JPG degredation

Jack writes ..

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

Yes, it’s not a lossless compression even at 100%.

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

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.

Will there be a difference when printing these pictures?

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

In article
wrote:

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?

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.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com

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

In article ,
"roxy" wrote:

I think that if you want to put your photos on the web you need to use jpeg.

Yes; photographic images need to be compressed for the Web. They should always be saved in an uncompressed format as well, however.

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.

JPEGs should not generally be used for printing.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com

On 5/5/06 7:30 AM, tacit commented:

In article ,
"roxy" wrote:

I think that if you want to put your photos on the web you need to use jpeg.

Darn shame the browsers never got their act together to support PNG properly. Much nicer format.

Yes; photographic images need to be compressed for the Web. They should always be saved in an uncompressed format as well, however.

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.

JPEGs should not generally be used for printing.

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

In article <C080DC4F.4EB1A%>,
iehsmith wrote:

Darn shame the browsers never got their act together to support PNG properly. Much nicer format.

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.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com

On 5/6/06 8:36 AM, tacit commented:

In article <C080DC4F.4EB1A%>,
iehsmith wrote:

Darn shame the browsers never got their act together to support PNG properly. Much nicer format.

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.

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

In article <C08231B5.4EB9E%>,
iehsmith wrote:

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.

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/

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com

On 5/6/06 11:21 AM, tacit commented:

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.

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/

LOL! Great link:)

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

inez

iehsmith wrote:

On 5/6/06 11:21 AM, tacit commented:

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.

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/

LOL! Great link:)

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

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