JPG degredation

Discussion in 'Photoshop Tutorials' started by Jack, May 2, 2006.

  1. Jack

    Jack Guest

    Hi
    When saving a camera jpg file in Windows PS is there any degradation when
    saving 100% or maximum quality.

    Will there be a difference between saving once and saving the 10th time?

    Will there be a difference when printing these pictures?

    Thanks
    J
     
    Jack, May 2, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Jack

    Bill Hilton Guest

    Jack writes ..
    Yes, it's not a lossless compression even at 100%.
    Yes. If you start with a jpeg I'd suggest saving intermediate edits in
    tiff or PSD formats, then when you're done editing if you really need a
    jpeg do the conversion at that point ... constantly editing and saving
    as a jpeg is not the way to go.
    Maybe ... depends on how big you print and how often you've compressed
    and at what settings. A jpeg that was compressed one time at 100% and
    not edited afterwards will actually print very well but the more often
    you edit/save the more you'll increase the odds it will look bad with
    artifacts ...

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, May 2, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Jack

    tacit Guest

    Yes, yes, and yes.

    JPEG is always degraded, even at maximum quality. This degradation is
    always cumulative. Do not save in JPEG unless you have a good, solid,
    clear, and specific reason why it MUST be JPEG and no other format will
    do. Wherever possible, always use some other format to save your images.
     
    tacit, May 4, 2006
    #3
  4. Jack

    roxy Guest

    I think that if you want to put your photos on the web you need to use
    jpeg. I've become very fond of the "save for web" option. Your file
    opens in image ready, and if you set it to 2-up, you can see your image
    with the one you're saving side by side. Then you can fool around with
    compression and actually see how it changes from the origional. If you
    don't want to actually save for the web, just cancel, but you'll know
    how much compression is acceptable to you, for printing or whatever.

    Roxy
     
    roxy, May 4, 2006
    #4
  5. Jack

    tacit Guest

    Yes; photographic images need to be compressed for the Web. They should
    always be saved in an uncompressed format as well, however.
    JPEGs should not generally be used for printing.
     
    tacit, May 5, 2006
    #5
  6. Jack

    iehsmith Guest

    Darn shame the browsers never got their act together to support PNG
    properly. Much nicer format.
    One rare exception; photos in the newspaper that are not intended for reuse
    or archiving. Ofcourse, you wouldn't use Save for Web in this instance.

    inez
     
    iehsmith, May 5, 2006
    #6
  7. Jack

    tacit Guest

    Yep. I lay most of the blame for this at Microsoft's feet; Microsoft was
    very slow to put any PNG support in Explorer, and when they finally did,
    they never implemented support for transparent PNGs properly. Even long
    after all the other browsers started supporting transparent PNG images,
    Explorer still hasn't got its act together.

    And yet, strangely, Explorer for Macintosh has always fully supported
    transparent PNG images. Microsoft definitely seems to be a company where
    the left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing.
     
    tacit, May 6, 2006
    #7
  8. Jack

    iehsmith Guest


    I agree 200%. Infuriating, really. Transparent PNG is so useful, but you
    don't dare use it (unless you feel like implimenting some script) because
    there are so many IE users. How does FireFox handle them? I haven't bothered
    to check it out. I just wish MS users would get wise and switch to FireFox.

    inez
     
    iehsmith, May 6, 2006
    #8
  9. Jack

    tacit Guest

    Firefox on the Mac supports PNG images with alpha transparency; I
    haven't tested Firefox for Linux or Windows, but i bet they do too.

    You're not the only one who wishes Explorer users would give up their
    crappy, lame browser for something that works. Have you seen this page
    yet?

    http://www.killbillsbrowser.com/
     
    tacit, May 6, 2006
    #9
  10. Jack

    iehsmith Guest


    LOL! Great link:)

    Yeah, to me IE is no "explorer," it's just a city boy lost in the woods;)

    inez
     
    iehsmith, May 6, 2006
    #10
  11. I even looked at the video clip of Ballmer: Not recommended viewing!! It
    seems to end just before the kool-aid is passed round.
     
    John McWilliams, May 6, 2006
    #11
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.