You are not going to lose any quality until you save your image again. Remember, the JPEG compression is applied when the file is saved. Until that point, you are not working with a JPEG image, you are working with pixels that have been loaded into your computer’s memory. So all you have to do is save your edited image as a TIFF or a PSD file, and you won’t experience any loss of quality. A lot of the regular contributors to this forum advocate saving your images to one of these lossless file formats before doing any modifications whatsoever.
I have been using Lemkesoft’s Graphic Converter (version 5 now) almost since its original development. Batch converting, rotating and red eye are essential to my work flow. The latest red eye is great. I especially like its folder browse feature.
Arizona Pro
Jim,
Yeah, I’m just trying to rotate the existing JPEGs so that when I use the PSE browser–or iPhoto or any other browsing software–they show right-side-up. I’m not wanting to do anything fancy with all those photos (I’ll probably only spend a bunch of time editing just a few of them) so I don’t want to convert them all to TIFF at this point. As you say, I will definitely convert them to TIFF or PSD when I do go ahead and edit a few of them.
Robert: Good to hear it works well. Maybe I’ll play around with it some more.
Lou,
You guys really put me to shame! I guess I really don’t get the shooting process. I find that I can improve any picture that I take. And typically when I do an extended shoot I feel fortunate when I can use (really use) 50 percent of my pictures.
Jim
Jim,
Oh, that’s funny–I’m not nearly so good as you make me sound!
Nah, I save a lot of pictures that are just "OK" (especially people pictures) but don’t necessarily do anything with them at this point. If later I need a funny or odd picture, I’ll use iPhoto or PSE’s browser to quickly scan through the just-OK pictures and maybe use part of it for a greeting card or collage or screen saver (maybe it’s winter and I’m feeling a need to look at spring photos, even if they’re not all 5-star photos). Or I’ll scan in a bunch of old pictures for future use; maybe someone’s birthday or an anniversary. It’s at that point that I’ll convert it to a PSD while editing it.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned on this forum, it’s that there’s exactly 3,462,130,398 ways to do your workflow.
Lou.
I feel fortunate when I can use (really use) 50 percent of my pictures.
Jim,
Oh, that is so true! My "batting average" is a lot lower than that, I fear, especially when I am shooting wildlife. I just shoot and shoot, because you never know what the animal is going to do, and there is no warning when something really magical happens. You just have to be lucky! Taking lots of shots is the only way to get those special ones, at least for me. That’s why digital photography is so great. Memory is cheap and a one-time cost, compared to film.
Bert
Yes, that is what’s nice about digital. Funny thing though…over the weekend I had a sort of conversation with a person about digital…he said he didn’t like digital and prefered film. So of course I had to ask him ‘why?’..he said that digital gave pixelated ( he didn’t use that term but at the moment I forget his exact words) images. I said well…’what do you mean ?’…he said ya can’t blow anything up without getting the pixels…I had to ask him what kind of camera he had used…it was a 1.3 mp camera. Well, I had to explain to him a little about mega pixels…he had no idea. People like that is what gives digital a bad name.
Jodi,
There are a lot of "traditional" photographers who are ignorant about digital photography and wish to remain so, I think. There is also some "snob appeal" in being a film purist. Of course, then there are people like Grant who is very knowledgeable about both film and digital who also prefer film for very valid reasons…they are true perfectionists!
Bert
Let me put in a plug for IrfanView ( with plugins ) which does lossless rotations and other "things" to JPG images. Free at <
http://www.irfanview.com> .
π
Brent
One thing that is constantly amazing to me is the number of digital photographers who believe that there’s something wimpy or "impure" about doing any post processing. Nothing you say can make them understand that by accepting what comes straight from the camera they’re taking the camera computer’s decision and not the "pure" image. Don’t understand this attitude at all, but I run into it a lot.
digital photographers who believe that there’s something wimpy or "impure" about doing any post processing
Barb,
I haven’t encountered that attitude, but a lot of newbies to digital photography…like my brother-in-law…buy a printer that will take the memory card directly and print out 4×6 borderless snapshots. Just like they can get at the corner drugstore from their disposable $5 camera! My BiL just bought a new Canon 300D and that’s what he does with it! Sigh.
Bert
Interesting, isn’t it, that some photogs don’t like "post" processing? Back in my darkroom days, we did lots of "post" processing. Guess it was ok then, ‘cua we were using paper and chemicals, huh? And what about all of those images I turned into photo silkscreens or posters?
Ah, well, pure is…….
Dick
only thing that’s pure is the moment a life arrives into the world. After that….it’s all fair game π
Interesting, isn’t it, that some photogs don’t like "post" processing?
Yeah, I guess they think that when they sent their film in for processing it ran through the machine without any human intervention.
Bert, you know, people like your BiL make more sense to me than these people do. After all, millions of people are happy with those drugstore prints and if they want to do the same thing digitally, wellΒ
As long as they have some reason for going digital, like making it easier to email photos, I can almost understand that.
What I don’t understand are people who spend big bucks on pro or prosumer camera and then whine that they don’t like the results they get from doing essentially the same thing.
Jodi
"People like that is what gives digital a bad name."
Oh god that sounds like we are a bunch of hooligans. "Yay man ride the f-stop to the max" No wonder I prefer black cameras.
G.
wrote
LMRCAO
Royal Canadian?
Jodi
Byron is like all of us "Bad to the Zone" he too has a black camera.
Grant
Excuse my ignorance here, but does the "black" denote film?
Hi, Nancy–no, there’s a big class war in the camera world between black camera bodies and silver ones. Black fans majorly look down on silver, for the most part.
Yep, Jodi. You’ll see posts in the photography forums like "And it’s silver. How mortifyingΒ
"
I’m one of the few people who has a black camera and wishes it weren’t, since I live in FL and heat makes for noise.
Talk about going off of the deep end, some owners of the Rebel have resorted to painting them black so that they look like "professional" photographers.
—
Have A Nice Day, π
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/ wrote in message
Hi, Nancy–no, there’s a big class war in the camera world between
black camera bodies and silver ones. Black fans majorly look down on silver, for the most part.
Not sure if it is a war, but in the old days black carried with it the idea of professional and black cameras were always price a tad higher.
Grant
It’s also a favorite curse/putdown–"You should have a silver camera." People are just ridiculous sometimes.
Ah, a black camera can be either film or digital, thanks.
Well mine just so happens to be black but I like the look of silver as well. Black is probably just cheaper to make π
I’m thinking of painting my silver G2 black…..
π
Talk about going off of the deep end, some owners of the Rebel have resorted to painting them black so that they look like "professional" photographers.
James,
I think I read that Canon is going to come out with a black version of the DigReb. That should satisfy all those Nikon wannabees…:)
bert
Ahem. Well!!! My Olympus E-20 IS black. Eat your hearts out, you photographic social climbers!:) Bert
My wife just read this over my shoulder, and said that even though she uses a (gasp!) silver A70, she drives a BLACK BMW.
So far it is only planned for release in Japan. I will always be a second rate citizen I’m afraid.
—
Have A Nice Day, π
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/ wrote in message
James,
I think I read that Canon is going to come out with a black version of
the DigReb. That should satisfy all those Nikon wannabees…:)
bert
Oh how I wish this was never brought up.
Oh how I wish this was never brought up.
It’s funny, Jodi. It’s really silly, but I know people who won’t buy a camera unless it’s black, preferably with the "N" word on the front.
Bert
Bert once again I lose, I’m stuck with a silver Jeep.
Well, James, my Jeep is red, 15 years old and has 200K on the clock, so I’m probably further down the pecking order than you are.:)
Bert
Bert, anyone that has enough sense to have at least one Jeep in the family is alright in my book, even if their camera is black.
—
Have A Nice Day, π
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/ wrote in message > Well, James, my Jeep
is red, 15 years old and has 200K on the clock, so I’m probably further down the pecking order than you are.:)
Bert
Bert, anyone that has enough sense to have at least one Jeep in the family is alright in my book, even if their camera is black.
LOL! Mine is kinda rare…a 1990 Comanche pickup, 4WD, stick shift. It’s basically a Cherokee with the back of the passenger cabin replaced with a box. But is has the right engine…4L six. They last forever.
Bert
Yeah, this camera body color thing is like stereos. The best brands were silver in the 70’s, but then they all went black in the 80’s. Silver’s made a big comeback lately. But I’m sure it will go back to black some day.
My receiver and VCR are black, but my TV and DVD player are silver. What would Martha Stewart say? π
However, my car is neither black nor silver. It actually has–gasp!–color.
Lou.
Somehow, black has become equated with the high-end "professional" look in electronics, as well as cameras. Of course, Nikons, Leicas, Hasselblads, etc. have always been black. I guess I would prefer a black camera, but it wouldn’t deter me from buying one that I really wanted that wasn’t black (I hope).
Bert
Can any of you tell me how to simultaneously Rotate all JPG images in a file, w/o having to rotate one-by-one in edit mode? I looked for "Batch" rotate but did not find.
I am talking about rotation after downloading from Kodak processed CD to a PC folder, prior to editing in PSE2.
Thx, Dick
Richard, this is such an old thread that I think you’d be better off starting a new one. Elements can’t do a Batch rotation, but someone might be able to point you toward software that can. Maybe even something in Windows, assuming that’s what you use. (I don’t.)
Richard,
You might have to do this in your camera viewer software. For instance, the Minolta Dimage viewer allows you to define a batch job (e.g. rotate) that can be repeated on multiple (or even many) photos at once.
However, you lose resolution every time you save a JPEG so you might want your batch job to rotate the JPEG then save it as a TIFF file. Work on the rotated TIFF files in Elements and save each one as a JPEG.
Robert
Robert
You don’t apply JPEG compression when you do a lossless JPEG rotation. It is simply the order that the matrix is read that is changed. Therefore there is not loss even if you make it spin.
Grant
Grant,
Good point. I’m assuming the viewer doesn’t do lossless rotation (not sure whether the Dimage viewer does lossless rotation or not), so felt it was best to err on the side of caution. Not knowing those JPEG foibles caused me to ruin lots of nice Alaska vacation shots 1-2 years ago and that still stings….
Robert
Many programs do a lossless rotation of JPEG’s. You could download a trial version of PSP which you can easily write a script to do this as a batch function. The trial is a 30 day fully functional period.
—
Have A Nice Day, π
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/ wrote in message
However, you lose resolution every time you save a JPEG so you might
want your batch job to rotate the JPEG then save it as a TIFF file. Work on the rotated TIFF files in Elements and save each one as a JPEG.
Robert
It is usually relatively easy to tell if you camera is doing a lossless rotation. On first loading a rotated file view it as a thumbnail in windows explorer (My Computer icon) and view it in Elements’ file browser. In windows Explorer it will appear horizontal, in Elements it will appear rotated if you camera offers this feature. While I haven’t tried this with every camera it seems to be the norm.
Grant
James
As you are the PSP guru …What I just describe about Elements doesn’t behave that way in PSP 8, well in mine at least, how is it in PSP 9
Grant
Grant,
Didn’t mean rotation while the pics are still in the camera, that should work fine (at least one would hope), I meant rotating multiple pics after they’re loaded to your computer (that’s when you’d use PSE on them per the original question).
Incidentally, this sort of thing is one reason I shoot raw π
Robert
PSP 8 has lossless rotation or regular rotation. Go to
view>customize>under commands tab>categories>all commands (bottom choice)>in commands window>JPEG Lossless Rotation. It can be added to any toolbar you wish.
—
Have A Nice Day, π
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/ wrote in message
James
As you are the PSP guru …What I just describe about Elements
doesn’t
behave that way in PSP 8, well in mine at least, how is it in PSP 9
Grant
James
Sorry for giving you the wrong idea of what I wanted. If I hold my camera vertical and have the camera option to rotate the image. The image is never rotated but the header is. Elements views the thumbnail image rotated in its Browser and then when the image is import it is rotated. In PSP the thumbnail were never rotated and I can’t remember if the image was or wasn’t rotated when I imported it. Of course it is more than possible that I was overlooking something. If I was do you know is PSP 9 does this. I do wish I had gotten better with PSP 8 as it’s an excellent program.
Grant
I’m not sure Grant. I will ask in the PSP 9 beta forum and let you know.
—
Have A Nice Day, π
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/ wrote in message
James
Sorry for giving you the wrong idea of what I wanted. If I hold my
camera
vertical and have the camera option to rotate the image. The image is
never
rotated but the header is. Elements views the thumbnail image rotated
in
its Browser and then when the image is import it is rotated. In PSP
the
thumbnail were never rotated and I can’t remember if the image was or
wasn’t
rotated when I imported it. Of course it is more than possible that I
was
overlooking something. If I was do you know is PSP 9 does this. I do
wish
I had gotten better with PSP 8 as it’s an excellent program.
Grant
If all you want to is to rotate multiple images within PE, you can do it by navigating to your folder in the file browser and selecting all the images you want to rotate. Control click them (command click on a mac) to select multiple images and then press the rotate arrow at the bottom of the file browser. You can shift click on either platform to select contigous multiple files.
This only rotates them for PE, though, until the images are open. If you rotate an image in the file browser without opening it and then open it first in a different program it won’t be rotated.
All the images must be in the same orientation to start with or the arrow will be grayed out.
Control click them (command click on a mac) to select multiple images
That’s if they aren’t next one another. In other words if you have a portrait image, a landscape image and another portrait, you can select both portrait images by control clicking them.
Jim, while that was the original topic and still a sub-thread here, it’s not all clear to me that Richard is concerned about that as opposed to having searched on Rotation and wound up here.
Richard, are you looking for lossless?
I’m not real sure either Barbara. BTW good to see you.
—
Have A Nice Day, π
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/ wrote in message
Jim, while that was the original topic and still a sub-thread here,
it’s not all clear to me that Richard is concerned about that as opposed to having searched on Rotation and wound up here.
Richard, are you looking for lossless?
It is only a lossless rotation if the images comes from a black professional camera.
Leen
IrfanView does batch rotation. Single image rotations are lossless, so I would assume the batch conversions are too: File >Batch Conversion >Set advanced options >Rotate right (or left).
Juergen
It is only a lossless rotation if the images comes from a black professional camera.
How funny! The sad news, Leen, is that you’re right π
Actually, there’s a quasi-legitimate history of black pro cameras. According to photo tradition the practice of blackening comes from war and wildlife photographers. It is said that at certain angles silver cameras could potentially be seen by enemies or airplanes because of the brief flashes from sunlight reflecting from their housing. Or by animals in the jungle. So those photographers blackened their cameras to avoid those reflections. Then manufacturers started making black cameras in small quantities for these pros. Over time, of course, they caught on and became a fashion item.
So now black cameras are exactly like Hummers, Range Rovers, Land Cruisers or other off-road vehicles and clothing — yes, there are actually people who use them for safaris or other bonafide rough-and-tough adventures, but the vast bulk of sales nowadays are to people who want to drive the kids to school, pick up groceries at the store, take pictures at picnics, or just look cool.
Robert
