1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Bibble vs JPEG

Discussion in 'Other Raw Processors' started by pr549f2678, Aug 26, 2008.

  1. pr549f2678


    Jun 26, 2007
    central Fl
    I will probable have things throwed at me for asking but I have to.
    I just found out about Bibble (no i don't live in a cave), and I would like
    to know if I can use it for jpeg's only or is is just for shooting RAW ?
    I'm looking for something simple to use and I only shoot in jpeg.

  2. kgreen


    Jan 15, 2008
    New Jersey, USA
    As I recall, many, but not all, of Bibble's tools will work on jpegs. Why not just take advantage of the 30 day free trial and see for yourself?
  3. SteveK


    Mar 16, 2005
    Phil, Bibble is a program that's mostly used as a RAW converter. If you are shooting in jpeg, you should realize that every time you make a change in a jpeg, and re-save, you are throwing away data. If you open and change a jpeg too many times you will get some bad artifacts. You really should consider shooting in RAW if you want to modify the images.
  4. pr549f2678


    Jun 26, 2007
    central Fl

    Thanks for the reply, you are probable right on shooting raw, I just never
    done it and I would not even know where to start. Mybe I should look it
    up in the manual.

  5. Lurker


    Jul 21, 2007
    Please, please, please... do some experiments and learn about jpegs before writing that. Everyone thinks that within 5 or six saves, jpegs change horribly.
    But after making changes to an image 100 times, saving it, and opening the saved image (I wrote a script in paintshop pro) I could not see any significant difference (saving at 80% quality) with the first image. Resizing, yes that is damaging - but how many times do you do that? Sharpening has limited effect, most actions will not incur artifacts, especially if you don't touch that part of the image.
    And there is even software that keeps changes to jpeg files to an absolute minimum.

    I'm not saying that image quality doesn't degrade; if you're going for it you can still achieve some bad artifacts. But the fear for jpeg editing is a lot bigger than is necessary, especially when saving at high quality settings (90% to 95%)
  6. SteveK


    Mar 16, 2005
    The simple answer is that it's still best to use RAW, and avoid any unnecessary problems caused by changing and modifying jpegs. Yes, you can get away with changing a jpeg a few times, but each and every time you do, you are discarding some data. It may not be noticeable to a discerning eye, but if your images are really important to you, you should start in RAW, and save to uncompressed Tiff to do more work later.
  7. ChrisA

    ChrisA Guest

    I agree with the above. But it also depends on the software. Some software is 100% non-destructive even for JPG files. For example Aperture, when you make a change ony records the setting you made, it does not actually change the file, every time the image is displayed or output those settig and edits and re-aplied to the image so you never have a generational loss. When you move those sliders around and do crops and adjustmants the software is only making changes to a small text file.

    But "it depends" many editors actually change the pixels. Photoshop does. But you can learn to use Photoshop non-destructively. Simple make the base layer "locked" and use adjustment layers above it. You can then amke and change adjustments all you like and the origanal JPG is preserved inside the file.
  8. Steve,

    Bibble is like Lightroom in that it does not change the original file unless you do something like force an export to overwrite it.

    Quote from the online documentation for Bibble 4.10

    Non-Destructive Editing

    Editing files in Bibble is non-destructive. This means that your original image is never altered, and your source files are never overwritten or edited. Making corrections and adjustments in Bibble is like making a list of instructions regarding which corrections you'd like to make. When you want to produce a copy of your image with your settings applied, you Convert from your unedited source file to an output format, either an output file (like JPEG or TIFF image files) or directly to prints. ...

    Warm regards,
  9. Lurker


    Jul 21, 2007
    Steve, that misinformation is exactly the problem... I have changed a JPG image literally 1500 times and then simply did a binary compare of the original pixel by pixel with "mutilated" copy. There was no difference - apart from the area that was edited, of course. Jpeg is a lot more robust than most people think, as long as one keeps the quality settings fairly high.

    Certain operations on images will affect image quality, basically those that change the geometry of the image (think of resizing, adding a border, etc). But in a jpeg edit session virtually every single pixel that wasn't touched remains untouched.

    Sure, it is possible to come up with a scenario where we get to see horrible artifacts over 5 saves. Use low image quality, change quality settings with every save, and make sure you change the entire image with every save (offset it a few pixels for instance).
    But in real life cases with 6MP and larger images and a fairly low amount of save/load cycles (20 interim saves during a photoshop session don't count as these saves don't do anything with the image quality) to start with (3, maybe 4?) data in jpegs will be perfectly safe.

    There's a "but..." though: the big issue with saving to jpeg is that you cannot undo your changes. The nice thing about the "sidecar" approach with raw files is that you can undo any changes that you did since the original hasn't been touched. But that's more as issue with the way raw processors work than anything else. And as Bill pointed out Bibble treats JPEG's the same way as raws, by using "sidecar" files. So no harm done there. :smile:

    Now, a raw file will give you a lot more data to work with (12 to 14 bits) and has a lot more room to adjust white balance, adjust exposure sometimes, etc. So I am not saying that there's no advantage to using raw over jpeg - and I would highly recommend doing so.
  10. scooptdoo

    scooptdoo Guest

    try it youlll like it.man you trade memory storage for post production flexability.its way worth it.its really as easy as selectin raw vs jpeg...
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.