The form I use for display and/or print does not imply the form I used
for editing (PSD mostly). Nor does it imply that my final JPEGs are
stored with anything other than the highest quality level. I don't know
about yours but my JPEGs don't display compression artifacts or other
oddities.
Actually, if the truth be known, it takes a lot of saving, loading and
resaving before there is any degradation visible on a print for a high
quality level JPEG.
Chuck Norcutt
Philip Pemberton wrote:
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>>Why would you use JPEG for display and the uncompressed TIFF for print
>>when any display device technology has a far greater dynamic range than
>>any print technology. Doesn't make sense to me.
>
>
> Compression artefacting is the big reason.
> Move the 'quality' (or 'compression level') slider in your editing software
> towards 'highest compression' and watch what happens. Even better, load the
> same image, save it out, and repeat a few times.
>
> Again this is pretty much a 'raw vs. JPEG' argument. You can convert a raw to
> a TIFF and edit it to your heart's content with no degradation in image
> quality (uncompressed TIFF files are lossless, but as a result they're
> absolutely huge). Do the same with a JPEG, and every time you re-save the
> image you'll lose some quality.
>
> <http://ai.fri.uni-lj.si/~aleks/jpeg/artifacts.htm> has some more info on the
> different types of JPEG compression artefacting (not just the 'blocking' kind
> I mentioned).
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|