fbpixel

Moderators: E.J. Peiker, Greg Downing

All times are UTC - 5 hours

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 12 posts | 
by Jim Zipp on Sat Jul 24, 2021 11:10 am
User avatar
Jim Zipp
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4953
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: CT
Member #:00150
Having just bought my first Sony (A1) I'm finding that the embedded jpegs are very small.  Useless for comparing similar images for detail.  Is the only answer to shoot both RAW and Jpeg?  Every camera I've owned from Canon and Nikon have full size jpegs to compare in Breezebrowser or Photo Mechanic.  Hoping someone has an easy answer.
 

by Phil Shaw on Sat Jul 24, 2021 11:34 am
Phil Shaw
Forum Contributor
Posts: 85
Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Member #:00106
If you are shooting RAW+jpg then there are further settings for the jpgs -large, medium, small. I don't know this, but it maybe that the embedded jpg file is defined via these settings. Personally I just shoot RAW and I have no problem zooming into a large embedded jpg in Photo Mechanic.
 

by Jim Zipp on Sat Jul 24, 2021 1:19 pm
User avatar
Jim Zipp
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4953
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: CT
Member #:00150
Phil Shaw wrote:
If you are shooting RAW+jpg then there are further settings for the jpgs -large, medium, small.  I don't know this, but it maybe that the embedded jpg file is defined via these settings.  Personally I just shoot RAW and I have no problem zooming into a large embedded jpg in Photo Mechanic.

Hey PHil.  I've been using BB for about 20 years so I prefer it if I can get it to work like I'm used to with both Canon and Nikon.  The embedded jpegs in both of those are the same size as the raws so it's quick and easy to compare images at the pixel level to choose the best of a series for instance.  I've only owned the Sony for 2 days so I might be wrong but it appears that the embedded jpeg is about 1600 pixels compared to well over 8,000 for the raw.  Not near big enough to do a decent comparison.  I know that drive space is cheap these days but with raw files over 50MB I don't want to be bogged down by adding a full size jpeg for every image as well.  I think I did that with my original Canon 1D back in the day.

If there was a way to increase the size of the embeded jpeg I'd be happy to live with that rather than twice as many images.   I hope I'm clear on this and made sense!  Thanks,  Jim
 

by Brian E. Small on Sat Jul 24, 2021 4:00 pm
User avatar
Brian E. Small
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2790
Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Member #:00479
Jim Zipp wrote:
Phil Shaw wrote:
If you are shooting RAW+jpg then there are further settings for the jpgs -large, medium, small.  I don't know this, but it maybe that the embedded jpg file is defined via these settings.  Personally I just shoot RAW and I have no problem zooming into a large embedded jpg in Photo Mechanic.

Hey PHil.  I've been using BB for about 20 years so I prefer it if I can get it to work like I'm used to with both Canon and Nikon.  The embedded jpegs in both of those are the same size as the raws so it's quick and easy to compare images at the pixel level to choose the best of a series for instance.  I've only owned the Sony for 2 days so I might be wrong but it appears that the embedded jpeg is about 1600 pixels compared to well over 8,000 for the raw.  Not near big enough to do a decent comparison.  I know that drive space is cheap these days but with raw files over 50MB I don't want to be bogged down by adding a full size jpeg for every image as well.  I think I did that with my original Canon 1D back in the day.

If there was a way to increase the size of the embeded jpeg I'd be happy to live with that rather than twice as many images.   I hope I'm clear on this and made sense!  Thanks,  Jim


Jim,

You'll probably need to update BB to the latest version
 

by mikeojohnson on Sun Jul 25, 2021 5:52 am
mikeojohnson
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1215
Joined: 21 Dec 2003
Location: Estero , Florida
Member #:00374
You might try this: https://www.fastrawviewer.com

It actually shows the raw file in full resolution and is fast.
Mike
"Photography intensifies the experience of life"
http://www.mojphoto.com
 

by Jim Zipp on Sun Jul 25, 2021 7:20 am
User avatar
Jim Zipp
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4953
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: CT
Member #:00150
Brian E. Small wrote:
Jim,

You'll probably need to update BB to the latest version



Brian.  That would be easy but I downloaded the latest and when I go to compare images full size, they are only 1600+ pixels instead of the more than 8,000 pixels of the original.  Way too small to pick the best from a series.  I'd buy that in a heartbeat if it worked. 

What do you use to pic between series shots?  Thanks
 

by Scott Fairbairn on Sun Jul 25, 2021 8:08 am
User avatar
Scott Fairbairn
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4938
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Member #:00437
Jim Zipp wrote:
Having just bought my first Sony (A1) I'm finding that the embedded jpegs are very small.  Useless for comparing similar images for detail.  Is the only answer to shoot both RAW and Jpeg?  Every camera I've owned from Canon and Nikon have full size jpegs to compare in Breezebrowser or Photo Mechanic.  Hoping someone has an easy answer.



I don’t think there is a way to change it, or at least, I couldn’t find a way to enlarge the embedded jpg. I used to use Photo Mechanic for my initial culling, but quit for the same problem you’re having. 
I ended up using Capture One for initial import, and culling. A nice feature of Capture one is that you can select an entire series of images and view them at once. I usually center the images on a birds head and it’s quick to find the sharpest one. I don’t know of any other program that allows you to select an entire series and see them all on screen at once. The monitor is the limiting factor on how many you can see at one time. 
I have tried Fast raw viewer, but because the file is unprocessed, they look pretty bad so I gave up on that too.
 

by Brian E. Small on Sun Jul 25, 2021 2:23 pm
User avatar
Brian E. Small
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2790
Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Member #:00479
Jim Zipp wrote:
Brian E. Small wrote:
Jim,

You'll probably need to update BB to the latest version



Brian.  That would be easy but I downloaded the latest and when I go to compare images full size, they are only 1600+ pixels instead of the more than 8,000 pixels of the original.  Way too small to pick the best from a series.  I'd buy that in a heartbeat if it worked. 

What do you use to pic between series shots?  Thanks



I'm using BreezeBrowser Jim..................I'm old school like you  ;-)
 

by Jim Zipp on Mon Jul 26, 2021 1:27 pm
User avatar
Jim Zipp
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4953
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: CT
Member #:00150
Brian E. Small wrote:

I'm using BreezeBrowser Jim..................I'm old school like you  ;-)


So Brian, to be clear, you are evaluating comparative sharpness between similar images using only the 1600 pixel embedded jpegs?   I've always compared side by side at full size.  Doesn't sound like there is an easy fix for us "old school" guys!
 

by E.J. Peiker on Mon Jul 26, 2021 5:10 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 85819
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
The Sony embedded jpegs are much smaller than what you are used to. If you are still using BB for RAW conversion (you didn't indicate that in your initial post), which fundamentally has not changed in nearly 20 years, you are leaving a ton of image quality on the table.
 

by Jim Zipp on Tue Jul 27, 2021 7:44 am
User avatar
Jim Zipp
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4953
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: CT
Member #:00150
E.J. Peiker wrote:
The Sony embedded jpegs are much smaller than what you are used to.  If you are still using BB for RAW conversion (you didn't indicate that in your initial post), which fundamentally has not changed in nearly 20 years, you are leaving a ton of image quality on the table.


Hi I.J.  I only use BB for culling.  My version is more than a decade old.  Shows only thumbnails.

I did just download the Sony Viewer where for now I can at least view each image at 100%.  Enlarge the first image to full size and all after that are full size but haven't found if I can view side by side.   If it would do that it would be the answer at least for the short term.

I'm not beholden to BB, just so used to it.  He lost me when he changed to lifetime upgrades.  Renamed it from BB to BB Pro to get around his promise.  Program didn't change either as far as I can tell.
 

by Scott Fairbairn on Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:13 pm
User avatar
Scott Fairbairn
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4938
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Member #:00437
Jim Zipp wrote:
E.J. Peiker wrote:
The Sony embedded jpegs are much smaller than what you are used to.  If you are still using BB for RAW conversion (you didn't indicate that in your initial post), which fundamentally has not changed in nearly 20 years, you are leaving a ton of image quality on the table.


Hi I.J.  I only use BB for culling.  My version is more than a decade old.  Shows only thumbnails.

I did just download the Sony Viewer where for now I can at least view each image at 100%.  Enlarge the first image to full size and all after that are full size but haven't found if I can view side by side.   If it would do that it would be the answer at least for the short term.

I'm not beholden to BB, just so used to it.  He lost me when he changed to lifetime upgrades.  Renamed it from BB to BB Pro to get around his promise.  Program didn't change either as far as I can tell.


You might consider Photo Mechanic. You can compare two side by side. I don't use it for first culls anymore, partially due to the small jpg with Sony, but it might fit the bill for you. You can tell it use the Raw file for viewing, but it slows things down a lot.
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
12 posts | 
  

cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group