Um, I think we're arguing over semantics here. The file types I mentioned are indeed vectors and Adobe developed the formats I listed to include pixels so that raster images could be imported into them and then saved as vector files for further manipulation later.thatmushroom wrote:Yes and no, with a whole lot more no.
Yes, vector graphics are resolution independent because they are mathematical objects.
No, most of those file formats listed are not vector formats.
RAW gets its name because it is essentially the raw sensor data from your camera. Before you can even view it as a picture, it needs to be interpreted. Each camera maker has their own program to convert it (which may not be apparent to the user), and there are lots of 3rd party programs as well. Lightroom hides the conversion very well, so it's not really something you have to ever think about.
RAW files or TIFF files are generally considered lossless formats, where every pixel gets a value, meaning that it does have the most information. JPEG is a lossy format, so pixels which are similar might get grouped together. The more compressed a picture is, the more information is discarded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_file_formats" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
My main point was that whenever you convert vector images to a raster format or save images as JPGs in general you are saving in a lossy format that can alter the quality of your image no matter which software you use to do it.
Yes you understand the issue and are correct that saving images as PNGs is a good way to go (particularly for web) as that file format supports 16 bit alpha channel colors (rather than just 8 bit colors) which make the images better quality while maintaining a comparable file size and also supports transparency which JPG does not. The pixelation and blockiness of JPG images you mention in lightroom has to do exactly with the compression and lossy file format issues I mentioned in my previous post.djkest wrote:So my understanding might be a little OFF, so correct me if I'm wrong.
With a RAW file, each pixel has it's own value. With a JPEG, it is compressed so clumps of pixels are grouped together. This really doesn't matter much if you don't edit your photos, but if you do, the difference is staggering.
With a JPEG file, if the photo is really overexposed or underexposed, you have a slim chance of changing it into a good shot, because a lot of the data from the photo is lost in the compression process. Similarly, I have noticed that Colorado skies really suffer with the big gradient in blue tone as the angle changes.
When I used to edit JPEG files, it was a delicate balance in lightroom because too much adjustment and the image became visibly pixelated or blocky.
With RAW files, my ceiling is much higher. I can adjust the sky for example about 3x as much without artifacting, I can bring under/overexposed pictures back much better, and the clarity is much better. I also am able to change the white balance better for indoor photos.
I shoot Raw + JPEG so I can put the JPEGs on facebook, and after I am done editing the RAW files I convert them to JPEG. Although I'm thinking about starting to save them as .PNG, since the quality is so much better.