RAW or JPG?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • MixPhoto
    Old
    • Nov 2002
    • 1946

    #1

    RAW or JPG?

    What format for images better for you? RAW or JPG?
    sell me your traffic
  • crescentx
    Confirmed User
    • Jun 2003
    • 317

    #2
    I assume your talking from digicam. RAW is usually some derivative of TIFF or something, no loss, no compression, HUGE files. In my experience high quality digital cam pics can be delivered, un-resized, at 10-quality JPEG with excellent results (provided the pic is high quality to start with) at much smaller sizes, with more flexibility (less work you have to do post-process it, faster to deal with because it's smaller).

    -doug
    XYCash International Gay Affiliate Program

    Comment

    • riosluts
      Confirmed User
      • Sep 2003
      • 5250

      #3
      are u talking about scanned images. You should save as JPG then. Once I scanned a picture and it turned out to be 10Gigs BIG!. Something was wrong with my scanner software

      Comment

      • Tight
        Confirmed User
        • Jan 2004
        • 323

        #4
        super fine JPG, most of the time.
        SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.

        Comment

        • Doctor Dre
          Too lazy to set a custom title
          • Jan 2001
          • 51692

          #5
          jpg all the time . Fuck messing up with weird extensions .
          Originally posted by rayadp05
          I rebooted, deleted temp files, history, cookies and everything...still cannot view the news clip. All I see is that fucking gay ass music video from "Rick Roll". Anyone else have a different link to the news clip?

          Comment

          • FiReC
            Confirmed User
            • Jan 2002
            • 2350

            #6
            You can do much more post processing when pics are in the RAW format.
            www.nubilefilms.com | www.nubiles.net | www.anilos.com | tubescript.nubiles.net | icq4162727

            Comment

            • Alex Xe

              #7
              JPG is better

              Comment

              • Amputate Your Head
                There can be only one
                • Aug 2001
                • 39075

                #8
                Originally posted by MixPhoto
                What format for images better for you? RAW or JPG?
                kinda vague.... it depends on for what purpose are you talking about?
                SIG TOO BIG

                Comment

                • darnit
                  Confirmed User
                  • Jul 2001
                  • 2439

                  #9
                  Originally posted by crescentx
                  I assume your talking from digicam. RAW is usually some derivative of TIFF or something, no loss, no compression, HUGE files. In my experience high quality digital cam pics can be delivered, un-resized, at 10-quality JPEG with excellent results (provided the pic is high quality to start with) at much smaller sizes, with more flexibility (less work you have to do post-process it, faster to deal with because it's smaller).

                  -doug
                  Actually TIFF is compressed but its a non lossy compression format. I do agree however that .jpg is better it does have loss but at the 10 quality he recommends its negligable...unless you are doing some really high end print work, in that case use uncompressed all the way...

                  Comment

                  • johnbosh
                    Confirmed User
                    • Aug 2002
                    • 8965

                    #10
                    Originally posted by crescentx
                    I assume your talking from digicam. RAW is usually some derivative of TIFF or something, no loss, no compression, HUGE files. In my experience high quality digital cam pics can be delivered, un-resized, at 10-quality JPEG with excellent results (provided the pic is high quality to start with) at much smaller sizes, with more flexibility (less work you have to do post-process it, faster to deal with because it's smaller).

                    -doug
                    the files get huuge

                    Comment

                    • darnit
                      Confirmed User
                      • Jul 2001
                      • 2439

                      #11
                      well we still dont know what the files are going to be used for so no real use in recommening anything....

                      NEED MORE INFO....bitch

                      Comment

                      Working...