RAW vs JPG quality question

Just got Lightroom and am now for the first time taking images in RAW format. I am using a Canon SLR as well as a Panasonic P&S both shooting in JPG and RAW. The Canon RAW images have an extension of .CR2 and the Panasonic has an extension of .RW2..
Okay with that out of the way, I'm going through my images and notice that the RAW images don't look nearly as nice as the JPG images. As I understand it, RAW has all of the information from the picture taken and gives more flexibility with adjustments. But how is it that the two images side by side look so different? I like the look of the JPG images most of the time.. They have better color quality and the lighting seems to be more accurate to what was shot. Some even seem to have a higher level of sharpness where the RAW images almost look like they could be slightly out of focus. I've tried to get the RAW and JPG images to look the same to see if there is a specific difference (see if contrast is always x lower or x higher etc... ) but can't seem to get a RAW image to look like what was actually shot.
Any input on working with RAW images or experience that would help me out here?
Much appreciated!
Nathan

The main “quality” thing you’ll probably see different your camera’s raw conversion (to JPGs) and Adobe’s is that there is no default luminance noise-reduction so there will be grain you can see and that the sharpening is more subtle.
You can adjust both the noise-reduction and sharpening to taste, just don’t overdo it.  When I look at a camera JPG I typically see too much noise reduction which has removed too much fine detail, and sharpening halos along edges, both of which I dislike, now that I’ve worked with raws for so long.
Here is the first part of a three-part tutorial about the three types of sharpening, capture, creative, output, that you can do to raw files in Lightroom.  The links to the other two parts are at the bottom of part one:
http://laurashoe.com/2011/08/21/sharpening-in-lightroom-part-one-overview-and-capture-shar pening/
You should also be doing your capture and creative sharpening with the zoom set to 100% or 1:1.  The resampling algorithim used to show smaller-than-100%-zoom views in Lightroom Develop will give inaccurate sharpening preview results, so what you think you’re doing will be different than what is actually visible in the output you produce with LR, unless you use 1:1.

Similar Messages

  • Question about RAW to JPG file sizes

    Hello all, I have a question/concern in reference to file size changes when converting from RAW to JPG formats in PSE6. I've recently purchased a CANON 50D, and have started shooting in RAW format (actually RAW2+JPG). I have the CAMERA RAW 5.2 plugin and my workflow process is something akin to this:
    1. Separate all RAW and JPG images into their respective folders.
    2. Open the RAW folder in BRIDGE, and then open up a CR2 file. CR2 file is approx 15MB at this point, as reported in Finder.
    3. Perform various corrections in ACR52 to the file, then do as SAVE AS to a DNG file.
    4. Next step is to OPEN IMAGE, bringing it up in PSE6.
    5. Make any necessary corrections to the picture, and then do a SAVE AS to a new file name and folder, selecting JPG format.
    6. Selection MAX QUALITY from subsequent dialogue box, and SAVE.
    When the file is saved, its now down to a mere 2.1 or 2.2MB, and when viewing its properties (vs. the same file that came from camera in JPG format), its down from a 44x66" format, to somewhere around 4x6" and 240dpi.
    I've been doing some reading on this over the weekend, but cant explain away the severe loss in file size, and whether this is right, or if I'm doing something wrong in the process.
    Appreciate any advice or suggestions to help improve my work processes, and ultimately the final photos!

    Regarding your file size questions, have a look at this thread and see if it answers some of your questions:
    http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/741532/0
    > When the file is saved, its now down to a mere 2.1 or 2.2MB, and when viewing its properties (vs. the same file that came from camera in JPG format), its down from a 44x66" format, to somewhere around 4x6" and 240dpi.
    Dimensions and resolution are related and multiple combinations can be produced from the same number of pixels. For example, your 50D at maximum image size produces 4,752 by 3,168 pixels. This full-size image could be printed at:
    - 19.8 x 13.2 inches at 240 PPI
    - 47.52 x 31.68 inches at 100 PPI
    - 7.92 x 5.28 inches at 600 PPI
    As you can maybe see, talking about dimensions and resolution doesn't make much sense until you are ready to consider printing. Note also that I used "PPI" or Pixels Per Inch since this is the slightly more correct terminology. DPI or "Dots Per Inch" is usually a reference to how a printer lays down the ink drops onto the paper. Many printers actually put more "dots" on the paper than there are pixels. Many people and companies use DPI when they mean PPI.
    Now in your case you are apparently starting with an SRAW2 raw file. SRAW2 files from the 50D have a reduced number of pixels and are 2,276 pixels wide by 1,584 pixels high. At 240 PPI this would allow you to print the image at 9.9 by 6.6 inches. If you are ending up with something smaller than that, it means you have either re-sampled the image (changed the image so the same image is displayed with fewer pixels) or you have cropped the image.
    Hope that helps.

  • Raw or jpg in lightroom?

    Hi
    a stupid question about lightroom , i'm a new customer
    i know that i can edit raw & jpg files
    is there a big suitability to edit raw files in quality???
    or can i edit jpg files as well like raw?
    thanks

    With the power and functionality of today's RAW editors, such as LR, and the cheapness of memory cards and hard drives, there is every reason to prefer RAW capture and development over other formats, especially JPEG, for "most" photography.
    I say "most" because I'm aware that in some instances high-volume and fast turnaround deadlines make shooting in JPEG desirable. An example of this situation would be sports shooting where JPEG allows for faster continuous-mode performance (as well as much more image storage before having to change cards) and, for sports journalist photographers, they may have a short timeline to deliver their images in JPEG format.
    However, for most "serious" photography, the highest quality image is near the top of the list. If you invested in a camera that can give you RAW, you should have no qualms about using that capability. JPEG is for final output when needed, as in Web display or giving to clients to view, but RAW is needed for the best results in the basic editing process. With programs like LR, you can do so much with RAW you may never need anything else to edit for many of your pictures. If you need Photoshop's capabilities, you can export your images from LR to PS with no loss by exporting a copy of your RAW file and PS will recognize all of LR's adjustments. For other applications LR can export as a TIFF, which will prevent the "lossy compression" that is built in to JPEG.
    So, there should be very little (or no) reason to edit a JPEG unless you have no RAW (or PSD or TIFF) to work with the original image quality. We can even print from Lightroom without saving to JPEG.
    Tony

  • Should I shoot RAW or JPG and what ratio should I pick when shooting stills?

    I want to take artistic pictures. Does that mean I should shoot RAW and then deal with the settings in Photoshop? I realize I can't for the corporate photo contest because I am not allowed to Photoshop anything for the contest. And pictures at a party that I intend to share or immediately upload, I understand why I would not shoot RAW.
    Are there other reasons not to do so?
    Many of you know me. I have been shooting video for a while and I am just now starting to shoot stills. These are tough questions for me.
    I always assumed I would shoot stills using the maximum frame size possible. However, I have other choices.
    When the aspect ratio setting is [4:3]
    4608x3456 pixels, 3264x2448 pixels, 2336x1752 pixels
    When the aspect ratio setting is [3:2]
    4608x3072 pixels, 3264x2176 pixels, 2336x1560 pixels
    When the aspect ratio setting is [16:9]
    4608x2592 pixels, 3264x1840 pixels, 1920x1080 pixels
    When the aspect ratio setting is [1:1 ]
    3456x3456 pixels, 2448x2448 pixels, 1744x1744 pixels
    Now, to be honest, I can't think of a reason to shoot stills at any size other than the 4:3 based 4608x3456 except to save room on the memory card. But I figured I should probably ask just in case I am missing something. Storage is not an issue as far as I can tell at this time. I bought two 64GB cards and I will be able to use part of my 16GB Smartphone memory card for additional storage should the need arise. Most likely I will have plenty of room until I can copy over to my laptop and then on to an external drive.
    For reference: http://www.herviewphotography.com/2012/06/18/raw-vs-jpg-file-formats.html

    Steven,
    You are correct, that you should not shoot the Holiday Party pics in RAW, as they will only be used to blackmail your boss, and co-workers, so JPEG would be adequate for that (unless you really need to do Photoshop work, to make the images more "compromising... ").
    Now, shooting in Camera RAW has several advantages, and really only two disadvantages, that I can think of.
    Camera RAW captures everything that the sensor can, but it is in unprocessed form (one of the disadvantages), and then Photoshop with the ACR (Adobe Camera RAW) can "process" your images. I do this, when I have real use for the Images. I have developed a Preset for my Nikon Camera RAW, for each camera, so it's fairly easy to batch process. I always Save_As PSD, since I will very likely do additional work (not useful for the company competition, but CAN be useful for those black-mail pictures, if you have much "work" to do).
    I Save my NEF's (Nikon Camera RAW) Images, and then, in a separate folder, my processed PSD's. Those are sort of like duplicate transparencies, but with slightly different data in each. From the first, the NEF's, I could always run them through ACR again, should something happen to my PSD's. The reverse is not true, but at least I would have my PSD's.
    For use in Video, I will almost always Open my PSD's, and Scale them, plus possibly do other Image-editing, per my needs. As I shoot at max. resolution (~ 4000 x 3000), I will be Scaling, and then likely Cropping (as most Projects now, are 16:9). If you do any 4:3 Projects, then you are already there, save for the Square Pixel vs Rectangular Pixel issue, but if you Scale the 4:3 material to 640 x 480 Square, it should look just fine in a 4:3 PAR=0.9 Project's Frame.
    In camera, I always try to mentally compose the Images into 16:9 horizontal, if I see the potential for Video use. It's like keeping 11 x 17 in the back of my mind, when shooting for potential double-truck magazine use. [Back in film days, I made several Nikon screens, to fit various common uses.]
    Though PrPro CS 6 (as of CS 5), with full CUDA/MPE support, can do a great job of Scaling, I still use my PS Actions to batch process entire folders, and usually on Bicubic Sharper, though for some subjects, I choose Bicubic Smoother. This means that I am not "pushing around" a bunch of unused pixels. I Crop each Image, and then Scale it, with the Action, to match the Frame Size of the Project.
    Now, back to RAW. That allows you the full capture from the sensor, so you have everything to work with. I shoot in 16-bit, for as much data, as I can get. One step in the process, but usually well after the ARC processing, and Saving_As PSD, will be the conversion to 8-bit Mode, but only after ALL of my processing, as PrPro cannot use 16-bit Bit-Depth, for Video.
    For just general shooting (usually "happy-snaps"), with no inteneded high-rez printing, or Video use, I will shoot JPEG, at the highest quality setting (lowest compression), and be done with it.
    One disatvantage of Camera RAW is the write time to the card, but with newer cameras, and faster cards, that is less of a problem, than it once was. Still, even high-rez JPEG's, though they do require in-camera processing to JPEG, will allow one to shoot more quickly. [That can be very important with those Holiday Party pics, as who knows what will happen in the next nanosecond?]
    To me, Camera RAW is sort of like standing in front of a photograph, with my entire set of cameras. I ask, "Is this really a great shot?" If so, out comes the 4 x 5. If the answer is "maybe," then I grab a Hassleblad. If the answer is "no, but it IS interesting," then the 35mm is my choice. Sort of the same thing, but instead of cameras, it's RAW vs High-rez JPEG.
    Just some thoughts.
    Hunt
    [Edit] PS - what the linked article said.

  • Lost metadata in file after attempt to Save RAW As JPG in PS CS3

    Someone in other place in this Forum advised me that this will be probably more appropriate place to ask these questions, so I will give it a go. Below is a copy of my post on PS Windows thread (well, two posts really edited into one):
    Hi,
    I have just found out that after I open RAW pictures from my Canon 5D (but same happens with pictures from Canon 10D) in PS and than try to save them as JPGs, I loose majority of my metadata from the files (after right click on filename in. I can still Windows Explorer and clicking Properties or simply adding additional columns in Win XP Windows Explorer detailed view.
    So same picture, without any editing at all, just opened as RAW file (which it is a CR2 or CRW file in Canons), and then saved as JPG, suddenly does not show the date of picture taken, focal length or exposure time are all gone. Does not matter if I try Properties in Win Explorer or say Properties in MS Office Picture Manager.
    Was trying to look for any setting in PS that would set the ability to save or abandon saving of this type of information in JPG file but could not find anything of this kind.
    What is interesting I went back to my pictures I have saved from RAW to JPG using same PS years ago, and I this was not a problem. Everything was saving OK.
    So in summary:
    1. This would not be a problem related to camera (it is unlikely that same problem would occur on two different models at the same time - even though both are Canons)
    2. It must be a way to force the Photoshop to do that, I f I was able to do it successfully, almost without knowing, before.
    Therefore, I would think that either:
    1. There is some set of defaults somewhere in PS that I have accidently turned off causing my PS not to save this metadata properly or in full, or
    2. That it came as some kind of bug with some of the updates to PS CS3 that I was getting over last year from Adobe.
    Has any one else encountered similar problem? If yes, what did you do to resolve this issue?
    I will be very grateful for any help, as I am not a frequent user of Adobe Photoshop and may just not be very familiar with the part that regulates that type of issues.
    And I do not use the Save for Web option.
    I just used (in PS CS3 running on Win XP Professional with SP3) the Save As from File menu.
    What is also strange is that if I use File - Open command and get the first window with Open dialog box, where you have some basic options for opening/converting RAW format pictures (this window does not come up when I open JPG files) and I use existing there button to Save (which does not actually allow to do any editing of the picture before such way of saving) all Camera Properties, or that metadata, is actually saved into the newly created JPG quite correctly.
    However if I use button Open in that conversion dialog box, and than save already opened RAW file as JPG, the majority of that data is gone (date picture taken, exposure time, aperture, focal length, exposure compensation steps etc).
    I can see that RAW file has all this in the sections called EXIF and XMP (under File - File Information) but Save As does not add this info in the JPG files for some reason.

    No, not really, because I ma not sure what it is for.
    I just used (in PS CS3 running on Win XP Proffessional) the Save As from File menu.
    What is also strange is that if I use Open command and get the first window with Open dialog box, where you have some basic options for opening/converting RAW format pictures (this window does not come up when I open JPG files) and I use existing there option to Save (which does not actually allow to do any editing of the picture before such way of saving) the all Camera Properties, or that metadata is actually saved into the newly created JPG.However if i use button Open in that conversion dialog box, and than save as JPG, the majority of that dtata is gone (date picture taken, exposure time, aperture, focal lenght, exposure compensation steps etc).
    I can see that RAW file has all this in the sections called EXIF and XMP (under File - File Information) but Save As does not add this info in the JPG files for some reason.

  • Do you import both raw and jpg...

    Sorry if this has been asked. I did a search to no avail.
    I am shooting RAW+JPG w/ my camera but and have now set the preference to import the JPG file next to the raw file.
    My question is more on how you do your work flow...
    Do you import both (if you shoot this way to begin with?)
    I'd like to have the jpeg around cause it's nice to be able to send something off quickly... or do you just create them on the fly when needed?
    Thanks!

    If you have both Raw and Jpeg imported as treated separately, If you Develop the Raw the JPEG won't auto sync to it with out you being deliberate about it.
    That is you select them both in Dev and you Auto sync as you work or you ask LR to sync it by selection after developing.
    If you have LR treat the Jpegs as sidecars to the Raws then they get synced when you export XMP or save, but you don't see them in LR.
    Don
    Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.10 & Win XP, Pentax *ist D
    http://donricklin.blogspot.com/

  • RAW to JPG file conversions too small?

    Hello,
    I recently upgraded to CS3 from CS so I'm now using Bridge/ACR to convert my RAW files to .JPGs. What is puzzling me is, if I open one or more RAW files in Bridge, make some adjustments (usually WB, exposure, etc.), then use the Save Image option within Bridge to save the image(s) as .JPGs, I am getting very small file sizes (I'm using the Max Quality setting in Bridge, which is 10). For example, a RAW file goes from 6.5MB to 1.2MB. However, if I open the RAW file in Photoshop instead of Bridge/ACR, make adjustments, then save as a maximum quality .jpg, the file goes from 6.5MB to 4.5MB. My concern is that when using the batch/save option within Bridge I'm losing quality somewhere?
    Any ideas?
    Thanks,
    FTP

    Hi Omke,
    Thank you for sharing your workflow--very generous and quite interesting.
    Yesterday, I barged into an Adobe Forums thread similar to mine and I discovered the reason for the file size difference, it's the 10 setting you get when you select Maximum Quality from the Bridge Save Image dialogue box. Bridge, like PS, actually goes to a 12 quality setting, but you have to type in the 12 manually (a curious requirement) rather than selecting the Max Quality option, which always goes to 10. Once I manually typed in 12, my Bridge-converted (RAW to .jpg) files became precisely the same size as when I convert them using PS.
    Here's a link to the thread:
    charles badland, "raw to jpeg,jpeg file too small" #36, 30 Sep 2008 1:47 pm
    Thanks again for your help and suggestions,
    --FTP

  • Camera unaccountably switches RAW to jpg

    I experienced a situation where, in the middle of a shoot my nikon d7000, unbeknown to me, switched from RAW to jpg. I've shot 10,000 images, always in RAW, and this has never happened before. I think you have to go into the "Shooting" menu and specifically change the settings in order to change the format. And I certainly did not do this.
    The Jpeg's ( approx. 1-1.3 MB files) are not a complete disaster. However, as I always shoot in RAW and rely on post editing, I made no adjustments in the camera for jpg's therefore the images look a little flat. I'd appreciate any ideas on how I could maximize the quality of the jpeg's

    I think you have to go into the "Shooting" menu and specifically change the settings in order to change the format.
    I doubt that. I don't have a D7000, but I do have a D70 and a D300. Neither one requires going to a menu to change the image format. It is set using the command dial while holding a button marked "QUAL".
    You can do the same adjustments with JPEG that you can use with raw, except for the raw-specific adjustments. Adjust contrast and saturation, for example, to make the images less "flat". There will be less latitude, especially for things like highlight recovery.

  • Changing "Raw" to "JPG"

    I am a brand new mac user and iphoto.
    The scenario is that:
    I imported "RAW" photo into iphoto and say I already finish editing all the "raws" and want to change all of them to "jpg" so it wont waste my hdd spaces.
    So in other words, change "raw" to "jpg" then delete all the "raws".
    Is this possible to do? How about can I do the task...
    Thank you for you answers in advance.

    So the only way for me to do what I wanted is to export all the edited photo as JPEG and store it somewhere then delete the RAW and then import the "exported jpeg".
    When you edit the RAW you will have a JPEG as I understand it - what program do you plan to use to edit the RAW. You start with RAW but the edited version will not be RAW
    And since the whole purpose of RAW is better quality and since hard drive are getting pretty cheap I would think you would want to keep your digital negatives RAW
    Aperture does handle RAW much better than iPhoto and many people who shoot RAW move to it for that reason - but I believe it does still maintain the RAW as the digital negative
    LN

  • Nokia 1020: any RAW to JPG converters which preser...

    Rawer does an excellent job, with variable quality Jpeg options so you can extract a high quality jpeg, but it discards the EXIF data which is really annoying.
    There is a PC based route I found which goes to a TIF and then Jpeg... lengthy.
    There are various PC progs which go DNG to Jpeg but the ones that support Microsoft's version of DNG all cost about $50.

    Hi Omke,
    Thank you for sharing your workflow--very generous and quite interesting.
    Yesterday, I barged into an Adobe Forums thread similar to mine and I discovered the reason for the file size difference, it's the 10 setting you get when you select Maximum Quality from the Bridge Save Image dialogue box. Bridge, like PS, actually goes to a 12 quality setting, but you have to type in the 12 manually (a curious requirement) rather than selecting the Max Quality option, which always goes to 10. Once I manually typed in 12, my Bridge-converted (RAW to .jpg) files became precisely the same size as when I convert them using PS.
    Here's a link to the thread:
    charles badland, "raw to jpeg,jpeg file too small" #36, 30 Sep 2008 1:47 pm
    Thanks again for your help and suggestions,
    --FTP

  • Raw to jpeg quality

    How do you set the quality of the jpeg file. iphoto makes a jpg copy of the raw file, that jpg file is very small eg: 5.0meg raw 700k jpg. How do I change the compression so I get a bigger file or lose less quality. Shot some beach pictures for a friend of her family, gave her a disk with the jpg's on it. She took It and had some 8x10 made, they were all pixilated and fuzzy. But the 4x6 I printed at home were great. Can any one explain?

    When you import a Raw to iPhoto it automatically creates a jepg preview of the file. Why? Because you cannot do anything with a Raw: you cannot print it, use it a slideshow and so on. However, with this preview you can work with the photo immediately.
    My guess is that this is what you gave to your friend and printed.
    You can, however, also process the Raw in iPhoto simply by editing it. The Raw processing engine in iPhoto the same one used in Aperture, but with less fine control. (Think of the differences between Word and TextEdit, iMovie and Final Cut). The output from the processing then replaces the preview. You can choose to save your output as either jpeg or tiff in the iPhoto Preferences.
    Try save a processed Raw as tiff, see if that solves your quality issue.
    When you are processing Raw in iPhoto you will see the Raw badge on the bottom of the iPhoto Window
    Uploaded with plasq's Skitch!
    Note: After you have processed a Raw, subsequent edits to the photo are carried out on the processed jpeg (or tiff) not the Raw. If you want to go back to the original then you need to use the Photos -> Reprocess Raw command.
    Regards
    TD

  • Maximum jpg quality in my pdf portfolio

    would love to get any input from another photographer (or anyone else). About specific tips for maximum jpg quality in my 20 page pdf portfolio. What file pixel dimensions do you use? What quality levels in photoshop "save fer web" before importing into illusrator for type and conversion to pdf. Or do you do it all in photoshop. Color spaces? Noise reduction? file format before import into illustrator.
    All these and anything else you care to pass on. Failing that, any recommendations on where to find a tutorial that addresses same?

    The portfolio is strictly for e-mailing. Sometimes in response to a request and often unsolicited. I do not have a gallery site or an ftp capability. As an email attachment, size is important, hence the "save for web" process.
    The current versions are 1.5 and 6 megabytes. Obviously the 6 meg version is sharper, the color truer. But 6 megs is a bit much attached to an email...
    Any insight you may have would be much appreciated.
    Thank you for your response.

  • Bridge cs4 can not open raw and jpg directly by itself

    i never did it! i want to open raw and jpg files by camera raw directly with open photoshop. i have made the choose to open by double click in the preference but still can not do.
    my brother's computer can open both of them and we are similar xp system.
    and i have checked and reinstalled many times and still failed.

    A bit of magic (if I'd remember):
    1. open PS, from here File > Browse in Bridge
    2. open any RAW/DNG - it goes to PS
    3. switch to Bridge window (PS still open)
    4. R-click, select "open in Camera RAW"
    5. Close all
    Now opening in Bridge should work :)
    Chris

  • How do you get maximum jpg quality/smallest size for photographers

    I would love to get any input from another photographer (or
    anyone else). About specific tips for maximum jpg quality in my 20
    page pdf portfolio. What file pixel dimensions do you use? What
    quality levels in photoshop "save fer web" before importing into
    illusrator for type and coversion to pdf. Or do you do it all in
    photoshop. Color spaces? Noise reduction? file format before import
    into illustrator.
    All these and anything else you care to pass on. Failing
    that, any recommendations on where to find a tutorial that
    addresses same?
    Perhaps this would be a great topic for and article at
    acrobat.com.

    David is right, this is really a topic for the other forums.
    However, I can offer some basic advice from my experience as a
    photographer, blogger and person who uses Acrobat.com and other
    sites to post photos.
    The first important point is that the monitor resolution is
    typically 72 dpi. If you are saving to show as a JPG in a web page,
    for example (not embedded in a PDF), setting the dpi larger than
    this is problematic - the image will just appear larger. If you are
    embedding in a PDF for printing, the image should match the dpi of
    the document - usually 300 dpi, although it varies, else the
    program (Acrobat, for example) will have to scale the photo in a
    way you can't necessarily control.
    When I am exporting files from Photoshop (or, more
    frequently, Lightroom), I usually set the resolution to 72 dpi and
    then use 100x the size of the print. For example, a photo with an
    aspect ratio of 4x5 will be 400x500 pixels. I've found that this
    creates an image (some panoramics excepted) that tends to 'fit' in
    most monitors and is large enough to contain good detail.
    Color space: Adobe1998. I believe that PDF will attempt to
    either render the image in its current color space, or translate
    it, but Adobe1998 is pretty ubiquitous and has worked for me
    (unless you need CMYK or something else specific).
    The larger issue is that the JPG compression is dependent on
    the nature of the photograph. Some photos are fine at 60%, some
    halo miserably. So you'd have to do it manually for each to be
    absolutely sure. However, most of the time I export at 60%
    compression, 72dpi and I'm OK. But I am usually not producing a
    saleable print or a portfolio piece that has to look perfect. I
    just want it to look as good as possible on a computer screen while
    still being able to automate. TIFF avoids all that, but there's no
    compression and the image is huge, as you know.
    Since you are producing a PDF, you could try a side-by-side
    test. Do it once with TIFFs at 300 dpi and once with 80% JPGs. This
    test will exercise whether the rescaled PDF (with 300dpi) renders
    as well as a 72dpi PDF with JPGs on your screen.
    The final advice I'd give is to examine how small a file you
    really want. With Acrobat.com's Share application, giving people
    access to a large PDF is no longer a problem - you don't have to
    email it, which is where it typically gets blocked due to file
    size. To be sure, 20 TIFFs taken with a decent camera (8MP+) is
    going to create an unduly large file, but the same images as 80%
    JPGs will probably get you what you need. If won't be a small PDF,
    but it won't be 50MB either.
    As you are also probably aware, many of the social networking
    sites that have photo applications automatically rescale photos or
    do other side-processing to ease the load. Clearly, that doesn't
    work for a professional photographer.
    Hope this helps, I'll subscribe to the topic if follow up is
    needed. But as has been mentioned, the forums for the other
    products are probably the place where you'll get more detailed
    advice than I can provide.

  • Multiple Black and white conversion from raw or jpgs

    Hi All
    Any help would be appreciated.
    I have 300 wedding images taken on raw and jpg. I now want to convert them all to black and white. Any way I can do this without doing it one at a time (whether using raw or jpg files)?
    Hope someone has the answer or else I need to fork out £500 for CS4!!
    Clive

    Hi
    Thanks for reply. I am able to open and convert from raw ok, what I don’t know if I can do is process multiple files that have been changed, i.e. to black and white?
    I don’t think PE8 will actually do this.
    Clive Wilkinson
    Assessment Coordinator
    Kirklees Warm Zone
    Mob: 07885 203466
    The information in this internet E-mail is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee. Access, copying or re-use of information in it by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Yorkshire Energy Services CIC or any of its affiliates. If you are not the intended recipient please contact [email protected]
    Yorkshire Energy Services CIC, company number 3995784. Company is registered in England and Wales and has its registered office at: St Georges Quarter,
    Unit 9, New North Parade, Huddersfield, HD1 5JP, United Kingdom

Maybe you are looking for