Not much information to go on. What camera model? What file format is the camera delivering, and what file format are you saving to? What kind of touch-up work is being done?
if you’re resaving as JPG at any step, you’re losing data. that’s a ‘lossy’ format.
wrote:
Hi,
I have a 6 megapixels camera. If I take a picture, transfer it to my computer, copy it to a new name and then go into photoshop and tough up the photo and resave it (just by doing a file save). When I print the original and the toughed up one the orignal on is clearer. The modified on looks like it has lost resolution. Does any one have any ideas?
Satndard assumptions for this question: Your camera saves the image as JPG and you save it again as JPG.
Check your settings for saving JPG format. You most probably have a high compression factor. This makes the usual loss of JPG compression worse than necessary.
Michael
tough up the photo and resave it (just by doing a file save).
This looks like a very easy question to answer. The problem you are seeing is very common when you use File>Save you will naturally lose quality that’s why there is a save as a copy option available.
Use the Save a Copy option and you will see that the quality remains as good as the original.
The problem you are seeing is very common when you use File>Save you will naturally lose quality that’s why there is a save as a copy option available.
That is a load of nonsense.
Is your camera storing the picture as Raw, Tiff or Jpeg? Also, is photoshop saving the picture as a psd, tiff or jpeg? Are you printing both the untouched and retouched versions from the same copy of photoshop or are you printing them somewhere else? There could be any number of spots where your setup automatically reformats the picture (ever so slightly) that could account for the difference you are seeing.
That is a load of nonsense.
8o
It certainly is not nonsense!
Use the Save a Copy option and you will see that the quality remains as good as the original.
not if you save as a jpg – jpg is lossy and discards more data EVERY single time you save, even at "highest" quality.
The problem you are seeing is very common when you use File>Save you will naturally lose quality that’s why there is a save as a copy option available.
it IS nonsense if you resave as jpg (yes, even using save as copy), but if you use "Save As" and change the file type to a non-lossy format like tif or psd (or even png, etc.) you will NOT lose quality.
Well I guess this means I have to go home and RTFM again because I could have sworn I read somewhere in there that saving a copy was recommended so that the quality would not be reduced.
By then it would be too late for my response since I won’t be back here until Monday!
Dale, just do what Dave says if my suggestion doesn’t work.
I’m done trying to help.
Peace!
It is a canon EOS Digital Rebel and yes it is storing it in JPEG format. I may take a picture of an old document and then clean it up in photo shop.
saving a copy was recommended so that the quality would not be reduced.
right, as LONG AS it’s not as a JPG. 🙂
I’m done trying to help.
please no! you’re spunky and are often right, and quick with your answers. just cuz you got one wrong doesn’t mean throw in the towel. we’ve all done it (daily sometimes! <g>)
Peace!
I’ll drink to that!
Pax
I resave the image in the orignal jpg image. To print them I save them to a cd and take it to Target to have them printed.
right, as LONG AS it’s not as a JPG
Hmm, I must be getting senile or I have dyslexia. I thought it said to do this when it is a JPG file. LOL!
To make that eve worse assumed it was a JPG since most digital cameras save in JPG by default to conserve space in the storage media (floppy, CD, memory card or ?).
I may take a picture of an old document and then clean it up in photo shop.
that’s fine, just don’t overwrite the original. Save as psd or tif for your working copy.
As soon as i copy my images from camera (oly 3020zoom) to my hard drive i write protect those files (hit crtl-a to select all, right click them, select properties then check "read only"). It’s saved my butt a couple of times when I almost over wrote them. Then just go back and use save as and select a non-lossy format.
gabriel (is gabby cool? i know a gabriel who prefers that – anyway)
I don’t think this is in the PS manual, it’s more of a "know the format you’re saving to" kinda thing… check out:
<
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/>
especially section: [13] Isn’t there a lossless JPEG?
"Baseline JPEG can reach visual indistinguishability for most photo-like images, but it can never be truly lossless."
don’t sweat it. most of us hang out here to learn, helping is just an incidental benifit! 🙂
dave
gabriel (is gabby cool? i know a gabriel who prefers that – anyway)
Hell no! Gabriel, Gabe and my girl sometimes calls me Gabeorade because it’s in her and I made my own T-Shirt with a modified Gatorade logo on it but I would never like to be referred to as Gabby, thank you. 😀
Gabeorade
I can live with that. 🙂
Now a few crazy people in my family want me to get on Illustrator and make them T-Shirts with their own logos. Only problem is, they haven’t thought of a brand that goes with their name. There is Mike Vanessa, Elizabeth, Johnathan, Armando and Thomas.
Mike is the only one that has a good one because it’s easy. I could do the Nike swoosh and type the caption "Just Do It" 😀 Maybe he will want it to say "Just Do Me" LOL
I say they are crazy because I am not going to spend hours drawing up a logo and making the shirts for free. Since they are family they want all this for free, HA!
I have to have them in the jpg format because if I do not Target will just convert them to jpg before they print them.
Hi Dave,
That sounds like a good reason NOT to use Target for your photo printing. But, I realize the price may be good, the store convenient, etc. So, when you save the image, keep the JPEG compression as low as practical for whatever media you’re using to provide the images to Target on. The less compression used, the higher the quality that is maintained.
Also, if you’ve gone some images you’ve edited and then revisit later for yet more editing, DO NOT successively edit and resave them in JPEG format as that compounds the problem with data loss. Instead, save your original JPEG image in a lossless format, such as PSD or TIFF. Use that file for all edits you perform. Whenever you want to get a print made from it where you have to provide the image in JPEG format, create the JPEG from the PSD or TIFF file, again with as little compression as practical.
Whether or not there are any times when a truly lossless JPEG save can be peformed, I’m not sure. The link Dave provided suggests not, but I’ve read a posting in the past from Chris Cox (I think) who said that certain types of image edits can be made to a JPEG file that, when saved, do not cause another compression to be applied. Crops come to mind as one possibility, but I think there were even some sort of color edits mentioned.
I’ve also seen some plug-in described recently that says it allows lossless JPEG saving by virtue of maintaining the aspect of the image. That sounds rather odd to me, and I suspect that if it is true, then it still would only apply to images that have undergone very limited edits.
Regards,
Daryl
Dale,
Is there a possibility you have your default settings, (Change in preferences) to a low(ish) resolution. 250dpi SHOULD pull you out of a hole. check under Preferences>Units and Rulers>New doc Res and set between 250-300. Most stores have Agfa/Fuji and Kodak between 250 and 300.
Also check the image size first and try and keep the final resolution/size similar.
Regards
Mark
Dave, you’re only looking to call her Gabby ‘cos it saves you two keystrokes, right! LOL!
Dave, you’re only looking to call her Gabby
busted! 🙂
gaborade, and anyone else who doesn’t know, you might fit in here:
<
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?13@@.1de5f905>
it’s the photoshop lounge area here at adobeforums.com
it’s where some of us participants in various adobe u2u forums go for more "off topic" chatter, as they like to keep the main product boards as on topic as possible.
btw, nice to meet you!
dave
Gabriel
Apologies for my slightly harsh statement. I should have been more diplomatic. What I should have said is that there is no difference between Saving and Saving as Copy in terms of quality. It depends on what file format you save to. If you save as JPEG or other lossy format, then quality will deteriorate regardless of whether you use Save or Save as Copy. If you save as PSD or whatever, it makes no difference whether you use Save or Save as Copy – there will be no deterioration in quality.
Dale, another good idea is to save ALL your originals BEFORE you do anything to them. Even if your originals are JPG, saving to disc means VERY little degradation. I work with JPG all the time but only from the original disc so I can’t overite, degrade OR lose the original.
CD’s a pennies and usually last. (Can ‘o worms time)
Good habits die hard. (Thinking of a beer now).
Don’t even think about it Dave. LOL!
Regards
Mark
German tonight again
you know it just struck me that gabrial is a guy! duh! i was thinking gabrielle! jeez i’m a flipping moron…!!!
I just went back and read that stmt about Gabe and my girl calls me gabeorade cus… and I was thinking at first read like, ok, <seinfeld>"not that there’s anything wrong with that."</seinfeld>
wow! maybe I should be thinking of beer too! 🙂
And you directed him to the lounge…He may never ever forgive you.:-)
Ha! Ha! I was thinking "Why would Dave call a guy Gabby"? You are more to be pitied. 3 cracked ribs already. Classic!
Regards
Mark
P.S. What shortcut are you using? Is it Command_Doh! LOL!
And you directed him to the lounge…He may never ever forgive you 🙂
what’s wrong with the lounge? (except for the yankee fans of course<g>!)
Is it Command_Doh! LOL!
LMFAO! Wow. Miller Lite, here I come!
:> :~ :# Soory, trying out new stuff but none works. No more, getting back to forums. Disregard.
With a camera like the Rebel why not use the Raw+JPEG setting?
That way you’ve got the maximum information as well as a printable image.
Silence you fools!
It’s Gabriel not Gabrielle, Gabriela or Gabby!
Gabriel as in the Arch Angel!
The Arch Angel was AKA "The Messenger" I hope you got this one!
Yes!
mac did %D
Regards
Mark
What are pixel dimensions of original file and final file?
Good question. I didn’t even bother to ask since the O/P mentioned 6 MegaPixels :/
Has anyone asked:
What are pixel dimensions of original file and final file?
Mac
Gabriel,
Watching too much LOTR XD
Regards
Mark
It’s almost time for me to go crack open my first Miller lite now so I have to end all the fun here and go home for the day. Oops, did I say home? The pub isn’t home, or is it? 8o <PERPLEXED> AKA the Buddy Limbec or Frank Drebin look.
crack open my first Miller lite
Then maybe have a beer afterwards?
Lucky Guy.
It’s 11pm here. , that means you doing all this at work? what’s your bosses name til I squeal on the fact you’re dosing at your M/C
Sad Man XD
Regards
Mark
Yes!
mac did %D
Mac who? 🙂
I’d just want to confirm that OP has at least decent ppi from ORIG pixels…
Mac
Mac,
That’s what I originally thought, that’s why I asked him to check his prefs to see he had more than 250dpi(ppi) selected
Regards
Mark B)
P.S. Dave and Rob showed me how to use smilies so I’m practising 🙂
Then maybe have a beer afterwards?
Yes, I think a Fosters in a tall frozen mug sounds good. 😀
Gabriel,
You have just mentioned "Miller Lite" and now "Fosters" I don’t want to influence you in ANY way but as far as beers go they aren’t. get a good Czech or German. I would even stoop to a Dutch but as long as it’s not brewed in the UK. That’s why Britain has the "Lager Lout" tag ‘cos they drink lite fizzy lagers and plenty of them.
But please don’t tel Len ‘cos he might ban me 🙂
Regards
Mark
What do prefs have to do with it, Mark?
Anyway, there’s all kinds of ways to get "250ppi", many of them worthless, eh?
Mac
Mac,
Go into Prefs> Units and rulers in PS and set the new doc res to, in this case, at least 250DPI(PPI). What I’m thinking is, Dale is maybe NOT using a good res for cropping, resizing and general work. In other words he may have settings for web 72 DPI(ppi), or if his default camera is 180 DPI(ppi) etc.
Our camera res is default 180 DPI(ppi) but I convert all when bringing into PS as 250DPI(ppi) so I don’t have to worry about my defaults ‘cos they’re already set in PS at 250
Sorry, are you reading ALL threads 🙂 or possibly I didn’t explain in enough detail XD (XD is my favourite so far) if I could get a Smiley that was ALL teeth I’d love it even more. XD
Regards
Mark
Go into Prefs> Units and rulers in PS and set the new doc res to, in this case, at least 250DPI
Mark, that has no bearing at all on working on an existing image. Has absolutely no effect on opening an existing file.
Mac
Mac,
My understanding is, if I work on an image @ 250DPI(ppi) and print it out @250DPI(ppi), certainly I’m going to get a better quality print than working on an image @ 72DPI(ppi) and printing it out @ 72DPI(ppi) NO?
Anyway, if I have 72DPI(ppi) set in my new docs prefs and Dale is working on say 250 and he drags in his existing doc into the new window which is set @ 72DPI(ppi) and resizes within the 72 DPI image not realising it’s @ 72DPI and gets it printed out @72DPI it won’t be ths same quality.
I understand where you’re coming from asking about the res/pixels he’s currently working on but I’m assuming when he talks about "toughening" his original he’s possibly refering to a few layers and maybe a "New Doc" size.
Sorry I had to broaden the discussion instead of keeping it simple. I hope you know what I’m TRYING to get at. :p
Regards
Mark
mark,
what mac is trying to say, imo, is that it doesn’t matter what your ppi is. what matters is the overall image size.
ie. a 5 x 7 at 250 ppi is the same as a 17.361 x 24.306 at 72 ppi (6.26mb)
Yes, but that has NOTHING do do with new doc pref.
That only affects a new blank document.
Would have nothing to do with image from a digital camera, which is already it’s own entity, with its own ppi tags in header (or not).
Mac
No Problem! Totally agree. I assume MY problem is I have been reading into Dale’s post where the info isn’t actually there. It’s how I work, which I suppose makes the difference.
I reacon Dale may need to cough up more info as Mac suggests before the problem can be sorted.
Mac, I understand you have FTP, maybe he can upload but judging by his lack of follow up posts he’s in cuckoo land ’til morning and with that so am I. XD (Still Fav)
Regards
Mark
Gabriel as in the Arch Angel!
you da man. 🙂
It’s how I work, which I suppose makes the difference.
You make a new blank image and drag your original image into it? That’s a standard workflow for working your pix?
Mac
While I did not pore through this thread to weed out the OT from the Gabby talk, I would like to state that a single resaving of a high quality Jpeg will undoubtedly result in some loss.
It is a lossy format after all.
Yet, I defy ANY expert on this forum to print a before-and-after a single Jpeg resave on a decent printer, and decern an obvious degradation in clarity.
The fact that the OT is complaining about just such a problem implies a deeper problem than simply resaving a Jpeg.
he could be doing a resave and a resample?
Yet, I defy ANY expert on this forum to print a before-and-after a single Jpeg resave on a decent printer, and decern an obvious degradation in clarity.
noted in my post with the link to the jpg faq. 🙂
While I did not pore through this thread…
from my post.
sorry to waste everyone’s time.
TTFN
wrote:
Well I guess this means I have to go home and RTFM again because I could have sworn I read somewhere in there that saving a copy was recommended so that the quality would not be reduced.
Saving a copy is always a good idea as not changing the original will not reduce the quality.
But saving a JPG copy does still create a file that has a quality worse than the original file – how much depends on image content and compression setting.
Saving an image to a file format other than JPG, using lossless format like TIF or PNG (even BMP) will not reduce quality.
Michael
wrote:
I resave the image in the orignal jpg image. To print them I save them to a cd and take it to Target to have them printed.
When you load an image into Photoshop the file format becomes irrelevant – your image is a map of pixels while you work on it.
When you save the image some file formats compress(PNG, TIF, GIF, JPG), some don’t (BMP, TIF uncompressed) and some do either compress or not, depending on your settings.
Among those who compress, there are formats that can store all your image information lossless (PNG, TIF compressed) and others that require you to discard information (GIF, 256 colors only) or discard information according to your settings (JPG).
If you save a JPG with a quality setting set too low, you will find compression artifacts tht anybody can see. If your quality setting is high enough, only those who know where too look will see the artifacts.
Michael
wrote:
Now a few crazy people in my family want me to get on Illustrator and make them T-Shirts with their own logos. Only problem is, they haven’t thought of a brand that goes with their name. There is Mike Vanessa, Elizabeth, Johnathan, Armando and Thomas.
Mike is the only one that has a good one because it’s easy. I could do the Nike swoosh and type the caption "Just Do It" 😀 Maybe he will want it to say "Just Do Me" LOL
I say they are crazy because I am not going to spend hours drawing up a logo and making the shirts for free. Since they are family they want all this for free, HA!
Give them as birthday gifts. Spending time instead of money… Nothing more expensive than that.
Michael
You make a new blank image and drag your original image into it? That’s a standard workflow for working your pix?<
Yes Mac.
Once I’ve burned the images onto disc, the default setting for each image is 12" x 8".
I then drag each image onto A4 B/G which leaves 20pixel gap top and bottom and I resize. I have nothing else to do with the original as from then on I work with PSD.
The A4 then slips into the Wedding Album.
<
http://www.smileyworld.com/toolbar/>
Regards
Mark
This may help…
I didn’t read all the posts… but if changing the file type isn’t working at all, maybe changing the color mode would, worth a try maybe but this is why I say that…
because if you’re working with RGB it may not work right with your printer due to exactly what type of printer it is. CMYK color mode works better when wanting to print out something that was created. I hear that most printers use CMYK printer cartradges now a days so you may want to try that. It’s just a guess, please don’t flame me if I’m wrong, but it’s worth a try as well
Antonette,
Although desktop inkjets use CMYK inks, to the O/S they are RGB devices. Non-Postscript printer drivers are incapable of passing CMYK data which has to be converted on-the-fly by the application when printing to a non-PostScript device.
The printer firmware then converts the RGB input into CMYK (or CcMmYK) for the printheads.
This double conversion can lead to serious colour degradation and is why you should NEVER send CMYK data to a non-PostScript printer.
learn something new everyday 😉
It was just a guess, most of the work I do stays digital unless I take it to a professional printer, but I thought I read someplace about changing to CMYK for printing.
Thanks for the correction.
a professional printer may very well be using a cmyk device. len was talking about your every day garden variety inkjet that most people use at their own desks.
