RAW + JPEG Quality setting. Canon 5DII. 2 JPEGs downloads.

I am using PSE 7. ACR 5.6 installed. Camera is set for RAW+JPEG but download is only 2 JPEGS. I have read the plug-in download and install instructions several times and all that I am able to think of is ACR need to be installed in two locations.
Now what?
Bob AZ

Barbara
Thanks for the very helpful reply. I have been using Canon since 2005 and all has really been well. I could comment further but it would be thread drifting
I usually shoot only RAW and many images at a time. 250+. Sometimes I would like RAW files/images and JPEGs of each image. Usually maybe three times a year. This last time I was doing 50 some portraits with RAW for portraits and JPEGS for a directory. Imagine my surprise when the download was all JPEGS. I usually download from my Canon, a 5DII now, using My Computer with no problems. Been doing it since day one. Never a problem. Reshoot would have been a real inconvenience for lots of folks. I had recently sent my camera and lenses in for maintenance and have the lenses calibrated to the body. First thought was the camera Firmware Update so I checked the Adobe Camera Raw site for updates and updated ACW to 5.6. Three times I tried it to no avail. Nothing I tried would work. I did stumble through the portraits with acceptable success but I am a firm believer in RAW so in my quest for a solution I tried the Canon Forum and now the Adobe Forum. I also did pull the CompactFlash card from the camera and verified that both RAW and JPEG files are on the card using My Computer.
Which Windows System Utility do you suggest?
Bob AZ

Similar Messages

Jpeg Quality setting

I have tryed to find a reasonable value for jpeg quality setting when exporting images for use like sending to a lab for printing.
Comparing the Photoshop scale of 0-12 with the Lightroom scale of 0-100 on some typical images I found the following:
PS 6 is similar to LR 50
PS 7 similar to LR 60
PS 8 similar to LR 65 (62-69 gives same value)
PS 9 similar to LR 75 (70-76 gives same value)
PS 10 similar to LR 80 (77-84 gives same value)
PS 11 similar to LR 90 (85-92 gives same value)
PS 12 similar to LR 100 (93-100 gives same value)
Choosing "max" from the dialog in PS results in quality 10 (unless changed manually to 11 or 12), the value I normally use when converting to jpeg, and this seems to equal the value 80 in LR. I noted that the scale in LR is not linear, the resulting file sizes changes in a limited number of steps.
My conclusion from the test is that a setting of 80 in LR should be sufficient for all practical purposes when exporting a jpeg file (assuming that there is no significant difference between PS quality 10-12 for a file that is "final" and need no more adjustments).
Any views on "normal" setting of jpeg quality setting in LR for various purposes?
Sigge

To me it would depend on the purpose. I do a lot of printing at home, so I don't use jpegs for that. But, for high quality prints done externally, I believe a lot of people resize their files in Photoshop and then sharpen for the print job, then save either to jpeg or tiff. Tiff is the safest because it avoids the lossy compression of a jpeg. If your resize is successful and you need to save to jpeg, then I imagine the highest quality setting would be desirable.
For the web, you would also need to resize, using a resolution of 72 ppi, to fit your desired display size, then sharpen, then save the image. Again, is there a reason to not use the highest quality when saving a web image? Speed of display, I suppose. But there's a tradeoff.
I use PBase as a public web gallery and they have a nifty feature: you upload a file and they create three display sizes. When they're done you can tell them to delete the original. When I do that I save jpegs in LR to 80 -- it makes for faster uploading.
Tony

Jpeg quality setting, noise settings and artifacts

I am having difficulty having work accepted by iStock - even at full size at 100% jpe
g export, there is still some. I have cut way back on all enhancements.
I would like some advice to expoering clean images and where i find jpeg setings - or are their similar ones to those in CS5. I have tried saving for web in CS% to no avail. I do get some accepted - about 30% and i have started to use a program called deNoise from Topaz - would appreciate suggestions on all the baove.
Thanks
Greg Summers

Aren't these stock agencies a little paranoid about noise?
Lightroom 3 images may look a little noisier than LR2's at the same slider values. So you might need to add a little more luma noise than before.
As for Jpeg quality settings, read this excellent analysis: http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/jpeg-quality

LR vs PhotoShop JPEG Quality Setting

When exporting a JPEG file from LR one must specify the "quality" on a scale of 0-100; PhotoShop uses a 0-12 scale. How are these scales related? Is it linear, of something more complicated?

When exporting a JPEG file from LR one must specify the "quality" on a scale of 0-100; PhotoShop uses a 0-12 scale. How are these scales related? Is it linear, of something more complicated?

Setting default JPEG quality in Preview Export

Does anyone happen to know how to change the default quality setting of the JPEG export in Preview? I pretty much always need it to be best, and it's a little bit of a pain to have to adjust it from medium every time...

Hi can you navigate to the Start menu and then into HP and the HP Solution Center? From within that, select settings (probably on the lower right side of the HP Solution Center screen. In settings, click on Printer Settings where you can change the defaults for your printer.
I am an HP employee.
Feel free to provide Kudos if I have helped you!

Flash CS4 Jpeg Quality publishing problem

Hi there I'm trying to publish a .psd or .png that animates, but when I go to change the Jpeg Quality settings to change it to anything other than the 80% it's set to it makes the animated picture disappear when viewing the swf. (I'll eventually be doing this to many animated pictures and will need to use the global jpeg quality setting)
Can anyone try and open my .fla file and see if they can change the jpeg settings and get it to work, then I'll know that I'll probably have to reinstall Flash CS4.
Thanks in advance.

I encountered the same problem when changing the quality setting in the Publish Settings from the file menu. I was able to get it to work by changing the quality setting in the library. I can't explain the problem. Have you tried, (if your project allows you) to use a PNG instead of a PSD image?

Decreasing JPEG quality sometimes works

I've done about a hundred flash files with imported jpegs and
have had no trouble getting the global jpeg quality setting to
affect them. Now I've got a similar project of ten fla files that a
contractor did and I can't get the Jpeg quality setting to affect
the published files.
The point is that I know this setting can have an effect on
imported jpeg bitmaps because I've done it so many times now.
Now, in my own projects, all the jpeg bitmaps are set to "use
document default quality" and the global setting affects them. The
contractor's projects have the same settings but the global setting
has no effect.
The one thing I'm suspicious of is that her bitmap properties
point to originals that are on her computer, not mine. Could the
fact that her sources are unavailable have anything to do with
this?
Rob Mack

Okay, here's the answer. My previous several thousand jpeg
images had been saved with the progressive switch turned on.
Evidently, Flash compresses bitmaps in non-progressive jpeg
format. If the asset is already in this format then flash defaults
to using the original file as is. However, if the jpeg asset is in
progressive format then Flash has to recompress it.
The effect is that progressive jpeg files can be affected by
the project's global jpeg quality settings but non-porgressive
jpegs can't be affected by the settings.
How this affects a user depends on what you want to do. In my
case I'm doing dozens and dozens of files that are much like slide
shows and it's most convenient to adjust compression in the project
settings to get the file size down. For most other users, they've
gone to a bit of trouble to get a jpeg image "just right" and don't
want the global setting to affect it. In most users cases they'd
want to save non-progressive jpegs, in fact since the project
setting will skip them this is the better way to go when mixing
jpeg and png bitmaps.
For someone in my position where you need to be able to
recompress the bitmaps, you either save jpegs with progressive
switched on or you save the bitmaps in PNG format. Overall, using
PNG will probably cause less overall image damage but it increases
your storage requirements quite a bit.
So, what if you saved the jpegs in the wrong format? Maybe
the best choice would be to go back to photoshop and set up a batch
action to resave everything with Progressive on or off. Then in the
FLA file you can select all the bitmaps and update them in bulk.
Rob Mack

LR JPEG compression vs. Photoshop JPEG compression

I haven't found any documentation of the meaning of the 0 - 100% JPEG compression value in LR's (v1 or v2) Export File window. And the default value of 100% is overkill and results in huge files. At least I'm familiar with the Photoshop's 0-12 JPEG quality scale with associated quality names: Low, Medium, High, and Maximum.
Via trial and error, I have found that LR has the same 13 quality levels as Photoshop and gives the same results, they are just mapped on a 0 - 100% scale. This also means that changing a few percent may not make any change at all, since a quality change only happens about every 7 percent.
For those who might find it useful, here is a table of the mappings:
The first column is the Photoshop compression number and name; the second column in the range of Lightroom percentages that will give the same results.
0-Low 0-7%
1-Low 8-15%
2-Low 16-23%
3-Low 24-30%
4-Low 31-38%
5-Med 39-46%
6-Med 47-53%
7-Med 54-61%
8-High 62-69%
9-High 70-76%
10-Max 77-84%
11-Max 85-91%
12-Max 92-100%

I looked at this again using PS's 'Baseline Standard' JPEG format option instead of 'Baseline Optimized. LR does not provide the format options Standard, Optimized, and Progressive, but appears to use 'Baseline Standard.' The equivalent compression level LR file size is within 16KB of PS's file size, which is probably due to slight differences in in the file metadata.
This pretty much confirms LR and PS use the same 'Baseline Standard' JPEG compression algorithms. The PS level 7 reduced quality is also seen at LR's level 54-61 JPEG Quality setting. Jeffrey Friedel mentions this in his analysis of LR's JPEG Quality settings and a reply from Brian Tao:
http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/jpeg-quality
Jeffrey Friedel's comment:
One thing I find interesting (but don't understand) is that in the first example, the difference in file size between the 47〜53 quality and 54〜61 quality is considerable (49k to 66k bytes), while in the second example, the the same two levels of quality produces essentially the same file size. There seems to be some kind of switch in compression algorithm once Lightroom is at a quality setting of 54 or above that puts the emphasis on encoding the easily-discernible smooth gradients of the sunset example, and if they are lacking in the image, as with the reed-window-shade example, the attempt at extra quality fails, and the file size does not increase. That's my guess, but it's just a guess.
Brian Tao's Reply:
This is due to the downsampling (basically, a reduction in resolution) of one or more of the image channels before passing it to the actual compression routine. Human vision is much more sensitive to changes in luminance (brightness) than chrominance (colour). JPEG takes advantage of this by reducing the amount of colour information stored in the image in order to achieve higher compression ratios. Because it is colour and not brightness that is sacrificed, this is called “chroma subsampling”. Look up that term in Wikipedia for a far better and more detailed description than I can provide here.
In a nutshell, Adobe products will use either a 4:4:4 subsampling (which is no subsampling at all, and thus full resolution) or 4:2:0 subsampling (both red and blue channels are reduced to one-quarter resolution before compression). There is no switch to specify the amount of subsampling to use. In Photoshop, the change from 4:2:0 to 4:4:4 happens between quality 6 and 7. In Photoshop’s Save For Web, it happens between quality 50 and 51. In Lightroom, you already noticed that something unexpected happens between 47-53 quality and 54-61 quality. Guess what levels those correspond to in Photoshop? 6 and 7… exactly as expected.
You can very easily demonstrate this by creating a worst-case scenario of JPEG chroma subsampling. Create a small image in Photoshop with a pure blue (RGB = 0,0,255) background. Now type in some pure red text (RGB = 255,0,0). For maximum effect, turn off anti-aliasing, so each pixel is either full on red or full on blue. Zoom in to 500% or so for a clear view of the pixels. Now save the image as a JPEG. With the JPEG quality dialog visible, you will see a real-time preview of the effects of JPEG compression. Start at 12, and work your way down to 0, one step at a time. Watch what happens when you go from 7 to 6. You can do the same with Save For Web and with Lightroom to confirm where they switch from 4:4:4 to 4:2:0.
The file size discrepancy is more noticeable in the sunset shot because most of the information (relatively speaking) is needed to encode the gradual change in chrominance values. There is virtually no luminance detail to worry about, except around the silhouette of the bird. But in the photo of the reed window shades, the fine detail and texture and lack of colour result in practically no difference going from 4:4:4 and 4:2:0.
Because of this hidden (and inaccessble) switch, I have been recommending that to be safe, one should never go below quality 7 in Photoshop, or 51 in Save For Web. In Lightroom, this corresponds to quality 54.
Hope this helps.

Canon 5DII RAW+jpeg does not download

When I select RAW+jpeg quality only 2 jpegs download. I am using PhotoShop Elements 7 and there has never been a problem until Canon Irvine updated the firmware. I don't in anyway blame the firmware update but what do I do now to get 1 RAW file and 1 jpeg file?
I have also updated the Adobe RAW plugin software.
Bob AZ

Check what version of ACR you are using. It may no longer be compatible with the latest firmware in the camera.
Element 7 dates from Fall 2008, is based upon Photoshop CS4, and Adobe only updates their older versions to a point. Then you have to upgrade to a newer version.
Elements 7 can use up to ACR 5.6. The current Elements 11 uses ACR 7.2.
According to Adobe, 5DII requires ACR 5.2 or later. However, it's possible the firmware update to the 5DII (2.1.2, released Feb. 2012) made changes that now require something later than ACR 5.6, which would necessitate upgrading your version of Elements.
This happened to me back when I went from 30D to 50D... First I found I needed to update Photoshop. Then I found that I needed to update my computer's operating system in order to use the newer version of Photoshop. In the end, I bought a whole new computer because the newer OS and Photoshop would have seriously bogged down on the old computer! That was one expensive camera upgrade!
You have alternatives.
For one thing, you don't have to download via Elements. You should be able to see the image files on the memory card in Windows Explorer (or the Mac equivalent, if you're not a Win PC user). In Explorer you'll see the file listed, but will not be able to see actual thumbnails of the CR2 files... Unless you install a codec that allows it. If using a 32 bit operating system, there's a free Canon codec. If using a 64 bit OS, you'll need to go with a third party codec that might cost a few dollars (I'm using one that's called FastPictureViewer, which cost me $15 US per computer if memory serves... this has the advantage of allowing me to view not only Canon RAW file previews and thumbnails, but also many other camera manufacturers' proprietary RAW formats). This is just a convenience, really, being able to see the RAW file as a thumbnail and preview it in Windows, prior to converting it.
With or without the codec installed, you can simply use Explorer (or the Mac equiv.) to drag and drop, move or copy the image files to a folder on your computer, bypassing Elements entirely. This is at least as fast, might be even faster.. But doesn't allow you to do some other things with the files during the download, such as renaming or adding copyright info. I do this all the time, since I am often downloading multiple memory cards and busy with my RAW conversion software getting started on editing the images already downloaded.
Once the CR2s are on your computer, you still have the same problem being unable to view and open the CR2 files in your older version of Elements.
You could convert them to DNGs. There's a free DNG converter available for download from Adobe. The DNGs should work fine in Elements 7 (and have an added, modest advantage that they don't need the small "sidecar" file to save conversion data, like other types of RAW files do).
Or, once the CR2s are on your computer, you could use a different program for the conversions. There are several freeware RAW converters available (GIMP, for example). I haven't used any of them recently, so can't really recommend one over the others.
Or just spend around $100 for a new copy of Elements 11 and be fully up to date with that software, able to continue downloading via Elements if you wish, and have some of the newer tools that have been added in more recent versions of the software. I saw a big improvement in noise reduction quality, for example, going from Photoshop CS4 to CS5 (Elements 7 is based upon CS4). I don't use Elements (I use Lightroom and Photoshop), but am sure there are other improvements you might find worthwhile, too.
Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & PRINTROOM

I'm unable to download RAW images from my Canon Rebel T2i to my flash drives. JPEGS are fine. WHY?

Suddenly I'm unable to download my RAW images from my Canon Rebel T2i to my flash drives when just a few weeks ago I was able to. What happened? I can download JPEGS just fine. No error codes, software works like normal, i see the previews and when i go to my flash drives to open the files the dated file is there but it opens with no images. I've reformatted the memory card twice now, so that's not the problem. Any ideas from all my new friends out there. Thank you.

We may need more info. What are your flash drives? What are you using to copy? What computer/OS do you use?
Normally a file is a file... a computer doesn't care what type of file it is. Whether or not any software knows how to hope the file wont impact the computer's ability to copy it. This makes me wonder if it is being copied, but can't be opened (e.g. if the software you are using doesn't know how to deal with a Canon T2i RAW file (.CR2).
RAW is more of a "concept" than a "standard". Every camera model's RAW file will be slightly different. If you want to open an image in, say, Photoshop... they provide "Adobe Camera RAW" updates for their software and you'd need the update that supports your T2i (btw, when Adobe releases a "new" version of software, they tend to stop providing RAW updates for all previous versions of that software. So depending on what version of software you use... the only way to get it to work with RAW may involve having to upgrade the software (there are some cumbersome work-arounds.))
Tim Campbell
5D II, 5D III, 60Da

I have scanned photos using an Epson V500 scanner set to jpeg format using the least compression (highest quality) setting. When I try to import the scanned jpegs into iPhoto I get an error message saying "The file is an unrecognized format." But if I

I have scanned photos using an Epson V500 scanner set to scan using jpeg format at the highest quality (least compression) setting. When I try to import the scanned jpegs into iPhoto, I get an error message from iPhoto saying "The file is an unrecognized format." But if I reduce the quality setting on the Epson scanner to just slightly below highest quality, the images import into iPhoto just fine. Why won't iPhoto accept jpegs scanned at the highest quality setting? Wondering?

What scanner format settings dis you use? Are these color photos? If they are B/W did you scan as grayscale images? That could be the problem.
Are you able to open them with Preview? If so do a Save As, select full quality and save as a jpeg with a new file name. See if that file will import and work as intended.
OT

Problem with Canon T2i JPEG

I have both Adobe Photoshop Elements 8 and Premiere. I have JPEG photos from a Canon SD870 and a Canon T2i. I can open the JPEG files from both cameras in Elements just fine. In Premiere I can drag the JPEG from the Canon SD870 just fine. When I try it with a JPEG from the Canon T2i I get a Genric error unrecognized file format or codec not loaded. Its just a JPEG file. What could be the difference between the two cameras? Please help.

Dalbers
I assume you are using a Nikon DSLR and downloading to you computer via Aperture. First thing is check the file type set in the image quality menu on the camera: it may be at NEF which is Nikon's "RAW" or it may be at a JPEG setting. If it's set to NEF you can only see the image with compatible S/W (which Aperture is). If it's set to one of the JPEGs then that is the format that will be downloaded.
Which then takes us to the nitty-gritty: how exactly are you getting the images from the Nikon to the computer and why do you want it as a RAW (NEF) format on your desktop? If the starting point is Aperture and you are exporting, the export pop-up shows you the permitted export formats (JPEG, TIFF, PHG or PSD - or JPEG email versions) and that's it. If you want to download NEF/RAW files to process, that's fine but the end-product viewable file has to be one of those export formats.
Hope this helps

My Canon Rebel is no longer recording RAW images but set for RAW in manual mode.

I've tried changing memory card. My card's been recently formatted. I tried setting quality as RAW only not both RAW + Jpg...but still not getting RAW images in upload. Lightroom settings are fine and able to upload RAW from my Canon G12. I tried clearing setting but no affect. Is a factory reset a possible solution?

Debbie wrote:
Tahdah, tahdah and just plain dahhhh!!! I figured it out and if I share the answer I'll sound just plain stupid. But here goes in case someone else has the same problem, or should I say the same misunderstanding. In short, as it turns out I didn't have the quality set on RAW. I had checked, and rechecked the menu>quality window several times and each time misread it until I was just looking in the manual. In it the list of quality options is in a single column. In camera RAW is in a second column next to L with a quarter circle. I thought I had RAW selected. I'd been saying that the letter L was there. The manual, thank goodness, had the single column and said that was a JPG. Here I was reading about battery checks etc and there it was. I had been checking settings a while back and managed to change from RAW to JPG and not figured that I'd not changed back correctly. Whew!!! Call me dumb but I'm stupidly delighted right now ;o) Thanks to all those who tried to help.
OK, Debbie, maybe you'll feel better after I confess to doing something every bit as stupid. Recently my wife and I were driving home from a visit to our daughter's house in Philadelphia, and I used the opportunity to drop off my two 7D's and a couple of lenses at Canon's Jamesburg service facility for their usual cleaning and inspection. (I'm a CPS Gold Member, so it's an included perk.) I knew from previous experience that this would result in a partial clearing of the camera's user settings. Some items, like my name and copyright notice, would be left intact; but others, like my autofocus microadjustment settings, would be wiped. I was ready for that, had long since committed the AFMA's to a spreadsheet, etc.
But alas, I overlooked the fact that the quality setting that you cite above was one of those that would revert to its factory default. And the default is high-resolution JPEG, not RAW. (I always use RAW, and my favorite photo editor, Digital Photo Professional, does a crummy job on JPEGs.) So a week later I blithely walked into a moderately important photo shoot with one of my cameras set to JPEG. Fortunately, the other camera I was using, an almost new 5D Mark III, hadn't been to Jamesburg and was correctly set to RAW. But about two thirds of the photos I took were JPEGs, so I'll have to block out a few hours, sit down with Irfanview or some other editor, and try to fix things up. It doesn't much matter when I get it done, and the world won't come to an end, but it's pretty damned embarrassing.
So there you have it. We all make mistakes.
Bob
Boston, Massachusetts USA

Lightroom 4.2 raw to jpeg very noisy vs camera jpeg

Hi, I shoot my pictures in RAW+JPEG on my canon EOS 60D.
When I open the jpeg produced by the camera, there is no (or very few) noise. But the same file (raw imported in Lightroom) without any modification (no change in color balance, exposure,...) just default settings the exported jpeg is very noise and darker.
What cause this heavy noise when viewing the picture in 1:1 size ?
A sample is much easy to explain:
You can download the full resolution jpeg here: http://demo.ovh.com/download/c7aa49ae94a5ec202eca7f8ffdad0c8d/sample.jpg
Picture settings:
ISO 1600, F/5.6, 1/60sec

Are you asking how to copy settings from one photo to others?
Select a group of photos using the thumbnail bar, probably not all 100 but a few with the same lighting and exposure and similar toning adjustments, and make the current photo the one with the settings you want to copy to the rest.
Click the Sync button.
Click Check None to clear any settings you previously copied in an unrelated session.
Put a checkbox next to the Sharpen category of settings.
Click Synchronize, and your sharpen settings will be replicated to all the other selected photos.
You can’t copy just the sharpen-mask setting independent of all the other sharpening settings, so you probably want to do your multi-photo synchronization before you tweak the sharpening individually.
Eventually you will probably want to set up your LR default to have a non-zero Sharpen Mask value, but you won’t know what it needs to be for most photos without some more experience and experimentation. I usually have mine set pretty high for the default.

Poor image quality? Why do Jpeg's look so bad?

If anyone has tips on how to improve the image quality of jpeg's in acrobat.com I'd really like to hear them. I've edited the images in Photoshop (CS4), exported them as jpeg's, and inserted them into my acrobat.com presentation. They look horrible, and there are many artifacts. If I insert the same image into Powerpoint, they look considerably better, but I'd prefer not to have to use it. Is there an image quality setting that I'm missing?
Thanks for any help,
Rob

Hi Rob,
Thanks for posting - and sorry you're having trouble. It sounds as though the image's quality is suffering because it's being down-sized upon insertion. In Presentations, any images larger than 1024 on a side are resized to fit within a 1024 bounds (we do this to optimize performance - important for a web application).
Here are some tips from one of our fine engineers:
For the best looking images, pre-scale your images to fit the size of the presentation before you upload them; for reference, the slide canvas is 720 pixels wide and 540 pixels tall. Any image larger than those dimensions is larger than it needs to be on the client so you and your audience are downloading more data than they will ever see. If you resize your images to fit the size it will appear on the screen, you will have a better looking image.
The choice of image format makes a difference at this scale as well. For image with smooth transitions like photographs of landscapes, jpeg is a good format. For computer generated diagrams like charts, or images with lots of details like text, PNG is a better format.
It is important that the image be scaled to the appropriate size before uploading because the server will recompress any image it needs to scale using JPEG compression. So if you are uploading a PNG image with transparency, you will loose any transparency effect if the image is large enough to require scaling on the server.
I hope this is helpful, Rob. Please let us know if you have any further questions.
Best regards,
Rebecca

RAW + JPEG Quality setting. Canon 5DII. 2 JPEGs downloads.

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for