By accident i shot jpeg with my M8 instead of DNG

[patrick mimran]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

By accident i shot jpeg fine res 10 MP with my M8 instead of DNG , i as wanted to make big enlargments of theses pictures i would like to know if i am going to loose quality compare to raw files or have the same result ?

Do i have to transform the pictures to DMG first before enlarging them ?

May i use a program like genuine fractal to expand the jpeg files , if yes does the result will be as good as with a raw file converted to tiff ?

Or do i have to reshoot the pictures in Raw ?

 

Thanks

 

Patrick Mimran

[Photoskeptic]

Depends on how large you want. Usually a jpeg will be limited to 8 x 10, depending on how you interpollate the file. You cannot change a jpeg to DMG. There are some programs out there which will assist in printing jpeg's larger. OTOH, there are a very few fine art photographers who only shoot in jpeg and maybe a 10 mp jpeg file is enough to print large, I just don't know as the only jpegs I ever shot were in the early days of digital. Perhaps Lightroom would help. I know Lightroom can do RAW type manipulations on jpeg's but I have no experience in this regard and whether or not that would affect printing.

Good luck.

[Photoskeptic]

Patrick, another thought - you might try converting your file to a TIF and then see what happens.

[jhild]

Using a good film in a real camera doesn´t give you problems like this.It is so easy,

why do poeple like things to become so complicated?

 

Jo

[patrick mimran]

Patrick, another thought - you might try converting your file to a TIF and then see what happens.

Thanks

 

Patrick Mimran

[Venkman]

Using a good film in a real camera doesn´t give you problems like this.

 

And painting the whole scene will give you the exact size you want from scratch on.

So, what's your point?

[Guest sirvine]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Using a good film in a real camera doesn´t give you problems like this.It is so easy,

why do poeple like things to become so complicated?

 

Jo

 

 

Don't feed the troll.

[teehas53]

You may not be in too bad shape. It sounds like you shot at the camera's native resolution (10 mp) which means resolution won't be any different than DNG. JPEG fine should not exhibit too much in the way of artifacting - it will depend on the content of the images. At large print sizes, it might or might not be an issue.

 

You won't have the option of working with final files in 16-bit mode, which will limit color fidelity somewhat (JPEGs are limited to 8 bits per channel.)

 

Converting to DNG (or any other format) will not bring back any detail that has already been lost by shooting in JPEG.

 

Hopefully these are salvagable for your purposes, but definitely shoot DNG in the future to get the maximum from the camera.

 

Tom

[rwfreund]

You are probably in fairly good shape provided that you don't plan extensive post processing. Do shoot in raw to keep your options open.

-bob

[patrick mimran]

Thanks for your answers

 

 

Patrick Mimran

 

http://www.mimran.com

[dannirr]

Depends on how large you want. Usually a jpeg will be limited to 8 x 10, depending on how you interpollate the file. .

 

I am sorry, but this is completely innacurate. The print size is unrelated to the file format. Print size is related to resolution captured and file size (or megapixels if you like).

 

A full size M8 JPG file (about 10 megapixel) at full resolution will give exactly the same size print as the DNG version - and that would be about 14 x 20 inches - uninterpolated. The advantage to the DNG version is only that you could control HOW the software interpolates when the file is made larger than the native print size (as well as color depth etc but this does not affect print size) - and thus affect print quality.

 

Wonderful prints can be made from JPG files - even large prints. RAW files have their advantages to be sure, but don't write off a good quality JPG.

 

Danni

[larry]

I'll second what Danni said. Lots of photographers shoot JPEGs for their normal workflow, rather than RAW. This has its risks, but a properly exposed JPEG with good color balance can give you outstanding results.

 

Larry

[mike prevette]

As long as you dont have to retroactively change the exposure much, the JPG should work fine. In some scenes at certain large enlargements you might see some compression artifacts. I also recommend to do all your "work" on the image as a tiff file. whatever you do DO NOT resave it as a jpg. you will lose much more quality.

 

_mike

[Photoskeptic]

Back to size - my only experience with this is my Panasonic LX-1 which automatically creates a jpeg and RAW of the same image. The jpeg just falls apart when you try to enlarge it - crappy color, sharpness and individual pixels exposed. The RAW is fine. I don't know if the jpeg is also 8 mp, perhaps it's meant for web use only. Just enough of a lesson that I, personally, don't care to do the same with the M8.

[Skippy Sanchez]

Patrick, another thought - you might try converting your file to a TIF and then see what happens.

 

Jpegs deteriorate with each opening/closing, so any frames you intend to open more than once should be converted to TIFF or photoshop.

 

As far as printing goes, I've had excelent results by upsizing in 110% increments, using bicubic smoother in the "image size" dialog box, and made very good 16x20s.

 

and like someone else said above, we didn't make a big deal out of this when we were shooting film.

[bsmith]

Jpegs deteriorate with each opening/closing,.

 

No, with each opening and re-saving. You can open and close as many times as you want

[rami G]

the only two possible "problems":

a. if you got the white ballance wrong you cannot get it right but "fake it right" and that by loosing data. Jpeg has only a single layer of white ballance while Raw formats have the raw data, prior to the determination of the desired white ballancing.

b. as others said, never perform any operation on jpeg, always change to Tiff first. in jpeg, the "save" is an application of a compression algorithm that eliminates the depth (it identifies adjunct pixels that have simillar color) "idealy" if you open a jpeg and press "save" (without changing anything) many many times you will get a flat image, i.e. you will loose all the color differences, that is, the image.

[ho_co]

What we're all saying, Patrick, is: Don't save intermediate stages as JPGs.

 

That is, you have JPGs to work with. Now whatever your processing program may be, don't save again as JPG because each time you save as JPG you throw away information.

 

Are you going to be printing these yourself, or are you having a lab do them?

 

What size final output do you want? From how far will it be viewed?

 

The M8's auto white balance is not very good, but that is possibly the only place where a raw file would have been better.

 

A DNG allows more manipulation--correcting exposure, for example, or adjusting white balance.

 

Your JPGs should be just as good to work with as a DNG, if you got the shots you wanted.

 

Open the files in your image processor and tweak them as you want, then save them as TIFF (accepted by just about all labs) or PSD (accepted by many labs).

 

Be sure you verify that the images are saved in the same color space the lab wants. That may mean you need to Convert To Profile as the final step of processing.

 

The lab you are dealing with can give you guidance on all this.

 

Just leave the originals unaltered; don't save any changes over them. Work on copies and save in some format other than JPG.

 

You haven't lost a thing except flexibility in post-processing, and depending on the images, that may not count for anything.

 

But next time shoot DNG.

 

You asked if you should reshoot as DNG. Look at what you've got now. If it's good, you're home free. You're lucky that the images *can* be reshot! Do that if necessary.

 

You asked if you should use another program to up-res the images. That depends on how big you want to go. Photoshop offers four different re-res options, one of which is quite good for enlarging the output.

 

--HC

[gurtch]

I did a similar thing with my 1DSII, except I acidentally shot using the SMALLEST JPG. I was able to res up to 13"x19", and the print was very sucessful (meaning I have sold it). The picture is attached .

Good luck

Dave G.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[rami G]

I did a similar thing with my 1DSII, except I acidentally shot using the SMALLEST JPG. I was able to res up to 13"x19", and the print was very sucessful (meaning I have sold it). The picture is attached .

Good luck

Dave G.

 

it is too small to see