Are there qualitative differences in JPG converters?

[wparsonsgisnet]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been generating jpg's a variety of ways, such as in C1, PSCS(2), and ACDSee viewer.

 

I wonder if all the jpg converters use the same logic. I can create a bunch, but I have never noticed any differences. I was wondering if there are different quality jpg's -- of the same degree of conversion quality -- based on the conversion software.

 

If one of these programs is going to give me a better quality jpg, then I can always use that tool.

 

Do all these programs use a common converter?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Bill i just creat a action in PS for the specs i want. What i deliever to clients is a high rez 16 bit Tif file all cleaned up and ready to go to print or press but when i get to this point in my workflow with everything looking correct than i will make a action in PS and creat jpegs for the client for easy viewing and powerpoint or whatever that certain need be and a lot of the times i will convert to srgb just on the jpegs. so for me it is best i do this in PS becuase i get many options on how i want to convert to jpeg for each client. obviously you may not have that kind of need, but you still get all the options for yourself.

[wparsonsgisnet]

Hi, Guy.

 

I use PS, too, when I'm doing a lot of conversions.

 

I usually shoot both jpg and dng so I can browse using ACDSee, which is handy.

 

Though I'm using C1 for raw, I do editing in PS and save stuff from there. I am just curious if there are differences in the converters that different sw manufacturers make.

 

****************

 

BTW, I'm doing some b/w's for a shoot and I am finding that I like the PS desaturated b/w more than I like the conversions from the JFI profiles.

 

When I look at them side by side, the JFI versions are warmer and softer. The PS desaturated images have more punch. This is my first look at different b/w profiles.

[Jamie Roberts]

Hi, Guy.

 

I use PS, too, when I'm doing a lot of conversions.

 

I usually shoot both jpg and dng so I can browse using ACDSee, which is handy.

 

Though I'm using C1 for raw, I do editing in PS and save stuff from there. I am just curious if there are differences in the converters that different sw manufacturers make.

 

****************

 

BTW, I'm doing some b/w's for a shoot and I am finding that I like the PS desaturated b/w more than I like the conversions from the JFI profiles.

 

When I look at them side by side, the JFI versions are warmer and softer. The PS desaturated images have more punch. This is my first look at different b/w profiles.

 

Bill--

 

I'm the opposite. When I'm doing a lot of conversions, it's only C1 for me. When I'm doing one-offs with lots of editing, then it's photoshop.

 

In my opinion only, C1 does a better job of RAW conversion and therefore makes a better JPEG.

 

As far as quality of actual JPEG goes, though, PS can't be beat, but C1's are certainly no slouch.

 

So for me--C1 is the better RAW converter. What's the point of converting 1000 shots only to have to tweak them in PS?

 

---topic change--

 

If you want better BW from the JFI profiles, don't forget that you need to mess with the colour first, and still work with contrast and curve settings. PS does some of that for you, but since it doesn't see in BW anyway (and a default PS desat is just, well, usually awful), you're better off adding snap in C1 from the RAW detail.

 

IOW, a good raw conversion--even the JFIs--are very, very conservative; since you might want to punch stuff up / sharpen for final output in PS anyway. But if you want printable output from C1 (yes, you can do that), you need to add contrast and colour characteristics for your BW yourself.

 

The JFIs do an amazing job of mimicking BW film colour balance though. That's the point of them