Guess what time it is? It's time for the DG County Fair! Now in it's sixth year, enter your blue-ribbon photos or mouth-watering recipes for a chance to win a gift subscription! Click here here to get all the details, dates and entry rules.
Does anyone know if it is possible to change the format on most cameras so they will save files as lower case .jpg files instead of uppercase .JPG files?
It's frustrating to me because I write some HTML and I use lower case. I'm always having to manipulate and resave the photos in PSP to change to lower case. My preference would be to be able to change the extension through a resave in windows explorer, but it doesn't even show the extension. So if the cameras can't be changed, is there a way to change windows explorer to show the file extensions?
Yes, there is a way to show the extensions in Windows. What OS are you running? If it is XP or older, click on tools, folder options. When the pop up appears click on the View tab, and scroll down to the Hide extensions of known types. Make sure it is clicked off. Click Apply. If you want all your folders to show extensions then click on Apply to All Folders before clicking OK.
If it is Win7 then click on Organize and follow the same basic scenario.
Isn't there a way to compare in your code "case-insensitive" or at least do an Upper or Lower for your string? I haven't written HTML but I figure it should have those functions like most languages do. I'm thinking VB code for example:
for insenstive case searches in VB you would declare
Option Compare Text
or you could search with sensitive case but you must insure the case is changed.
if Ucase(extension) = "JPG" then ...
Another way would be to do lower case:
if Lcase(extension) = "jpg" then...
Here is a web site showing how to write case statements in Java
Thank you very much! I just went ahead and made the adjustment in windows and can now just easily change my file extension. The Java may take me longer to figure out since I really have lots of garden work right now - just taking a short break. But may try to figure it out in the winter.
Jpg are not archival. Never meant to be. They will get worse and worse as you use them. They are zipped, a guess as to what your picture looks like but NOT your picture. Tif is one archival format. Example: a 24mb picture becomes a 3.4 mb jpg (how do you get all that info into a 3.4mb file? you don't) ) but a 24mb picture is a 24mb file if it is a tif. You must save all your good pictures as tif or some other archival format. Same thing is true in the music world: mp3 is a zipped file and not really the song. Archive your music in another format such as flac.
Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining what you meant.I guess I'm okay because I always shoot in RAW format and save the raw files. From there, I make some psd or tif files and save them. I also save jpegs, but I always go back to the tif or other non-compressed file for any edits. However, I do think jpgs are archival as long as you don't open them and edit and resave. I don't think they will change if they are just sitting on a storage drive???
Please never think of jpg as archival, in any way. Get that out of your mind. Yes, keep the jpg that came out of the camera (assuming you shoot jpg not raw) as it has the EXIF data in it. I have some free software that will extract that data out of the jpgs without opening/changing them. Raw is not archival either. TIF is. I also use PNG as an archival format. There are others but they have fallen out of favor. How quickly jpg gets worse is determined by what software you are using and how you have set jpg compression in that menu. Most of my students have no idea what software they are using which means they have never been to that menu. Best bet for an archival file = TIF w/ EXIF data in it. Most software will not put EXIF data into a TIF. PNG never gets EXIF data in it.
I guess I need to look up a definition for "archival".
I can see that camera formats change. My Canon camera RAW files are different from Nikon RAW files and are even different from older Canon RAW files. So, maybe that's why you say they are not archival - because in a few years there might not be software to read them?
By the way, I use Photoshop CS5 and always preserve the EXIF info when I save as TIF or jpg. I never strip the EXIF, however, some web hosting software does. DG doesn't. When I post a jpg photo on DG, you can read the EXIF with an EXIF reader.
For your own copy you want the EXIF. But, anytime you are making a copy for someone else, one to send to Dave, post on the net, send to Aunt Martha, etc. rip the EXIF data out. It will only hurt you. No one needs to know what camera you have, it's serial number, when you took the pix, etc. "They" are searching for some kinda digital negative format since raw doesn't work. Raw cannot be read by others without the right software and not all new software will be backwards compatible. If I do shoot raw, I make a tif from it and then throw the raw away. Just to make this even more complicated - Tif is not ideal either. Since it was the archival format for so many years, people started playing around and invented something silly like 23 different kinds of tif. You send me a tif and I might not be able to open it. I.E. change your software and you may not be able to open your old TIFs. Sad but true. If i have a great pix, I have saved a TIF and a PNG and a JP2 of it.
Good info. I never really thought about my RAW files not being readable in a few years.
I disagree on stripping the EXIF though. If I understand the new copyright laws and if they do go into effect, you need to have your information embedded and easily retrievable in files that you "publish" to the web. I have my camera set up to put my name and copyright info on each image. I also add additional info to the metadata using software.
In the past and currently (until the new laws go in effect...if they do), when you trip the shutter you become the copyright holder of the photo for the rest of your life and your inheritor(s) get that copyright for 30 years (I think) after your death. If anyone uses that image, you can sue them and in most cases at least get what you would have gotten if they had properly bought a license to use your photo. If you have it registered with the US Copyright office, you can get a lot more. And, that's easy to do. You can register a whole year of photos for about $40 or so. It goes up a little each year.
With the new laws, if someone sees your photo on the web, all they have to do is make a reasonable effort to locate you and get or buy permission to use your photo. If they can show that they made a reasonable effort and they could not find you, then you can't touch them.
Most professional photographers (which I am not by a long shot) are now incorporating their name, company name, address, website and even phone numbers into their metadata so that if someone sees their photo on the web and wants to use it, they will be easy to find.
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and probably don't have all that info totally correct. But, it is worth checking into for those that want to protect their photos.
You have some good points. I avoid the whole issue my never posting any pix on the web that matters. My advice - do not "publish" anything on the web that you want to get paid for. Simple. Every single photo editor I deal with (Yes, I have been a professional photographer for over 40 years) says rip the EXIF data out but some do ask for your name, contact info in the (seperate) IPTC section.
Excellent advice! I think that is best for established photographers such as yourself. But new photographers trying to break into the market need to publish some of their best work to attract customers. Some just publish their images to their websites as very small, low res jpgs (300 pixels on long side). In this way, they can get the word out as to what they have available. But, if someone wants to steal it, they can't do much with it.
With apologies to TsFlowers for the hijacked thread (changing case seemed simple enough until it morphed into something completely different).
Here is a recent experience of buying pictures online. I was in Cancun last month and went to Xcaret - a nice adventure park. The park had ample photo ops - snorkeling down a couple of rivers, boat trips, interacting with parrots, and other events that required extra money, etc. Unfortunately we didn't have time to check out the photos when we left that evening to catch our bus so I had to use their online service after we returned home. I had to put in the event, date, and time slot (a lot of guessing on this part) and then sort through many photos to find a photo that resembled us in diving mask, snorkel, and life vest. Their watermark often was placed over faces and the resolution was terrible. I understand protecting their "work" but I also don't want to pay for photos of someone else. I think if they had made the resolution higher or placed the water mark anywhere except the faces it would help quickly pick out the photos of your group and then decide on whether to buy it or not. Luckily I could rule out singles and parties greater than two, hair color, and possibly bathing suit color but this seemed like a tedious exercise.
I'm not sure I understand all that has been said about "archival" photo file formats, and those that aren't. Back on March 10, 2012 06:50 AM gasrocks said, "Jpg are not archival. Never meant to be. They will get worse and worse as you use them. They are zipped..." when I think the intention of that statement is that Jpg files use a "lossy" compression scheme, which they do.
Technically, there is a "possible" lossless form of JPG, but I don't know of any software that implements it, so for all intents and purposes, Jpg is lossy. However, I don't think it is correct to say that JPG or jpg files are "zipped". The ZIP compression scheme is lossless. You can Zip something and "Unzip" it and you will recover your original file with no losses. The Zip scheme takes advantage of the fact that you can compress a file considerably without any losses. For example, in a text file, you can take advantage of the fact that "q" is usually followed by "u" and you can encode a string of blanks as a code saying "17 blanks" rather than inserting all 17 blanks as separate characters. The same for images. If you have a lot of white pixels, you don't need to store them separately, you can simply encode "117 white pixels" in the file string.
Maybe the way I am saying this is confusing, but the fact is that there are some fairly ingenious storage schemes that achieve a fair amount of compression without losing a single character or pixel. And the ZIP scheme does that very thing, and it has nothing at all to do with the JPG compression scheme.
Next, I am not sure that there is such a thing as an "archival file format". I use my wife's old Kodak point-and-shoot and I get JPG files from it because it doesn't offer the option of RAW files. And yes, those JPG files have already used a lossy form of compression which shows up as visible "square" JPG "artifacts" if you look at the picture in a high magnification. But I can store those JPG files without further losses on a hard disk or an optical disc. Incidentally, the TIF file format does compress an image considerably, but, like ZIP, TIF can and frequently does use lossless compression, but there are lossy versions of TIFF (Tagged Image File Format).
I save the JPG files that come from my wife's Kodak Z712 IS as my "archival" form because converting them to TIF won't improve them or make them worse. It is true that TIF might achieve some lossless compression of an already lossy JPG compression, but the savings would not be huge. The software technology for recovering a quality image from a noisy or artifact-ridden image has improved with time and may very well improve further. Currently I can get pretty good results from Topaz's DeNoise 5. But who knows when DeNoise 6 will come out? I save the original JPGs from the camera as the "closest to the horse's mouth". You can Open and Close a JPG file all day without doing any of the dreaded "recompression".
Yes, my apologies to TsFlowers as well on the thread hijack.
I did want to add to the statement that I made regarding the new laws I have been reading about. I sent a note to Bert Krages, an attorney that champions photographers' rights and asked about these laws. This is his answer ...
"I believe you are referring to some orphan works legislation that was never passed. To date, no one can lawfully use your photos even if they can't find you."
Thankfully the legislation did not pass and I hope it never does.
Try this: Take a jpg file (make a note of how big it is,) open it and save under a new name - make a note of how large that jpg is. Open 2nd one and save again under a 3rd name - note the size. Each jpg will be a different size. Sometimes they get bigger, somtimes smaller, kinda random. They are not the same file. Just for fun continue this routine 10 or 12 times, just changing the names. If you are using standard jpg compression, you will not even recognize your pix. Be safe, save your important pix as something besides jpg. It is so easy, why not?
Yes jpg can be improved upon. They already did that. JP2000. JP2. A new modern jpg using fuzzy logic. It will last a whole lot longer than any jpg. Not forever but a real long time. However, as a format, it never really caught on. May not be a good idea to save things using a format that is not popular. Future software may not support it.
Sorry that this highjacked thread has go on so long. I will not watch it anymore. Was only trying to educate a few people. Hate being shot as the messanger. Google - archival digital image format and see that others say.
gasrocks, what are you opening a jpg with? If I just view the file with the default viewer (win7) then there is no save but there is "make a copy". After opening each successive copy 8 times and saving it as a new name the size is the same for each file and a fc /b (file compare binary) yields no differences between the original and the 8th copy. I know what you are saying but it probably depends on what software you are opening it with and subsequent save.
If it means anything , when I scan a photo , I save it as a tiff .
Take any photo and scan it , save as a jpg and then as a tiff .
Now look at the size in pixels .
Print each at 8 X 10 .
You will really notice the difference when doing smaller 2 X 3 photos .
We had a death in family and I was asked to scan shots for 3 different family members - all 3 were making cologes [ I got some shots I had not seen before - now they are saved on computer ]
I archive my shots in raw where I can , then tiff , then JPG . I also lock the shots so they canbe copied but not changed .