

I have tip toed around starting a JPEG quality holy war. I have inferred from several statements recently that some people output 100% or maximum quality JPEGs as their standard use file and others almost never go to 100%.

I'll bite. I always output my JPEGs at 100% and they typically run in the range of 4-8mb on average. I know I'm most likely not gaining anything by doing that but losing disk space isn't a concern, nor is processing power or bandwidth a concern for that matter. Being a network engineer helps in this regard. I agree that the smaller file sizes would be easier to manage but, for me, there's just something inate that won't allow me to do anything less. So, at least in my case, it relates more to how my brain is wired.

 

[MICKEY88]

Others?

I agree... what's he talking about...are there others..??

 

[MICKEY88]

whether or not MArk is truly capable of tiptoeing around any subject rather than diving in full force..

 

[MarkBarbieri]

whether or not MArk is truly capable of tiptoeing around any subject rather than diving in full force..

Who the heck would argue the other side of this one?

I'll bite. I always output my JPEGs at 100% and they typically run in the range of 4-8mb on average. I know I'm most likely not gaining anything by doing that but losing disk space isn't a concern, nor is processing power or bandwidth a concern for that matter. Being a network engineer helps in this regard. I agree that the smaller file sizes would be easier to manage but, for me, there's just something inate that won't allow me to do anything less. So, at least in my case, it relates more to how my brain is wired.

There is nothing inherently wrong with 100% quality JPEGs. Here's my logic on why I don't bother.

First, a 100% JPEG is imperfect. It's still lossy compressed. It's an 8-bit file. It contains no layers for non-destructive edits. In other words, it can't take the place of a RAW file nor is it a good file format for saving edited files for later re-use. I stick with RAW or DNG for originals (where possible or Fine JPG where not). I stick with XMP sidecar files, DNG files, or PSD files for storing edited files.

So when do I use JPEGs? As final output files to post, e-mail, or otherwise share. For those uses, I don't think that there is a noticeable difference between a JPEG saved at maximum quality and one saved with compression turned up just a bit (which hugely reduces the file size). For giving up that unnoticeable decrease in quality, I get significantly improved upload and download speeds and much reduced storage space.

I'm not yet in a world where file sizes are meaningless. I store, upload, download, and tens of thousands of pictures. Small differences in size add up. I'm willing to put up with that cost when I see a benefit but not when I'm not.

I contend that we all make a judgement call on how much "cost" we are willing to pay for how much "benefit." I don't use JPEG files stored at minimal quality because the cost in IQ is too high. People using JPEG files stored at 100% are implicitly saing that the cost of doing so is worth the marginal improvement in IQ. They are also implicityly saying that the cost of using a slightly lossy compressed 8-bit file (and probably a reduced gamut file at that) are worth the benefits of using the JPG format as opposed to a TIFF or other lossless file that would provide still better IQ. So it's not like either of us are being absolutely extreme on IQ vs size and convenience. It's just that I and the 100% JPG crowd have picked different places on the trade-off curve.

 

[WillCAD]

It's just that I and the 100% JPG crowd have picked different places on the trade-off curve.

I think that states the whole situation better than I've ever seen it expressed.

My own personal place on the trade-off curve is a lot further along than yours, since I save everything as a JPG and use moderate compression. I can still get very good 8x10 prints if I want (though I rarely print my pics), but using more compression makes the file sizes far smaller.

 

[boBQuincy]

Trade-offs:

In a recent class we discussed compression. It is the same with photos as it is with audio, we decide what quality loss we can accept vs file size and go with it.

I accept RAW (or PSD), CDs, and large file sizes. Others accept JPG and MP3. If we can see and hear the difference we are not likely to accept compression except for web applications.

If we can't see or hear the difference we save a lot of file size and $$$.

 

[NostalgicDad]

There is nothing inherently wrong with 100% quality JPEGs. Here's my logic on why I don't bother.

First, a 100% JPEG is imperfect. It's still lossy compressed. It's an 8-bit file. It contains no layers for non-destructive edits. In other words, it can't take the place of a RAW file nor is it a good file format for saving edited files for later re-use. I stick with RAW or DNG for originals (where possible or Fine JPG where not). I stick with XMP sidecar files, DNG files, or PSD files for storing edited files.

So when do I use JPEGs? As final output files to post, e-mail, or otherwise share. For those uses, I don't think that there is a noticeable difference between a JPEG saved at maximum quality and one saved with compression turned up just a bit (which hugely reduces the file size). For giving up that unnoticeable decrease in quality, I get significantly improved upload and download speeds and much reduced storage space.

I'm not yet in a world where file sizes are meaningless. I store, upload, download, and tens of thousands of pictures. Small differences in size add up. I'm willing to put up with that cost when I see a benefit but not when I'm not.

I contend that we all make a judgement call on how much "cost" we are willing to pay for how much "benefit." I don't use JPEG files stored at minimal quality because the cost in IQ is too high. People using JPEG files stored at 100% are implicitly saing that the cost of doing so is worth the marginal improvement in IQ. They are also implicityly saying that the cost of using a slightly lossy compressed 8-bit file (and probably a reduced gamut file at that) are worth the benefits of using the JPG format as opposed to a TIFF or other lossless file that would provide still better IQ. So it's not like either of us are being absolutely extreme on IQ vs size and convenience. It's just that I and the 100% JPG crowd have picked different places on the trade-off curve.

Well, as much as I would like to try and save my JPEG's at less than 100% quality, there actually is reason enough to keep me from doing that. I'll output my RAW files as TIFF, etc when needed but I generally output to JPEG for the same reasons you mention.

I will almost whole-heartedly agree with your statements but to suggest that we 100%ers implicitly do it without a cost factor in mind is not quite accurate. I may have implied that in my original reply but I was speaking a bit in jest with regards to space, power, and bandwidth. I certainly don't think that file sizes are meaningless across the board.

I'm certainly no expert on the technical aspects of JPEG's and haven't had any classes on the subject so I won't argue those points. But, I have compared JPEG images, converted from NEF's, viewed at 100% side-by-side on the same monitor. One in particular having been saved at 100% IQ and the other at 80% IQ, 5.1mb and 2mb respectively. These percentages are based on the Independent JPEG Group's standards and done in CaptureNX. It's almost amazing that you can have such different sized files and "theoretically" have no noticeable loss in "perceived" IQ. However, I can detect differences where the bright whites appear "dingier" on the slightly compressed image as well as the blue sky appearing "duller". Some of the fine texturing also seemed to be lost, albeit to a very minimal degree. I had a second, unbiased opinion and that person mentioned seeing the exact same differences without me mentioning anything.

Even though a JPEG is never the best quality of file format to chose, it is the most popular choice for showing off or sharing our images. Of course there are no rules as to what we should actually do when saving JPEG's. But, it is a very subjective process and since I'm able to find the slightest amount of "perceived" loss of quality, I will be forced to save at a maximum quality %. In other words, I don't feel as though I'm trading off anything.

Now, since I'm outputting to 100% and you're not, why the heck do I perceive your images to be so much better than mine? That's another battle of mine in this "holy war"!

 

[Groucho]

80% is a long ways from 100%! I have done some side-by-sides of 14.6mp jpgs at 100% and 90% and I just can't justify continuing to export at 100% - the difference is just not clear to my eye even at a pixel-peeping level (which is pretty close with pictures that huge!)

For most online photos, I have them at 85% (set in my online gallery's settings), as well as for small resized versions that I look at on a day-to-day basis. Occasionally I'll dip down to 80%, but never below that unless it's for something that has to hit a certain size threshold (like for an avatar, but even there, you can usually just strip the exif and other attached data and get it small enough.)

I still dislike TIFFs, which is practically dinosaur-era technology. I prefer relatively modern PNG files if I want lossless files as they will be compressed (which TIFFs rarely are) so will be much smaller. (In fact, PNGs can be smaller than JPGs and look better for things like screenshots of applications on your desktop, etc.)

And heck, some of those NEFs out there have lossy compression, too.

Bob: true about file size vs quality except that compression is a steadily advancing technology - for example, a very high-quality high-bandwidth video compressed to 4 gigs with MPEG2 (which regular DVD movies use) will look worse than the same video compressed to, say, 3 gigs using x264/h264 format. Same with audio, as I'm sure you know... MP3 is getting pretty long in the tooth and there are many better audio compression formats out there, but it has such a foothold and certainly can be pretty darn good that it's unlike to be replaced any time soon - just like JPG.

Other wars: following compositional "rules" (of thirds, etc) vs breaking them
Photoshop vs others (Corel, etc)
ACR vs Bibble, Silkypix, etc
Giant oversized break-your-neck monitor vs multiple smaller monitors
Covering a child's face in some distracting way or leaving it showing (for online use)
If it's OK to save an online gallery to your hard drive
Machine-gun photos and hope for a good one or take time to compose, focus, and work for a good one
Whether or not "go pro" should influence your DSLR buying decision (and exactly what that means, anyway)
Classic legacy lenses vs new lenses only