Simply copying the file will not change anything, so importing into iPhoto from your camera is fine. Exporting from iPhoto may cause the file to be resaved if the dimensions are changed in the process. In this case, you could also be inadvertanly degrading the file more than you intend if the default export settings are set for a high JPEG compression.
The great thing about JPEG format is that even a very slight compression rate results in a large reduction of file size, so if you use it sparingly, you will not lose noticable image quality.
I believe iPhoto also retains the original file when you make edits, so making some color or contrast adjustments and cropping even multiple times should be fine.
I don’t want to place too much weight on JPEG compression artifacts because this is a very minor issue. For the best photos, start with good, strong light, hold the camera as still as possible (a tripod is best), get as much of the subject in frame as possible and avoid digital zoom. Get those things right and your photos will markedly improve.
Your S2, despite not supporting it in the default firmware, should be capable of RAW images. A nice article on how and why you would do this is here: http://www.linux.com/feature/118946
I have the Canon S3 IS. I love that camera. Love it, love it, love it. And I do use the CHDK firmware from time to time. Aside from RAW, it does things like motion triggering, time lapse scripting, display enhancements, etc.
TIFF is an envelope which allows no compression or different types of compression, including JPEG. I believe it is meaningless to say “send me a TIFF image” without specifying the type of compression. If you are going to send a TIFF with no compression then better send a BMP. If you are going to use JPEG compression then better send a JPG. IMHO TIFF is only really well suited for scanned B&W documents compressed using CCITT GRP4 compression becauses this is very efficient at compressing and also TIFF allows multipage (multi-image) files.
RAW image format is non-standard and a terrible choice for exchanging images.
IMHO .BMP bitmaps are the way to go if you want NO compression and JPEG if you want any compression because JPEG allows you to choose the amount of compression. JPEG with a suitable degree of compression for the required use is the best way to go.
I agree. I have yet to have a client ask me for raw files. I have heard of other photographers occasionally get asked for raw files, but most of the time, the client asks for a JPG. There’s nothing wrong with JPEGs. Pretty much every news photo you see in magazines or newspapers was either shot or transmitted as a JPEG.
I am always amazed at how some people who work with graphics know so little about the different formats. Specially because learning the basics is really quite simple.
The OP contains a mistake in that the 1/4 page size would be 1/8 page size and there would be another 1/4 page size following.
300 DPI seems high for color print so I assume it is for high quality print, similar to a printed photo.
This is what I come up with. All number are exact except that JPEG compression depends alot on the image itself and on the quality desired so all I can give is a very wide range from my own experience.
size size Mega JPG MB
pix x pix in x in pixels File size
1/8 page 1240 930 4.1 3.1 1.2 0.3~ 1.2
1/4 page 1240 1860 4.1 6.2 2.3 0.7~ 2.5
1/2 page 2480 1860 8.3 6.2 4.6 1.3~ 5.0
Full page 2569 3425 8.6 11.4 8.8 2.6~ 9.5
2 page 4961 3425 16.5 11.4 17.0 4.9~18.4
The upper file size would be more than enough for any application and probably half that would do fine.
The 300 dpi spec you often find in a printer’s requirements is a holdover from the days of film scanning and often confuses artists using a digital workflow where their images often come from the camera at 72 dpi.
It came about because a 150 line screen is typical in 4-color process offet printing and it was thought that by doubling the number of pixels per line, there would be sufficient resolution to print the image and also avoid a moire pattern that can result from the interaction of the “grid” of pixels in the image and the screen pattern on the film.
Also TIFF is more of a standard in the printing industry because it is very compatible with an imagesetter or platemaker. When files were transfered on Syquest or magneto-optical disks, file compression was not much of an issue and also the TIFF format can contain alpha channels in addition to the CMYK or RGB channels so it has some advantages over JPEG.
Well, yes, but that’s a different issue altogether. If I am sending a photo from my camera I am just sending the photo as it came out of the camera and JPG is sufficient .
Now, as I said, TIFF is just an envelope which allows different forms of compression and additional information to be stored in the file. This may come in handy for the printers who want to add Alpha channels and other stuff. But that is really additional information which is not on the original image.
One good example is Imaging for Windows which stores scanned documents and the user can add annotations which remain separate and can be erased or made permanent. TIFF envelope allows for this.
I know nothing about printing so I cannot say but I would think a photo generally is not going to need alpha channels (I may be wrong). On the other hand, the type of image which would use alpha channel would be better handled by PNG. (I realize PNG is much more recent than TIFF.
But, again, saying just “TIFF” is meaningless. You would need to specify the compression type and any other information which needs to be included.
I understand TIFF is an envelope, but I’ve never heard anyone actually specify what kind of TIFF file they want. Usually, when people say they want a TIFF, they mean they want an LZW-compressed file. In casual parlance (actually, strike that, even speaking with designers and people who use TIFFs everyday), TIFF is used to indicate a desire for a lossless file format, as opposed to JPEG.
You are most probably right that in certain circles and industries that is what is meant and what is understood even when people have no idea of it. You might ask someone who said TIFF what compression they want and they probably have no idea what you mean.
But in other industries and circles other compression schemes are used. TIFF using CCITT compression is the preferred system for faxes and B&W scanned documents and someone working in that environment would be surprised to hear that TIFF is understood by default to use LZW.
So, for someone in a particular industry the default might be obvious but in generic terms it is not.
There is system-wide support in OS X for most RAW formats from mid-revision Tiger (10.4something) on to Leopard (10.5). That should mean that iPhoto also supports RAW, but I would bet that there’s some back-end conversion going on. You can export in a few different formats from iPhoto: TIFF, JPG, PNG, or the original format which in your case will be RAW if everything is set up right.
Something to check is a program called Image Capture. This is the application that by default runs in the background when you import photos from your camera to iPhoto. You can gain direct access to it simply by running it independently, and from there you can change import behavior by going into its Preferences menu. If you never changed the defaults, you probably didn’t even know that this application existed. The main change in Prefs is what program to run when a device is attached. If you set it to Image Capture, you can choose what to import and what not to import, whether to erase the photos on import, etc. You can also set it to pass the photos to another program for processing.
Hopefully, you’re running Leopard and iPhoto 5, which are the most up-to-date versions of the OS and the program. If so, this support page might be helpful for info on working with RAW formats.
Apple’s Aperture and Adobe’s Lightroom are the two main pro photographer-oriented programs for OS X right now. They’re roughly equivalent in capabilities, but have some differences in how they handle things. Both are far, far more powerful than iPhoto and have many options for processing RAW formats. Lightroom has more plugins available, and while Aperture has improved a lot, most really discerning photographers like Lightroom’s processing a little bit better. On the other hand, Lightroom is about $100 more than Aperture. You might want to check out the free trials for both of those to see if they meet your needs better than iPhoto does.
I am not sure who that “seriously?” is directed at and I am not sure what post you are answering because it does not really address or answer the OP.
In any case, your post assumes raster bitmaps with no compression and 8 bits /color x 3 colors. There are several assumptions there which are not always true.
I’m talking about all the guesses about what file format they are using to give the MB sizes in the original post. Some suggested RAW, others uncompressed TIF.
I think that’s a distinction that is rapidly being made obsolete. A pixel is a dot, of sorts, so I think ‘dpi’ will be adapted to mean that eventually, through overuse.
Oh, OK, now I understand your post better but I do not think we were guessing what the OP’s file format was rather than comparing file formats and compression schemes. At least I was and that’s why I did not understand what you were responding to.