Problem loading files into Photoshop.

PJ
Posted By
Peter Jason
Aug 20, 2006
Views
773
Replies
24
Status
Closed
I have windowsXP and Photoshop5.5

I am annotating many jpeg pictures from a
large collection and I do this by adding text
with photoshop.

Normally I load the images into Photoshop
from Windows Explorer by selecting, say 6
images, and dragging them all at once onto
the Photoshop toolbar button.

But there seems no way to arrange the
transferred images so that they end up in
Photoshop in ascending order.

I need ascending order to make the adding of
text easier, since I can use all or part of
the text of the previous related image by
cutting and pasting.

Please help, Frank

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer 🔥🔥🔥

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

J
jaSPAMc
Aug 20, 2006
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 11:41:10 +1000, "Peter Jason" found these unused words floating about:

I have windowsXP and Photoshop5.5

I am annotating many jpeg pictures from a
large collection and I do this by adding text
with photoshop.

Normally I load the images into Photoshop
from Windows Explorer by selecting, say 6
images, and dragging them all at once onto
the Photoshop toolbar button.

But there seems no way to arrange the
transferred images so that they end up in
Photoshop in ascending order.

I need ascending order to make the adding of
text easier, since I can use all or part of
the text of the previous related image by
cutting and pasting.

Please help, Frank
Select the ‘last’ image first, then hold SHIFT and select the ‘first’.

Windoze has always had a problem with the ‘last’ item selected being first loaded.
TB
Tony Blair
Aug 20, 2006
"Peter Jason" wrote in message
I have windowsXP and Photoshop5.5

I am annotating many jpeg pictures from a large collection and I do this by adding text with photoshop.

Normally I load the images into Photoshop from Windows Explorer by selecting, say 6 images, and dragging them all at once onto the Photoshop toolbar button.

But there seems no way to arrange the transferred images so that they end up in Photoshop in ascending order.

I need ascending order to make the adding of text easier, since I can use all or part of the text of the previous related image by cutting and pasting.

Please help, Frank
I don’t know if you have considered using Irfan view for this task, the renaming possibilities are very good – as is the function for adding text to the image, If that is what you are doing?
Just one point – you are aware that you will be degrading the image if you add text to it in jpeg format?
PJ
Peter Jason
Aug 20, 2006
"Harry Limey" wrote in
message
"Peter Jason" wrote in
message
I have windowsXP and Photoshop5.5

I am annotating many jpeg pictures from a
large collection and I do this by adding
text with photoshop.

Normally I load the images into Photoshop
from Windows Explorer by selecting, say 6
images, and dragging them all at once onto
the Photoshop toolbar button.

But there seems no way to arrange the
transferred images so that they end up in
Photoshop in ascending order.

I need ascending order to make the adding
of text easier, since I can use all or
part of the text of the previous related
image by cutting and pasting.

Please help, Frank
I don’t know if you have considered using
Irfan view for this task, the renaming
possibilities are very good – as is the
function for adding text to the image, If
that is what you are doing?
Just one point – you are aware that you
will be degrading the image if you add text
to it in jpeg format?

This was my next problem, because when I take
a photo in a jpeg file its size is about
1500KB. But when I load into Photoshop and,
say, rotate the image and then add the text
to it, and then burn in the Date/time/
watermark, and then save the result I find
that the size of the image has gone down to
about half say 750KB.

What is the correct way to add the text and
to burn in a watermark without losing
anything?
Regards
J
jaSPAMc
Aug 20, 2006
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 07:44:03 +1000, "Peter Jason" found these unused words floating about:

"Harry Limey" wrote in
message
"Peter Jason" wrote in
message
I have windowsXP and Photoshop5.5

I am annotating many jpeg pictures from a
large collection and I do this by adding
text with photoshop.

Normally I load the images into Photoshop
from Windows Explorer by selecting, say 6
images, and dragging them all at once onto
the Photoshop toolbar button.

But there seems no way to arrange the
transferred images so that they end up in
Photoshop in ascending order.

I need ascending order to make the adding
of text easier, since I can use all or
part of the text of the previous related
image by cutting and pasting.

Please help, Frank
I don’t know if you have considered using
Irfan view for this task, the renaming
possibilities are very good – as is the
function for adding text to the image, If
that is what you are doing?
Just one point – you are aware that you
will be degrading the image if you add text
to it in jpeg format?

This was my next problem, because when I take
a photo in a jpeg file its size is about
1500KB. But when I load into Photoshop and,
say, rotate the image and then add the text
to it, and then burn in the Date/time/
watermark, and then save the result I find
that the size of the image has gone down to
about half say 750KB.

Well yeah, ’cause you’re saving at less than top quality.

If you have to save in.jpg, make it a "12". You’ll still lose, but …

What is the correct way to add the text and
to burn in a watermark without losing
anything?

Ummmmmmm — tif or psd

Regards

K
keepout
Aug 20, 2006
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 07:44:03 +1000, "Peter Jason" wrote:

Normally I load the images into Photoshop
from Windows Explorer by selecting, say 6
images, and dragging them all at once onto
the Photoshop toolbar button.

Sorting PS images is done by
2 images in PS.
select one image, hit sort.
selected image is #1.
3 images in PS.
select #3
select #1
select #2
hit sort
order now is 2,1,3
1st you select will be the last in the sort.

I need ascending order to make the adding
of text easier, since I can use all or
use the pull down to see the names of the files for selecting order.

This was my next problem, because when I take
a photo in a jpeg file its size is about
1500KB. But when I load into Photoshop and,
say, rotate the image and then add the text
to it, and then burn in the Date/time/
watermark, and then save the result I find
that the size of the image has gone down to
about half say 750KB.
dependent on how you have the saving settings. If you want the same as the original, or larger, use the save for web to set your settings

What is the correct way to add the text and
to burn in a watermark without losing
anything?

Only work with BMP or TIFF.
JPG is a lossy type.

more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html
RG
Roy G
Aug 20, 2006
wrote in message
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 07:44:03 +1000, "Peter Jason" wrote:

Normally I load the images into Photoshop
from Windows Explorer by selecting, say 6
images, and dragging them all at once onto
the Photoshop toolbar button.

Sorting PS images is done by
2 images in PS.
select one image, hit sort.
selected image is #1.
3 images in PS.
select #3
select #1
select #2
hit sort
order now is 2,1,3
1st you select will be the last in the sort.

I need ascending order to make the adding
of text easier, since I can use all or
use the pull down to see the names of the files for selecting order.

This was my next problem, because when I take
a photo in a jpeg file its size is about
1500KB. But when I load into Photoshop and,
say, rotate the image and then add the text
to it, and then burn in the Date/time/
watermark, and then save the result I find
that the size of the image has gone down to
about half say 750KB.
dependent on how you have the saving settings. If you want the same as the original, or larger, use the save for web to set your settings

What is the correct way to add the text and
to burn in a watermark without losing
anything?

Only work with BMP or TIFF.
JPG is a lossy type.

more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

Do not use "Save for Web" except for images you intend to publish on the Web. Even more data than normal for a Jpeg "Save" will be discarded, and the file size will be even smaller.
If you must save as Jpeg, set the Jpeg level to max, (12 on PS).

It is much better to save as PSD or Tiff.

Roy G
PJ
Peter Jason
Aug 21, 2006
"Roy G" wrote
in message
wrote in
message
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 07:44:03 +1000, "Peter
Jason" wrote:

Normally I load the images into
Photoshop
from Windows Explorer by selecting, say
6
images, and dragging them all at once
onto
the Photoshop toolbar button.

Sorting PS images is done by
2 images in PS.
select one image, hit sort.
selected image is #1.
3 images in PS.
select #3
select #1
select #2
hit sort
order now is 2,1,3
1st you select will be the last in the
sort.

I need ascending order to make the
adding
of text easier, since I can use all or
use the pull down to see the names of the
files for selecting order.

This was my next problem, because when I
take
a photo in a jpeg file its size is about
1500KB. But when I load into Photoshop
and,
say, rotate the image and then add the text
to it, and then burn in the Date/time/
watermark, and then save the result I find
that the size of the image has gone down to
about half say 750KB.
dependent on how you have the saving
settings. If you want the same as the
original, or larger, use the save for web
to set your settings

What is the correct way to add the text and
to burn in a watermark without losing
anything?

Only work with BMP or TIFF.
JPG is a lossy type.

more pix @
http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

Do not use "Save for Web" except for images
you intend to publish on the Web. Even
more data than normal for a Jpeg "Save"
will be discarded, and the file size will
be even smaller.
If you must save as Jpeg, set the Jpeg
level to max, (12 on PS).

It is much better to save as PSD or Tiff.

Roy G

Thank you.
I have a project to photograph tall city
buildings and for this I use a ‘OlympusE500’
with a fisheye lens, and the camera has a
500Mb card and the picture type is set for
jpeg recording which gives the max number of
pictures per session.

What is the best way to do this; should I set
the camera to record in ‘tiff’ and suffer
fewer shots per session, or should I set the
camera for ‘jpeg’ and then change the
downloaded ‘jpeg’ photos to ‘tiff’ in the
computer before I rotate the images and add
text and burn watermarks?

I need to get this set up pretty quickly
because the trees in the city are starting to
spout leaves which will postpone the shooting
for another 9 months.

What is the best way to do all this?
Please help.
K
keepout
Aug 21, 2006
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 23:54:28 GMT, "Roy G" wrote:

watermark, and then save the result I find
that the size of the image has gone down to
about half say 750KB.
dependent on how you have the saving settings. If you want the same as the original, or larger, use the save for web to set your settings
What is the correct way to add the text and
to burn in a watermark without losing
anything?

Only work with BMP or TIFF.
JPG is a lossy type.

more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

Do not use "Save for Web" except for images you intend to publish on the Web. Even more data than normal for a Jpeg "Save" will be discarded, and the file size will be even smaller.
If you must save as Jpeg, set the Jpeg level to max, (12 on PS).
1st off I said use save for web to SET the settings. There might be another way, there’s always 10 ways to do something in PS. I just use save for web to set my different formats for saving.

It is much better to save as PSD or Tiff.
PSD isn’t a generic format. Nor a format transportable even between different versions of PS. BMP is and tiff isn’t used that much.

more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html
K
keepout
Aug 21, 2006
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 10:31:23 +1000, "Peter Jason" wrote:

Thank you.
I have a project to photograph tall city
buildings and for this I use a ‘OlympusE500’
with a fisheye lens, and the camera has a
500Mb card and the picture type is set for
jpeg recording which gives the max number of
pictures per session.
you’re talking apples and oranges.

for the camera and best shots, you want to choose the format [tiff] that will give you the best resolution. And if you’re looking for shots, would you take just one roll of film ? Get yourself more memory cards. You wouldn’t want to shoot with jpeg from the beginning. Unless you’re just learning. But then you’re talking about a renewable resource, but sometimes you don’t have time to pick and choose your shots and what to keep or lose.
That right there is one disadvantage over film. There’s no permanent [negative] record of the shots other than those on a CD/DVD disk. Course that might actually be an advantage in that those copies on CD/DVD are not as prone to degradation as film.

You’re using a fairly expensive setup, why take mediocre to bad shots ? Stay away from the jpg for anything but warm up snaps. Like using polaroids to test lighting and angles before bringing out the expensive camera to actually take the shot.

You should also make sure you have the software capable of handling the Tiff’s from your camera.

I’m not saying PS can’t, I’m not saying it can either.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EV500/E500A.HTM
Hope you have more than a fisheye lens.

What is the best way to do this; should I set
the camera to record in ‘tiff’ and suffer
fewer shots per session, or should I set the
camera for ‘jpeg’ and then change the
downloaded ‘jpeg’ photos to ‘tiff’ in the
computer before I rotate the images and add
text and burn watermarks?

I need to get this set up pretty quickly
because the trees in the city are starting to
spout leaves which will postpone the shooting
for another 9 months.

What is the best way to do all this?
Please help.
You should probably take this to a camera news group till you need to handle the images in PS. —
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html
PJ
Peter Jason
Aug 21, 2006
wrote in message
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 10:31:23 +1000, "Peter
Jason" wrote:

Thank you.
I have a project to photograph tall city
buildings and for this I use a ‘OlympusE500’
with a fisheye lens, and the camera has a
500Mb card and the picture type is set for
jpeg recording which gives the max number of
pictures per session.
you’re talking apples and oranges.

for the camera and best shots, you want to
choose the format [tiff] that will give you
the best resolution. And if you’re looking
for shots, would you take just one roll of
film ? Get yourself more memory cards. You
wouldn’t want to shoot with jpeg from the
beginning. Unless you’re just learning. But
then you’re talking about a renewable
resource, but sometimes you don’t have time
to pick and choose your shots and what to
keep or lose.
That right there is one disadvantage over
film. There’s no permanent [negative] record
of the shots other than those on a CD/DVD
disk. Course that might actually be an
advantage in that those copies on CD/DVD are
not as prone to degradation as film.

You’re using a fairly expensive setup, why
take mediocre to bad shots ? Stay away from
the jpg for anything but warm up snaps. Like
using polaroids to test lighting and angles
before bringing out the expensive camera to
actually take the shot.

You should also make sure you have the
software capable of handling the Tiff’s from
your camera.

I’m not saying PS can’t, I’m not saying it
can either.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EV500/E500A.HTM
Hope you have more than a fisheye lens.

What is the best way to do this; should I
set
the camera to record in ‘tiff’ and suffer
fewer shots per session, or should I set the
camera for ‘jpeg’ and then change the
downloaded ‘jpeg’ photos to ‘tiff’ in the
computer before I rotate the images and add
text and burn watermarks?

I need to get this set up pretty quickly
because the trees in the city are starting
to
spout leaves which will postpone the
shooting
for another 9 months.

What is the best way to do all this?
Please help.
You should probably take this to a camera
news group till you need to handle the images
in PS.

more pix @
http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

Thanks. I’ll experiment with the ‘tiff’
setting on the camera, though the resulting
files will be very large. I have a camera, a
fisheye lens (which is very heavy) and a
tripod, but what else do I need?

I have been using Photoshop to put text under
the images, and "Exifer" to burn the
watermarks, but I would be interested in
anything better.
Regards.
RG
Roy G
Aug 21, 2006
wrote in message
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 23:54:28 GMT, "Roy G"
wrote:

watermark, and then save the result I find
that the size of the image has gone down to
about half say 750KB.
dependent on how you have the saving settings. If you want the same as the original, or larger, use the save for web to set your settings
What is the correct way to add the text and
to burn in a watermark without losing
anything?

Only work with BMP or TIFF.
JPG is a lossy type.

more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

Do not use "Save for Web" except for images you intend to publish on the Web. Even more data than normal for a Jpeg "Save" will be discarded, and the file size will be even smaller.
If you must save as Jpeg, set the Jpeg level to max, (12 on PS).
1st off I said use save for web to SET the settings. There might be another way, there’s always 10 ways to do something in PS. I just use save for web to set my different formats for saving.

It is much better to save as PSD or Tiff.
PSD isn’t a generic format. Nor a format transportable even between different versions of PS. BMP is and tiff isn’t used that much. —
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

Of course PSD is transferrable between versions of Ps.

If you want to use programs which can’t read PSDs then you should be using Tiff.

The fact that most of the idiots out there only ever use Jpeg, and don’t use Tiff, does not make Tiff into a poor Format.

It takes up quite a bit of space, but memory, both Flash and HDD, is cheap.

Roy G
TB
Tony Blair
Aug 21, 2006
A couple of points!!

In the real world it depends what you are going to use the images for! If you were an estate agent for instance and doing this sort of thing every day and were going to print off images for a cheap paper brochure to hand to dozens of clients and maybe put further images online, then all you need is jpeg. If you intend to open the images just once to annotate them in Photoshop, then I would still say jpeg, the reason being that you would never notice the slight degradation of the image!

If however you are going to print them in a glossy magazine or book and may well make a number of changes to the images over a course of time, resaving on each occasion, then it is important to use a lossless format, Psd or Tiff.

For anything in between these extremes, it is a judgement call for yourself!!

As far as annotations go, have you considered using your camera’s inbuilt facility to add text to the image?
K
keepout
Aug 21, 2006
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:53:01 +1000, "Peter Jason" wrote:

Thanks. I’ll experiment with the ‘tiff’
setting on the camera, though the resulting
files will be very large. I have a camera, a
fisheye lens (which is very heavy) and a
tripod, but what else do I need?
I hope you have more than a fisheye. I’ve never used one. never saw any real appeal for shots that you couldn’t identify even one object in the shot. I preferred telephotos that could grab shots that would take me an hour to walk to get to them.

The large files, and high resolution is to save details in the shots.

I have been using Photoshop to put text under
the images, and "Exifer" to burn the
watermarks, but I would be interested in
anything better.

As long as you’re going to ruin the shots with text and watermarks, you might as well go with irfanview. I suspect IV can handle tiff. It does almost every other format. Even has a TIFF mask pull down. So I’d say IV will ruin the photos just fine for you.

And you can make them larger or smaller with IV. But if the shots worth taking, I’d stick them on a CD or DVD in the original TIFF format before doing anything else with them.
With jpeg you should go with the IPTC and comments keeping the image itself free from garbage. PSD can do IPTC, I don’t know how many other formats can, but with IPTC you don’t ruin the image.

more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html
A
Aaron
Aug 21, 2006
wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 10:31:23 +1000, "Peter Jason" wrote:
Thank you.
I have a project to photograph tall city
buildings and for this I use a ‘OlympusE500’
with a fisheye lens, and the camera has a
500Mb card and the picture type is set for
jpeg recording which gives the max number of
pictures per session.
you’re talking apples and oranges.

for the camera and best shots, you want to choose the format [tiff] that will give you the best resolution. And if you’re looking for shots, would you take just one roll of film ? Get yourself more memory cards. You wouldn’t want to shoot with jpeg from the beginning. Unless you’re just learning. But then you’re talking about a renewable resource, but sometimes you don’t have time to pick and choose your shots and what to keep or lose. That right there is one disadvantage over film. There’s no permanent [negative] record of the shots other than those on a CD/DVD disk. Course that might actually be an advantage in that those copies on CD/DVD are not as prone to degradation as film.

Please also read Dan Heller’s excellent blog post on JPG versus RAW formats for digital photography. Dan Heller is a somewhat renowned and successful travel photographer.

http://danheller.blogspot.com/2006/07/business-aspects-of-ra w-vs-jpg-mode.html

You’re using a fairly expensive setup, why take mediocre to bad shots ? Stay away from the jpg for anything but warm up snaps. Like using polaroids to test lighting and angles before bringing out the expensive camera to actually take the shot.

You should also make sure you have the software capable of handling the Tiff’s from your camera.

I’m not saying PS can’t, I’m not saying it can either.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EV500/E500A.HTM Hope you have more than a fisheye lens.

What is the best way to do this; should I set
the camera to record in ‘tiff’ and suffer
fewer shots per session, or should I set the
camera for ‘jpeg’ and then change the
downloaded ‘jpeg’ photos to ‘tiff’ in the
computer before I rotate the images and add
text and burn watermarks?

I need to get this set up pretty quickly
because the trees in the city are starting to
spout leaves which will postpone the shooting
for another 9 months.

What is the best way to do all this?
Please help.
You should probably take this to a camera news group till you need to
handle the images in PS.


Aaron

"Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." — John Stuart Mill
PJ
Peter Jason
Aug 21, 2006
wrote in message
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:53:01 +1000, "Peter
Jason" wrote:

Thanks. I’ll experiment with the ‘tiff’
setting on the camera, though the resulting
files will be very large. I have a camera, a
fisheye lens (which is very heavy) and a
tripod, but what else do I need?
I hope you have more than a fisheye. I’ve
never used one. never saw any real appeal for
shots that you couldn’t identify even one
object in the shot. I preferred telephotos
that could grab shots that would take me an
hour to walk to get to them.

The large files, and high resolution is to
save details in the shots.

I have been using Photoshop to put text
under
the images, and "Exifer" to burn the
watermarks, but I would be interested in
anything better.

As long as you’re going to ruin the shots
with text and watermarks, you might as well
go with irfanview. I suspect IV can handle
tiff. It does almost every other format. Even
has a TIFF mask pull down. So I’d say IV will
ruin the photos just fine for you.

And you can make them larger or smaller with
IV. But if the shots worth taking, I’d stick
them on a CD or DVD in the original TIFF
format before doing anything else with them.
With jpeg you should go with the IPTC and
comments keeping the image itself free from
garbage. PSD can do IPTC, I don’t know how
many other formats can, but with IPTC you
don’t ruin the image.

more pix @
http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

Thanks everyone for the replies.
I don’t ruin the shots with watermarks etc.
The watermarks are just a thin strip across
the very bottom of the photo giving the
date/time and exposure details.
The description and details are put into a
white strip at the bottom via the "canvas
size" property of Photoshop.
All this takes up little more than about 2%
of the photo at the very bottom, and with can
be easily cropped if necessary.
Regards.
K
keepout
Aug 21, 2006
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 08:25:04 +1000, "Peter Jason" wrote:

Thanks everyone for the replies.
I don’t ruin the shots with watermarks etc.
The watermarks are just a thin strip across
the very bottom of the photo giving the
date/time and exposure details.
The description and details are put into a
white strip at the bottom via the "canvas
size" property of Photoshop.
All this takes up little more than about 2%
of the photo at the very bottom, and with can
be easily cropped if necessary.
Regards.

To me that’s ruining the shot. Cropping always puts it at, what’s missing here ? And only way then is with the original. and if the original has marks, you’re still stuck with what’s missing ?

more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html
PJ
Peter Jason
Aug 22, 2006
wrote in message
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 08:25:04 +1000, "Peter
Jason" wrote:

Thanks everyone for the replies.
I don’t ruin the shots with watermarks etc.
The watermarks are just a thin strip across
the very bottom of the photo giving the
date/time and exposure details.
The description and details are put into a
white strip at the bottom via the "canvas
size" property of Photoshop.
All this takes up little more than about 2%
of the photo at the very bottom, and with
can
be easily cropped if necessary.
Regards.

To me that’s ruining the shot. Cropping
always puts it at, what’s missing here ?
And only way then is with the original. and
if the original has marks, you’re still stuck
with what’s missing ?

more pix @
http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

How else then are we to record these details?
I have found that the computer file system
can be volatile, because if the image is
adjusted in Photoshop and other software then
the "date" property of the image disappears!
With a discreet watermark these details are
imbedded forever.
Regards
K
keepout
Aug 22, 2006
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:23:00 +1000, "Peter Jason" wrote:

How else then are we to record these details?
I have found that the computer file system
can be volatile, because if the image is
adjusted in Photoshop and other software then
the "date" property of the image disappears!
With a discreet watermark these details are
imbedded forever.
Regards

I already told you, use the IPTC and comments. JPG and PSD both use them. There may be other formats, but those 2 are guaranteed. They get written into the header of the image. And don’t lose the date.
If someone crops the date out of yours, and resaves it etc.. date gets lost too. Removing IPTC, and comments normally takes extra effort. There might be robotic software to remove the stuff. But if you archive the shots with the IPTC, you have it hard coded without ruining the shot with garbage.
With a discreet watermark these details are
imbedded forever.
Or until the picture gets cropped and resaved.
There isn’t a better mousetrap yet.

www.digimarc.com/ comes close, but it also ruins the shot. It’s watermark gets semi invisibly embedded right into the pixels of the picture. ie: Take the Mona Lisa, and add a semi visible scar to her cheek, nose, hair, eyeball, somewhere within the picture it scrambles some pixels with the unique to you digimarc signature.
PS still supports digimarc on the filters menu.

Even this mark degrades after several savings in jpg format. I used it until I actually saw the mark. Haven’t touched it since.
If they’re going to steal it, they’re going to steal it. And unless you plaster EBAY in red & blue from cheek to cheek several times, someone will take it.
IPTC , EXIF and comments are your best bets. EXIF = camera data = date, time, fstop, software, orientation, EXIF color space, image description.
As long as you have the original, with all that info it doesn’t really matter how many times it’s cropped or resaved.

2 objects can not occupy the same space at the same time. IOW your shot can’t be claimed by anyone by simple math. Someone might have come along behind you and took the same shot, but unless they had the camera in the EXACT same spot and aimed in the exact same direction, and nothing changed in the subject. There will be enough visible differences to overlay the two and see the differences.

more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html
K
KatWoman
Aug 22, 2006
"Harry Limey" wrote in message
A couple of points!!

In the real world it depends what you are going to use the images for! If you were an estate agent for instance and doing this sort of thing every day and were going to print off images for a cheap paper brochure to hand to dozens of clients and maybe put further images online, then all you need is jpeg. If you intend to open the images just once to annotate them in Photoshop, then I would still say jpeg, the reason being that you would never notice the slight degradation of the image!

If however you are going to print them in a glossy magazine or book and may well make a number of changes to the images over a course of time, resaving on each occasion, then it is important to use a lossless format, Psd or Tiff.

For anything in between these extremes, it is a judgement call for yourself!!

As far as annotations go, have you considered using your camera’s inbuilt facility to add text to the image?
so far the most practical answer and to that I would add you can make endless copies and edits of your lossless file (Tiff or PSD) and then use save for web for the jpg copy

workflow
orig camera jpeg>open in PS.add text and edits in layers above original>save as layered tiff or psd>make a new jpg with "save for web" if you need internet sized images
or save a full size and res jpg at 12 for highest quality, or make an action to do both.
K
KatWoman
Aug 22, 2006
"Aaron" wrote in message
wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 10:31:23 +1000, "Peter Jason" wrote:
Thank you.
I have a project to photograph tall city
buildings and for this I use a ‘OlympusE500’
with a fisheye lens, and the camera has a
500Mb card and the picture type is set for
jpeg recording which gives the max number of
pictures per session.
you’re talking apples and oranges.

for the camera and best shots, you want to choose the format [tiff] that will give you the best resolution. And if you’re looking for shots, would you take just one roll of film ? Get yourself more memory cards. You wouldn’t want to shoot with jpeg from the beginning. Unless you’re just learning. But then you’re talking about a renewable resource, but sometimes you don’t have time to pick and choose your shots and what to keep or lose. That right there is one disadvantage over film. There’s no permanent [negative] record of the shots other than those on a CD/DVD disk. Course that might actually be an advantage in that those copies on CD/DVD are not as prone to degradation as film.

Please also read Dan Heller’s excellent blog post on JPG versus RAW formats for digital photography. Dan Heller is a somewhat renowned and successful travel photographer.

http://danheller.blogspot.com/2006/07/business-aspects-of-ra w-vs-jpg-mode.html
You’re using a fairly expensive setup, why take mediocre to bad shots ? Stay away from the jpg for anything but warm up snaps. Like using polaroids to test lighting and angles before bringing out the expensive camera to actually take the shot.

You should also make sure you have the software capable of handling the Tiff’s from your camera.

I’m not saying PS can’t, I’m not saying it can either.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EV500/E500A.HTM Hope you have more than a fisheye lens.

What is the best way to do this; should I set
the camera to record in ‘tiff’ and suffer
fewer shots per session, or should I set the
camera for ‘jpeg’ and then change the
downloaded ‘jpeg’ photos to ‘tiff’ in the
computer before I rotate the images and add
text and burn watermarks?

I need to get this set up pretty quickly
because the trees in the city are starting to
spout leaves which will postpone the shooting
for another 9 months.

What is the best way to do all this?
Please help.
You should probably take this to a camera news group till you need to
handle the images in PS.


Aaron

"Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." — John Stuart Mill

I love your sig quote Aaron
K
KatWoman
Aug 22, 2006
"Roy G" wrote in message
wrote in message
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 23:54:28 GMT, "Roy G"
wrote:

watermark, and then save the result I find
that the size of the image has gone down to
about half say 750KB.
dependent on how you have the saving settings. If you want the same as the original, or larger, use the save for web to set your settings
What is the correct way to add the text and
to burn in a watermark without losing
anything?

Only work with BMP or TIFF.
JPG is a lossy type.

more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

Do not use "Save for Web" except for images you intend to publish on the Web. Even more data than normal for a Jpeg "Save" will be discarded, and the file size will be even smaller.
If you must save as Jpeg, set the Jpeg level to max, (12 on PS).
1st off I said use save for web to SET the settings. There might be another way, there’s always 10 ways to do something in PS. I just use save for web to set my different formats for saving.

It is much better to save as PSD or Tiff.
PSD isn’t a generic format. Nor a format transportable even between different versions of PS. BMP is and tiff isn’t used that much. —
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

Of course PSD is transferrable between versions of Ps.

If you want to use programs which can’t read PSDs then you should be using Tiff.

The fact that most of the idiots out there only ever use Jpeg, and don’t use Tiff, does not make Tiff into a poor Format.

It takes up quite a bit of space, but memory, both Flash and HDD, is cheap.

Roy G

will a layered TIFF open in other programs with the layers?? sometimes it will only show the top layer of the tiff, often an adjustment layer or other single layer that doesn’t look right without the rest. for example open a layered tiff in windows picture fax viewer and see
PJ
Peter Jason
Aug 22, 2006
wrote in message
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:23:00 +1000, "Peter
Jason" wrote:

How else then are we to record these
details?
I have found that the computer file system
can be volatile, because if the image is
adjusted in Photoshop and other software
then
the "date" property of the image disappears!
With a discreet watermark these details are
imbedded forever.
Regards

I already told you, use the IPTC and
comments. JPG and PSD both use them. There
may be other formats, but those 2 are
guaranteed. They get written into the header
of the image. And don’t lose the date.
If someone crops the date out of yours, and
resaves it etc.. date gets lost too. Removing
IPTC, and comments normally takes extra
effort. There might be robotic software to
remove the stuff. But if you archive the
shots with the IPTC, you have it hard coded
without ruining the shot with garbage.
With a discreet watermark these details are
imbedded forever.
Or until the picture gets cropped and
resaved.
There isn’t a better mousetrap yet.

www.digimarc.com/ comes close, but it also
ruins the shot. It’s watermark gets semi
invisibly embedded right into the pixels of
the picture. ie: Take the Mona Lisa, and add
a semi visible scar to her cheek, nose, hair,
eyeball, somewhere within the picture it
scrambles some pixels with the unique to you
digimarc signature.
PS still supports digimarc on the filters
menu.

Even this mark degrades after several savings
in jpg format. I used it until I actually saw
the mark. Haven’t touched it since.
If they’re going to steal it, they’re going
to steal it. And unless you plaster EBAY in
red & blue from cheek to cheek several times,
someone will take it.
IPTC , EXIF and comments are your best bets.
EXIF = camera data = date, time, fstop,
software, orientation, EXIF color space,
image description.
As long as you have the original, with all
that info it doesn’t really matter how many
times it’s cropped or resaved.

2 objects can not occupy the same space at
the same time. IOW your shot can’t be claimed
by anyone by simple math. Someone might have
come along behind you and took the same shot,
but unless they had the camera in the EXACT
same spot and aimed in the exact same
direction, and nothing changed in the
subject. There will be enough visible
differences to overlay the two and see the
differences.

more pix @
http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

Thanks, but what does IPTC mean?
Regards
RG
Roy G
Aug 22, 2006
"KatWoman" wrote in message
"Roy G" wrote in message
wrote in message
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 23:54:28 GMT, "Roy G"
wrote:

watermark, and then save the result I find
that the size of the image has gone down to
about half say 750KB.
dependent on how you have the saving settings. If you want the same as the
original, or larger, use the save for web to set your settings
What is the correct way to add the text and
to burn in a watermark without losing
anything?

Only work with BMP or TIFF.
JPG is a lossy type.

more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

Do not use "Save for Web" except for images you intend to publish on the Web. Even more data than normal for a Jpeg "Save" will be discarded, and the file size will be even smaller.
If you must save as Jpeg, set the Jpeg level to max, (12 on PS).
1st off I said use save for web to SET the settings. There might be another way, there’s always 10 ways to do something in PS. I just use save for web to set my different formats for saving.

It is much better to save as PSD or Tiff.
PSD isn’t a generic format. Nor a format transportable even between different versions of PS. BMP is and tiff isn’t used that much. —
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

Of course PSD is transferrable between versions of Ps.

If you want to use programs which can’t read PSDs then you should be using Tiff.

The fact that most of the idiots out there only ever use Jpeg, and don’t use Tiff, does not make Tiff into a poor Format.

It takes up quite a bit of space, but memory, both Flash and HDD, is cheap.

Roy G

will a layered TIFF open in other programs with the layers?? sometimes it will only show the top layer of the tiff, often an adjustment layer or other single layer that doesn’t look right without the rest. for example open a layered tiff in windows picture fax viewer and see

Hi

The OP and others were talking about Jpegs, and they can not be saved with layers.

I was not meaning layered Tiffs, just flattened files.

There seemed to be some confusion about how to apply, or reduce the degree of compression when saving Jpegs. The OP seemed to think the size reduction was due to his editing, rather than omitting to read the compression level in the Jpeg Dialogue box.

Another poster seemed to advise that he should use "Save for Web" to control the size, but was actually only advocating using "Save for Web" to vary the Jpeg compression level.

I felt, and still do, that using a lossless format such as PSD or Tiff would be more sensible than using Jpeg. I was then told that PSD is not transferrable to other versions of Ps or any other program. (neither strictly true of course, but who am I to argue)

Hence my suggestion to use Tiff.

Roy G
K
keepout
Aug 22, 2006
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 07:55:54 +1000, "Peter Jason" wrote:

Thanks, but what does IPTC mean?

If it’s important to know what it means, I’d say google it. It’s a STANDARD for image info that is transportable between image software.
ie: create the IPTC info with PS, you can read it with IV and vice versa. —
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections