Basic choises for saving to CD

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Morgan Ohlson, Nov 25, 2003.

  1. Which is the best way to save originals to CD?

    jpeg ?
    other std-files ?
    html ?
    albumformat ?
    other software-specific ?

    Please tell about your choices! What, and why?


    Morgan O.
     
    Morgan Ohlson, Nov 25, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Morgan Ohlson

    Ray Murphy Guest

    ----------
    In article <AIGwb.39159$>, "Morgan Ohlson"
    <> wrote:


    >Which is the best way to save originals to CD?
    >
    >jpeg ?
    >other std-files ?
    >html ?
    >albumformat ?
    >other software-specific ?
    >
    >Please tell about your choices! What, and why?
    >
    >
    >Morgan O.


    RM: Originals should be saved as originals - which are most often
    ..jpegs if you are talking about digital camera images.
    You could however convert jpegs to TIFFs or BMP's without losing any
    quality at all, but you would have much larger files without achieving
    anything.

    If however an original image is a TIFF or a BMP, it should never be
    converted into a JPEG for achival purposes because they are basically
    bastardised (compressed) images and lose a lot of the original
    information.

    We should *never* make a JPEG of a JPEG either, because that is
    further degrading an already degraded image. Copying (or duplicating)
    JPEGS is perfectly alright though.

    Ray
     
    Ray Murphy, Nov 25, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Morgan Ohlson

    Mark Herring Guest

    On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:06:08 GMT, "Morgan Ohlson"
    <> wrote:

    >Which is the best way to save originals to CD?
    >
    >jpeg ?
    >other std-files ?
    >html ?
    >albumformat ?
    >other software-specific ?
    >
    >Please tell about your choices! What, and why?
    >
    >
    >Morgan O.
    >

    Right now, I have all my pix on three hard disks---primary and tow
    backups. They are in a bunch of different formats---but mostly
    Photshop and JPEG.

    If I archive to CD, I will just copy whole folders---chaning the
    formats would consume time, and CDs are CHEAP!!!

    More generally, I avoid putting anything in any format other than
    TIFF, PSD, etc.---that is uncompressed. Multiple JPEG conversions,
    for example, are supposed to degrade quality at every step, but I have
    never confirmed this.
    **************************
    Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
    Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".
     
    Mark Herring, Nov 25, 2003
    #3
  4. Morgan Ohlson

    Ray Murphy Guest

    ----------
    In article <>, Mark Herring
    <> wrote:


    >On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:06:08 GMT, "Morgan Ohlson"
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>Which is the best way to save originals to CD?
    >>
    >>jpeg ?
    >>other std-files ?
    >>html ?
    >>albumformat ?
    >>other software-specific ?
    >>
    >>Please tell about your choices! What, and why?
    >>
    >>
    >>Morgan O.
    >>

    >Right now, I have all my pix on three hard disks---primary and tow
    >backups. They are in a bunch of different formats---but mostly
    >Photshop and JPEG.
    >
    >If I archive to CD, I will just copy whole folders---chaning the
    >formats would consume time, and CDs are CHEAP!!!
    >
    >More generally, I avoid putting anything in any format other than
    >TIFF, PSD, etc.---that is uncompressed. Multiple JPEG conversions,
    >for example, are supposed to degrade quality at every step, but I have
    >never confirmed this.
    >**************************
    >Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
    >Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".


    RM: The easiest way to confirm the degradation of multiple JPEG
    conversions (if it isn't half obvious by looking at the picctures) is
    to look at the file sizes. If they are smaller they are further
    degraded.

    Ray
     
    Ray Murphy, Nov 25, 2003
    #4
  5. "Ray Murphy" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:...
    >
    > ----------
    > In article <>, Mark Herring
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > >On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:06:08 GMT, "Morgan Ohlson"
    > ><> wrote:
    > >
    > >>Which is the best way to save originals to CD?
    > >>
    > >>jpeg ?
    > >>other std-files ?
    > >>html ?
    > >>albumformat ?
    > >>other software-specific ?
    > >>
    > >>Please tell about your choices! What, and why?
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>Morgan O.
    > >>

    > >Right now, I have all my pix on three hard disks---primary and tow
    > >backups. They are in a bunch of different formats---but mostly
    > >Photshop and JPEG.
    > >
    > >If I archive to CD, I will just copy whole folders---chaning the
    > >formats would consume time, and CDs are CHEAP!!!
    > >
    > >More generally, I avoid putting anything in any format other than
    > >TIFF, PSD, etc.---that is uncompressed. Multiple JPEG conversions,
    > >for example, are supposed to degrade quality at every step, but I have
    > >never confirmed this.
    > >**************************
    > >Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
    > >Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".

    >
    > RM: The easiest way to confirm the degradation of multiple JPEG
    > conversions (if it isn't half obvious by looking at the picctures) is
    > to look at the file sizes. If they are smaller they are further
    > degraded.


    So converting a 1Mb jpeg into a 1,2Mb jpeg does not degrade the picture!?

    You don't bother putting pictures (original size) into html-pages or other
    ways to preserve additional picture-info when it's only for storage ?


    Morgan O.
     
    Morgan Ohlson, Nov 25, 2003
    #5
  6. Morgan Ohlson

    Ray Murphy Guest

    ----------
    In article <fZMwb.39219$>, "Morgan Ohlson"
    <> wrote:


    >
    >"Ray Murphy" <> skrev i meddelandet
    >news:...
    >>
    >> ----------
    >> In article <>, Mark Herring
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> >On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:06:08 GMT, "Morgan Ohlson"
    >> ><> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >>Which is the best way to save originals to CD?
    >> >>
    >> >>jpeg ?
    >> >>other std-files ?
    >> >>html ?
    >> >>albumformat ?
    >> >>other software-specific ?
    >> >>
    >> >>Please tell about your choices! What, and why?
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >>Morgan O.
    >> >>
    >> >Right now, I have all my pix on three hard disks---primary and tow
    >> >backups. They are in a bunch of different formats---but mostly
    >> >Photshop and JPEG.
    >> >
    >> >If I archive to CD, I will just copy whole folders---chaning the
    >> >formats would consume time, and CDs are CHEAP!!!
    >> >
    >> >More generally, I avoid putting anything in any format other than
    >> >TIFF, PSD, etc.---that is uncompressed. Multiple JPEG conversions,
    >> >for example, are supposed to degrade quality at every step, but I have
    >> >never confirmed this.
    >> >**************************
    >> >Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
    >> >Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".

    >>
    >> RM: The easiest way to confirm the degradation of multiple JPEG
    >> conversions (if it isn't half obvious by looking at the picctures) is
    >> to look at the file sizes. If they are smaller they are further
    >> degraded.

    >
    >So converting a 1Mb jpeg into a 1,2Mb jpeg does not degrade the picture!?


    RM: No pictures are ever degraded in this way because it is impossible
    to save a 1MB jpeg into 1.2MB jpeg. The whole idea of saving as JPEG
    is to compress the image you start with.
    >
    >You don't bother putting pictures (original size) into html-pages or other
    >ways to preserve additional picture-info when it's only for storage ?
    >
    >
    >Morgan O.


    RM: That's a perfectly normal thing to do. Copying preserves
    everything. We were talking about "saving originals" not making
    back-up copies of documents.

    So to go back to the beginning - we need to save original images in
    their original format UNLESS we have converted the original (such as a
    JPEG) into something which is better - such as a TIFF or BMP.

    Let's say that you had an original SCAN from a photograph and it was
    converted to a JPEG for a web page, then if you are talking about
    "saving originals" you need to save the original TIFF file (the
    scanned image) if you ever want to use that image to produce the best
    quality. JPEGs are *always* low grade images (no exceptions).

    Ray
     
    Ray Murphy, Nov 25, 2003
    #6
  7. Morgan Ohlson

    Don Coon Guest

    "Ray Murphy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >

    SNIP
    > >So converting a 1Mb jpeg into a 1,2Mb jpeg does not degrade the picture!?

    >
    > RM: No pictures are ever degraded in this way because it is impossible
    > to save a 1MB jpeg into 1.2MB jpeg. The whole idea of saving as JPEG
    > is to compress the image you start with.


    Sure it's possible to save a 1MB jpeg into a 1.2MB jpeg. When you open a
    JPEG in SW it's expanded to it's original uncompressed size. If you then
    resave it at a less compressed setting than it was before, you'll end up
    with a larger file. I won't be better, just larger.

    To confirm that, I just opened a 654,321 byte jpeg and saved it at the
    "best" setting in PhotoShop. It ended up 892,758 bytes.
     
    Don Coon, Nov 25, 2003
    #7
  8. Morgan Ohlson

    Trev Guest

    "Don Coon" <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> wrote in message
    news:fXQwb.305765$Tr4.962935@attbi_s03...
    >
    > "Ray Murphy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >

    > SNIP
    > > >So converting a 1Mb jpeg into a 1,2Mb jpeg does not degrade the

    picture!?
    > >
    > > RM: No pictures are ever degraded in this way because it is

    impossible
    > > to save a 1MB jpeg into 1.2MB jpeg. The whole idea of saving as JPEG
    > > is to compress the image you start with.

    >
    > Sure it's possible to save a 1MB jpeg into a 1.2MB jpeg. When you

    open a
    > JPEG in SW it's expanded to it's original uncompressed size. If you

    then
    > resave it at a less compressed setting than it was before, you'll end

    up
    > with a larger file. I won't be better, just larger.
    >
    > To confirm that, I just opened a 654,321 byte jpeg and saved it at the
    > "best" setting in PhotoShop. It ended up 892,758 bytes.
    >

    And compresed based on the made up pixels rather then the origenal, so
    compounding the faults.
     
    Trev, Nov 25, 2003
    #8
  9. Morgan Ohlson

    Don Coon Guest

    "Trev" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Don Coon" <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> wrote in message
    > news:fXQwb.305765$Tr4.962935@attbi_s03...
    > >
    > > "Ray Murphy" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > >

    > > SNIP
    > > > >So converting a 1Mb jpeg into a 1,2Mb jpeg does not degrade the

    > picture!?
    > > >
    > > > RM: No pictures are ever degraded in this way because it is

    > impossible
    > > > to save a 1MB jpeg into 1.2MB jpeg. The whole idea of saving as JPEG
    > > > is to compress the image you start with.

    > >
    > > Sure it's possible to save a 1MB jpeg into a 1.2MB jpeg. When you

    > open a
    > > JPEG in SW it's expanded to it's original uncompressed size. If you

    > then
    > > resave it at a less compressed setting than it was before, you'll end

    > up
    > > with a larger file. I won't be better, just larger.
    > >
    > > To confirm that, I just opened a 654,321 byte jpeg and saved it at the
    > > "best" setting in PhotoShop. It ended up 892,758 bytes.
    > >

    > And compresed based on the made up pixels rather then the origenal, so
    > compounding the faults.
    >


    Yes, but that wasn't the issue of my post. You CAN save to a larger JPEG
    size although, as I stated, "It (sic) won't be better, just larger." And
    yes, every time you resave a JPEG, you degrade it more.
     
    Don Coon, Nov 26, 2003
    #9
  10. "Ray Murphy" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:...
    >
    > ----------
    > In article <fZMwb.39219$>, "Morgan Ohlson"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > >
    > >"Ray Murphy" <> skrev i meddelandet
    > >news:...
    > >>
    > >> ----------
    > >> In article <>, Mark Herring
    > >> <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> >On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:06:08 GMT, "Morgan Ohlson"
    > >> ><> wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >>Which is the best way to save originals to CD?
    > >> >>
    > >> >>jpeg ?
    > >> >>other std-files ?
    > >> >>html ?
    > >> >>albumformat ?
    > >> >>other software-specific ?
    > >> >>
    > >> >>Please tell about your choices! What, and why?
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >> >>Morgan O.
    > >> >>
    > >> >Right now, I have all my pix on three hard disks---primary and tow
    > >> >backups. They are in a bunch of different formats---but mostly
    > >> >Photshop and JPEG.
    > >> >
    > >> >If I archive to CD, I will just copy whole folders---chaning the
    > >> >formats would consume time, and CDs are CHEAP!!!
    > >> >
    > >> >More generally, I avoid putting anything in any format other than
    > >> >TIFF, PSD, etc.---that is uncompressed. Multiple JPEG conversions,
    > >> >for example, are supposed to degrade quality at every step, but I have
    > >> >never confirmed this.
    > >> >**************************
    > >> >Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
    > >> >Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".
    > >>
    > >> RM: The easiest way to confirm the degradation of multiple JPEG
    > >> conversions (if it isn't half obvious by looking at the picctures) is
    > >> to look at the file sizes. If they are smaller they are further
    > >> degraded.

    > >
    > >So converting a 1Mb jpeg into a 1,2Mb jpeg does not degrade the picture!?

    >
    > RM: No pictures are ever degraded in this way because it is impossible
    > to save a 1MB jpeg into 1.2MB jpeg. The whole idea of saving as JPEG
    > is to compress the image you start with.


    uhuuu.... ;o)

    > >
    > >You don't bother putting pictures (original size) into html-pages or

    other
    > >ways to preserve additional picture-info when it's only for storage ?
    > >
    > >
    > >Morgan O.

    >
    > RM: That's a perfectly normal thing to do. Copying preserves
    > everything. We were talking about "saving originals" not making
    > back-up copies of documents.


    Yes, you'r right.

    But, perhaps I thought of originals also as "the enhanced original,
    including text-info"

    I think I did....
    my digicam arrived just the other day so I'm not so very shure about
    anything yet. :eek:)


    >
    > So to go back to the beginning - we need to save original images in
    > their original format UNLESS we have converted the original (such as a
    > JPEG) into something which is better - such as a TIFF or BMP.


    I have examined the first pictures (5Mpix from a C s50) taken in "fine
    compression" and I can't actually se any disturbing jpeg-damage (filesize
    ~1,1Mb) in normal views.

    But, if the pictures where to be filtered, then it could be better saving to
    a non damageing format after. What could then be a reasonable size, having
    in mind that the original was jpg only 1,2Mb?
    It can't be very meaningful to anlarge a picture in absurdum.

    ....and which file format.... tiff, bmp or png (does it really matter) ?


    >
    > Let's say that you had an original SCAN from a photograph and it was
    > converted to a JPEG for a web page, then if you are talking about
    > "saving originals" you need to save the original TIFF file (the
    > scanned image) if you ever want to use that image to produce the best
    > quality. JPEGs are *always* low grade images (no exceptions).


    That's clear, I think.....


    Morgan O.
     
    Morgan Ohlson, Nov 26, 2003
    #10
  11. "Morgan Ohlson" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:AIGwb.39159$...
    > Which is the best way to save originals to CD?
    >
    > jpeg ?
    > other std-files ?
    > html ?
    > albumformat ?
    > other software-specific ?
    >
    > Please tell about your choices! What, and why?


    Are there any way to store extra information in some smother way then a
    manual txt-file onto the CD whithout picture damages?


    Morgan
     
    Morgan Ohlson, Nov 26, 2003
    #11
  12. "Don Coon" <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> skrev i meddelandet
    news:mmSwb.303988$HS4.2713266@attbi_s01...
    >
    > "Trev" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > > "Don Coon" <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> wrote in message
    > > news:fXQwb.305765$Tr4.962935@attbi_s03...
    > > >
    > > > "Ray Murphy" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:...
    > > > >
    > > > SNIP
    > > > > >So converting a 1Mb jpeg into a 1,2Mb jpeg does not degrade the

    > > picture!?
    > > > >
    > > > > RM: No pictures are ever degraded in this way because it is

    > > impossible
    > > > > to save a 1MB jpeg into 1.2MB jpeg. The whole idea of saving as JPEG
    > > > > is to compress the image you start with.
    > > >
    > > > Sure it's possible to save a 1MB jpeg into a 1.2MB jpeg. When you

    > > open a
    > > > JPEG in SW it's expanded to it's original uncompressed size. If you

    > > then
    > > > resave it at a less compressed setting than it was before, you'll end

    > > up
    > > > with a larger file. I won't be better, just larger.
    > > >
    > > > To confirm that, I just opened a 654,321 byte jpeg and saved it at the
    > > > "best" setting in PhotoShop. It ended up 892,758 bytes.
    > > >

    > > And compresed based on the made up pixels rather then the origenal, so
    > > compounding the faults.
    > >

    >
    > Yes, but that wasn't the issue of my post. You CAN save to a larger JPEG
    > size although, as I stated, "It (sic) won't be better, just larger." And
    > yes, every time you resave a JPEG, you degrade it more.



    Ja, ja... so when a picture is edited then the best size goes up a little
    from the former size.

    This isn't difficoult, really... but it's not very easy to just guess and
    learn the hard way either.


    Morgan O.
     
    Morgan Ohlson, Nov 26, 2003
    #12
  13. Morgan Ohlson

    Ray Murphy Guest

    ----------
    In article <mmSwb.303988$HS4.2713266@attbi_s01>, "Don Coon"
    <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> wrote:


    >
    >"Trev" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >>
    >> "Don Coon" <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> wrote in message
    >> news:fXQwb.305765$Tr4.962935@attbi_s03...
    >> >
    >> > "Ray Murphy" <> wrote in message
    >> > news:...
    >> > >
    >> > SNIP
    >> > > >So converting a 1Mb jpeg into a 1,2Mb jpeg does not degrade the

    >> picture!?
    >> > >
    >> > > RM: No pictures are ever degraded in this way because it is

    >> impossible
    >> > > to save a 1MB jpeg into 1.2MB jpeg. The whole idea of saving as JPEG
    >> > > is to compress the image you start with.
    >> >
    >> > Sure it's possible to save a 1MB jpeg into a 1.2MB jpeg. When you

    >> open a
    >> > JPEG in SW it's expanded to it's original uncompressed size. If you

    >> then
    >> > resave it at a less compressed setting than it was before, you'll end

    >> up
    >> > with a larger file. I won't be better, just larger.
    >> >
    >> > To confirm that, I just opened a 654,321 byte jpeg and saved it at the
    >> > "best" setting in PhotoShop. It ended up 892,758 bytes.
    >> >

    >> And compresed based on the made up pixels rather then the origenal, so
    >> compounding the faults.
    >>

    >
    >Yes, but that wasn't the issue of my post. You CAN save to a larger JPEG
    >size although, as I stated, "It (sic) won't be better, just larger." And
    >yes, every time you resave a JPEG, you degrade it more.


    RM: We have just uncovered an urban myth!
    Saving JPEGS at the highest setting does NOT degrade them at all.
    If Don used the highest setting, then what he actually did was RETAIN
    all of the original colours (or the identical image).

    If Don did NOT use the highest setting, but rather a setting which was
    merely higher than the original, then the larger file would have been
    both LARGER and DEGRADED and it would be possible to find pixels with
    changed colours.

    I've just discovered that if we open a compressed jpeg and make 1
    pixel white (in a coloured area) and then save it, we end up with a
    degraded image. If however we "Save As" (the same file name) AND use
    the best setting, then there is no degradation of the image at all.

    So coming back to the original question. Yes, you can save a 1 MB jpeg
    with a larger file size (such as 1.2 MB) but the only way to do it
    without degrading the image is to save the jpeg at the highest setting
    at let the program decide how big the file will be. Of course there's
    no point whatsoever in actually DOING this, unless the JPEG is opened
    for any reason and saved.
    To do this (as mentioned above) we would have to select "Save As" in
    order to access the panel where we can select the highest quality.

    Here's something else of interest:
    (1) Make a tiff file.
    (2) Convert it to a jpeg at highest quality.
    (3) Close the file and note it's size
    (4) Open the file.
    (5) Save the file
    (6) Close the file and note it's size.

    See how the simple act of SAVING a jpeg degrades it and makes the file
    considerably smaller. This happens because the default mode (the 4th
    notch) is automatically used on all SAVE selections.

    Just to summarise: If you do not want to degrade your JPEG images in
    Photoshop -- Never SAVE -- but always "Save As" and always use the
    highest quality once a JPEG is in existence.

    Ray
     
    Ray Murphy, Nov 26, 2003
    #13
  14. Morgan Ohlson

    Ray Murphy Guest

    ----------
    In article <mmSwb.303988$HS4.2713266@attbi_s01>, "Don Coon"
    <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> wrote:


    >
    >"Trev" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >>
    >> "Don Coon" <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> wrote in message
    >> news:fXQwb.305765$Tr4.962935@attbi_s03...
    >> >
    >> > "Ray Murphy" <> wrote in message
    >> > news:...
    >> > >
    >> > SNIP
    >> > > >So converting a 1Mb jpeg into a 1,2Mb jpeg does not degrade the

    >> picture!?
    >> > >
    >> > > RM: No pictures are ever degraded in this way because it is

    >> impossible
    >> > > to save a 1MB jpeg into 1.2MB jpeg. The whole idea of saving as JPEG
    >> > > is to compress the image you start with.
    >> >
    >> > Sure it's possible to save a 1MB jpeg into a 1.2MB jpeg. When you

    >> open a
    >> > JPEG in SW it's expanded to it's original uncompressed size. If you

    >> then
    >> > resave it at a less compressed setting than it was before, you'll end

    >> up
    >> > with a larger file. I won't be better, just larger.
    >> >
    >> > To confirm that, I just opened a 654,321 byte jpeg and saved it at the
    >> > "best" setting in PhotoShop. It ended up 892,758 bytes.
    >> >

    >> And compresed based on the made up pixels rather then the origenal, so
    >> compounding the faults.
    >>

    >
    >Yes, but that wasn't the issue of my post. You CAN save to a larger JPEG
    >size although, as I stated, "It (sic) won't be better, just larger." And
    >yes, every time you resave a JPEG, you degrade it more.


    RM: *UNLESS* we use the "Save As" facility (presumably with the same
    file name) *AND* we use the highest quality.
    If we do not the highest quality, we get a BIGGER + DEGRADED file.

    [Repeating what we just learned from my experiments]

    Ray
     
    Ray Murphy, Nov 26, 2003
    #14
  15. Morgan Ohlson

    Ray Murphy Guest

    ----------
    In article <R5Zwb.35365$>, "Morgan Ohlson"
    <> wrote:


    >
    >"Ray Murphy" <> skrev i meddelandet
    >news:...
    >>
    >> ----------
    >> In article <fZMwb.39219$>, "Morgan Ohlson"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> >
    >> >"Ray Murphy" <> skrev i meddelandet
    >> >news:...
    >> >>
    >> >> ----------
    >> >> In article <>, Mark Herring
    >> >> <> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> >On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:06:08 GMT, "Morgan Ohlson"
    >> >> ><> wrote:
    >> >> >
    >> >> >>Which is the best way to save originals to CD?


    [......]

    >> >You don't bother putting pictures (original size) into html-pages or

    >other
    >> >ways to preserve additional picture-info when it's only for storage ?
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >Morgan O.

    >>
    >> RM: That's a perfectly normal thing to do. Copying preserves
    >> everything. We were talking about "saving originals" not making
    >> back-up copies of documents.

    >
    >Yes, you'r right.
    >
    >But, perhaps I thought of originals also as "the enhanced original,
    >including text-info"
    >
    >I think I did....
    >my digicam arrived just the other day so I'm not so very shure about
    >anything yet. :eek:)


    RM: There is a lot to learn and remember, but it's interesting.
    >
    >
    >>
    >> So to go back to the beginning - we need to save original images in
    >> their original format UNLESS we have converted the original (such as a
    >> JPEG) into something which is better - such as a TIFF or BMP.

    >
    >I have examined the first pictures (5Mpix from a C s50) taken in "fine
    >compression" and I can't actually se any disturbing jpeg-damage (filesize
    >~1,1Mb) in normal views.


    RM: When you have viewed TIFF files (scans from a scanner or TIFF
    files from a digital camera) you will see when you look at the pixels
    at maximum enlargement, that they all have apparently "logical"
    colours; but when you look at JPEGS in the same way you will see that
    various areas of the picture actually have illogical patterns. This is
    brought about by the process of making JPEGS which are "compressed"
    images. That compression forces similar colours to become just one
    colour and this saves a lot of space for the file.
    You may look at a TIFF file and compare the same image as a JPEG you
    make of it (at low quality) and discover up to 64 different colours in
    an area 8 x 8 pixels in the TIFF image but only 1 colour in the JPEG.
    Many, many shades of colour are lost - theoretically up to 63 out of
    64 colours in one tiny area, although in practice it would probably be
    a lot lesss than that.
    >
    >But, if the pictures where to be filtered, then it could be better saving to
    >a non damageing format after. What could then be a reasonable size, having
    >in mind that the original was jpg only 1,2Mb?


    RM: I don't know what you mean here.
    The MAIN thing you need to remember is that if you have an ORIGINAL
    image from your camera and it is IMPORTANT to you, then COPY it to
    another location for safe keeping. It is too easy to accidentally SAVE
    a very valuable JPEG and destroy it.
    Another SAFE way to work is to convert a valuable JPEG to a TIFF (or
    BMP) but preferably TIFF, because they cannot be damaged. If you
    convert a JPEG into a TIFF file it will become much larger -maybe 5 or
    10 times. It can be a waste of space but at least you know you have a
    high quality copy of your original image.
    One very good reason for using TIFFS is that it's safe to modify them
    because you cannot accidentally SAVE in the wrong way like JPEGS and
    degrade/ damage your image.

    > It can't be very meaningful to anlarge a picture in absurdum.
    >
    >...and which file format.... tiff, bmp or png (does it really matter) ?


    RM: See my earlier post where I explained how to save JPEGS at maximum
    quality without any loss at all.
    >
    >> Let's say that you had an original SCAN from a photograph and it was
    >> converted to a JPEG for a web page, then if you are talking about
    >> "saving originals" you need to save the original TIFF file (the
    >> scanned image) if you ever want to use that image to produce the best
    >> quality. JPEGs are *always* low grade images (no exceptions).

    >
    >That's clear, I think.....


    RM: This will be easy to understand: If you scanned an image and it
    became a 900k TIFF, ad you made a JPEG from that TIFF for a web page,
    then the JPEG might be 120k. This means the JPEG has LOST 780k of
    image (because of the joining of similar colours) but it still looks
    good. If you do not put your TIFF in a safe place, and then lose it,
    you will only have a low quality JPEG for the future.
    Now if that TIFF was a good picture which you wanted to print at best
    quality, you cannot. You are left with a third rate picture (the
    JPEG).
    >
    >
    >Morgan O.


    Ray
     
    Ray Murphy, Nov 26, 2003
    #15
  16. Morgan Ohlson

    Ray Murphy Guest

    ----------
    In article <8NZwb.35372$>, "Morgan Ohlson"
    <> wrote:


    >"Morgan Ohlson" <> skrev i meddelandet
    >news:AIGwb.39159$...
    >> Which is the best way to save originals to CD?
    >>
    >> jpeg ?
    >> other std-files ?
    >> html ?
    >> albumformat ?
    >> other software-specific ?
    >>
    >> Please tell about your choices! What, and why?

    >
    >Are there any way to store extra information in some smother way then a
    >manual txt-file onto the CD whithout picture damages?
    >
    >
    >Morgan


    RM: I'm not sure what you mean.
    Are you talking about placing a description of a JPEG with it?
    If that is the case, then normally we name JPEGS appropriately - such
    as:
    "Maria_Paris1.jpg"
    "Maria_Paris2.jpg
    "MariaRotterdam.jpg"

    You could simply rename the jpeg OR keep your original safe and make a
    copy of it and THEN re-name it.

    Ray
     
    Ray Murphy, Nov 26, 2003
    #16
  17. Morgan Ohlson

    Ray Murphy Guest

    ----------
    In article <PX0xb.35396$>, "Morgan Ohlson"
    <> wrote:


    >"Don Coon" <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> skrev i meddelandet
    >news:mmSwb.303988$HS4.2713266@attbi_s01...
    >>
    >> "Trev" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> >
    >> > "Don Coon" <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> wrote in message
    >> > news:fXQwb.305765$Tr4.962935@attbi_s03...
    >> > >
    >> > > "Ray Murphy" <> wrote in message
    >> > > news:...
    >> > > >
    >> > > SNIP
    >> > > > >So converting a 1Mb jpeg into a 1,2Mb jpeg does not degrade the
    >> > picture!?
    >> > > >
    >> > > > RM: No pictures are ever degraded in this way because it is
    >> > impossible
    >> > > > to save a 1MB jpeg into 1.2MB jpeg. The whole idea of saving as JPEG
    >> > > > is to compress the image you start with.
    >> > >
    >> > > Sure it's possible to save a 1MB jpeg into a 1.2MB jpeg. When you
    >> > open a
    >> > > JPEG in SW it's expanded to it's original uncompressed size. If you
    >> > then
    >> > > resave it at a less compressed setting than it was before, you'll end
    >> > up
    >> > > with a larger file. I won't be better, just larger.
    >> > >
    >> > > To confirm that, I just opened a 654,321 byte jpeg and saved it at the
    >> > > "best" setting in PhotoShop. It ended up 892,758 bytes.
    >> > >
    >> > And compresed based on the made up pixels rather then the origenal, so
    >> > compounding the faults.
    >> >

    >>
    >> Yes, but that wasn't the issue of my post. You CAN save to a larger JPEG
    >> size although, as I stated, "It (sic) won't be better, just larger." And
    >> yes, every time you resave a JPEG, you degrade it more.

    >
    >
    >Ja, ja... so when a picture is edited then the best size goes up a little
    >from the former size.
    >
    >This isn't difficoult, really... but it's not very easy to just guess and
    >learn the hard way either.


    RM: If a JPEG has been saved at maximum quality in Photoshop it CANNOT
    be made bigger. It is only when it has been compressed in 1 of 7
    "extra-compressed" settings that it can be made larger.
    I think my previous posts have explained why you don't need to THINK
    about "expanding" JPEGS. You simply save at the highest quality and
    they will not be degraded.
    >
    >
    >Morgan O.


    Ray
     
    Ray Murphy, Nov 26, 2003
    #17
  18. "Ray Murphy" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:...
    >
    > ----------
    > In article <mmSwb.303988$HS4.2713266@attbi_s01>, "Don Coon"
    > <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    > >
    > >"Trev" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >>
    > >> "Don Coon" <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> wrote in message
    > >> news:fXQwb.305765$Tr4.962935@attbi_s03...
    > >> >
    > >> > "Ray Murphy" <> wrote in message
    > >> > news:...
    > >> > >
    > >> > SNIP
    > >> > > >So converting a 1Mb jpeg into a 1,2Mb jpeg does not degrade the
    > >> picture!?
    > >> > >
    > >> > > RM: No pictures are ever degraded in this way because it is
    > >> impossible
    > >> > > to save a 1MB jpeg into 1.2MB jpeg. The whole idea of saving as

    JPEG
    > >> > > is to compress the image you start with.
    > >> >
    > >> > Sure it's possible to save a 1MB jpeg into a 1.2MB jpeg. When you
    > >> open a
    > >> > JPEG in SW it's expanded to it's original uncompressed size. If you
    > >> then
    > >> > resave it at a less compressed setting than it was before, you'll end
    > >> up
    > >> > with a larger file. I won't be better, just larger.
    > >> >
    > >> > To confirm that, I just opened a 654,321 byte jpeg and saved it at

    the
    > >> > "best" setting in PhotoShop. It ended up 892,758 bytes.
    > >> >
    > >> And compresed based on the made up pixels rather then the origenal, so
    > >> compounding the faults.
    > >>

    > >
    > >Yes, but that wasn't the issue of my post. You CAN save to a larger JPEG
    > >size although, as I stated, "It (sic) won't be better, just larger."

    And
    > >yes, every time you resave a JPEG, you degrade it more.

    >
    > RM: We have just uncovered an urban myth!
    > Saving JPEGS at the highest setting does NOT degrade them at all.
    > If Don used the highest setting, then what he actually did was RETAIN
    > all of the original colours (or the identical image).
    >
    > If Don did NOT use the highest setting, but rather a setting which was
    > merely higher than the original, then the larger file would have been
    > both LARGER and DEGRADED and it would be possible to find pixels with
    > changed colours.
    >
    > I've just discovered that if we open a compressed jpeg and make 1
    > pixel white (in a coloured area) and then save it, we end up with a
    > degraded image. If however we "Save As" (the same file name) AND use
    > the best setting, then there is no degradation of the image at all.
    >
    > So coming back to the original question. Yes, you can save a 1 MB jpeg
    > with a larger file size (such as 1.2 MB) but the only way to do it
    > without degrading the image is to save the jpeg at the highest setting
    > at let the program decide how big the file will be. Of course there's
    > no point whatsoever in actually DOING this, unless the JPEG is opened
    > for any reason and saved.
    > To do this (as mentioned above) we would have to select "Save As" in
    > order to access the panel where we can select the highest quality.
    >
    > Here's something else of interest:
    > (1) Make a tiff file.
    > (2) Convert it to a jpeg at highest quality.
    > (3) Close the file and note it's size
    > (4) Open the file.
    > (5) Save the file
    > (6) Close the file and note it's size.
    >
    > See how the simple act of SAVING a jpeg degrades it and makes the file
    > considerably smaller. This happens because the default mode (the 4th
    > notch) is automatically used on all SAVE selections.
    >
    > Just to summarise: If you do not want to degrade your JPEG images in
    > Photoshop -- Never SAVE -- but always "Save As" and always use the
    > highest quality once a JPEG is in existence.



    This is probably a much more needed /usefull knowledge insead of compeating
    about raw or tiff's etc.
    I guess that I have pictures that are HEAVILY damaged by repeted jpeg-saving
    when editing them.



    Morgan O.
     
    Morgan Ohlson, Nov 27, 2003
    #18
  19. "Ray Murphy" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:...
    >
    > ----------
    > In article <R5Zwb.35365$>, "Morgan Ohlson"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > >
    > >"Ray Murphy" <> skrev i meddelandet
    > >news:...
    > >>
    > >> ----------
    > >> In article <fZMwb.39219$>, "Morgan Ohlson"
    > >> <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> >
    > >> >"Ray Murphy" <> skrev i meddelandet
    > >> >news:...
    > >> >>
    > >> >> ----------
    > >> >> In article <>, Mark

    Herring
    > >> >> <> wrote:
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >> >> >On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:06:08 GMT, "Morgan Ohlson"
    > >> >> ><> wrote:
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >>Which is the best way to save originals to CD?

    >
    > [......]
    >
    > >> >You don't bother putting pictures (original size) into html-pages or

    > >other
    > >> >ways to preserve additional picture-info when it's only for storage ?
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >Morgan O.
    > >>
    > >> RM: That's a perfectly normal thing to do. Copying preserves
    > >> everything. We were talking about "saving originals" not making
    > >> back-up copies of documents.

    > >
    > >Yes, you'r right.
    > >
    > >But, perhaps I thought of originals also as "the enhanced original,
    > >including text-info"
    > >
    > >I think I did....
    > >my digicam arrived just the other day so I'm not so very shure about
    > >anything yet. :eek:)

    >
    > RM: There is a lot to learn and remember, but it's interesting.
    > >
    > >
    > >>
    > >> So to go back to the beginning - we need to save original images in
    > >> their original format UNLESS we have converted the original (such as a
    > >> JPEG) into something which is better - such as a TIFF or BMP.

    > >
    > >I have examined the first pictures (5Mpix from a C s50) taken in "fine
    > >compression" and I can't actually se any disturbing jpeg-damage (filesize
    > >~1,1Mb) in normal views.

    >
    > RM: When you have viewed TIFF files (scans from a scanner or TIFF
    > files from a digital camera) you will see when you look at the pixels
    > at maximum enlargement, that they all have apparently "logical"
    > colours; but when you look at JPEGS in the same way you will see that
    > various areas of the picture actually have illogical patterns. This is
    > brought about by the process of making JPEGS which are "compressed"
    > images. That compression forces similar colours to become just one
    > colour and this saves a lot of space for the file.


    So thats why skies in jpg's often get so sharp zones of one color.


    > You may look at a TIFF file and compare the same image as a JPEG you
    > make of it (at low quality) and discover up to 64 different colours in
    > an area 8 x 8 pixels in the TIFF image but only 1 colour in the JPEG.
    > Many, many shades of colour are lost - theoretically up to 63 out of
    > 64 colours in one tiny area, although in practice it would probably be
    > a lot lesss than that.


    Fascinating.


    > >
    > >But, if the pictures where to be filtered, then it could be better saving

    to
    > >a non damageing format after. What could then be a reasonable size,

    having
    > >in mind that the original was jpg only 1,2Mb?

    >
    > RM: I don't know what you mean here.


    Actually I think you just saw a logical loop.

    I believe that when a jpg is saved to a non damaging file-format it must get
    the "resolution pixel-size"


    > The MAIN thing you need to remember is that if you have an ORIGINAL
    > image from your camera and it is IMPORTANT to you, then COPY it to
    > another location for safe keeping. It is too easy to accidentally SAVE
    > a very valuable JPEG and destroy it.
    > Another SAFE way to work is to convert a valuable JPEG to a TIFF (or
    > BMP) but preferably TIFF, because they cannot be damaged. If you
    > convert a JPEG into a TIFF file it will become much larger -maybe 5 or
    > 10 times. It can be a waste of space but at least you know you have a
    > high quality copy of your original image.


    Yes. That seems wise.

    > One very good reason for using TIFFS is that it's safe to modify them
    > because you cannot accidentally SAVE in the wrong way like JPEGS and
    > degrade/ damage your image.


    The answer to:
    What will be the most practical-reliable format for dummies (me) during
    editing and repeted save's?

    ....is then TIFF !


    >
    > > It can't be very meaningful to anlarge a picture in absurdum.
    > >
    > >...and which file format.... tiff, bmp or png (does it really matter) ?

    >
    > RM: See my earlier post where I explained how to save JPEGS at maximum
    > quality without any loss at all.


    I think that one problem there is that the dialog boxes when saving pictures
    contain non-explained expression that is not undertould properly by persons
    as my self.

    Usually I flee psychological and choose "OK" whithout any thought about the
    result.

    I think one softwear had about 10 different choices when saving to PNG.


    > >
    > >> Let's say that you had an original SCAN from a photograph and it was
    > >> converted to a JPEG for a web page, then if you are talking about
    > >> "saving originals" you need to save the original TIFF file (the
    > >> scanned image) if you ever want to use that image to produce the best
    > >> quality. JPEGs are *always* low grade images (no exceptions).

    > >
    > >That's clear, I think.....

    >
    > RM: This will be easy to understand: If you scanned an image and it
    > became a 900k TIFF, ad you made a JPEG from that TIFF for a web page,
    > then the JPEG might be 120k. This means the JPEG has LOST 780k of
    > image (because of the joining of similar colours) but it still looks
    > good.


    How much would you say that the felt or subjective loss (%) is if looked at
    in original size after jpg save - open?


    >If you do not put your TIFF in a safe place, and then lose it,
    > you will only have a low quality JPEG for the future.
    > Now if that TIFF was a good picture which you wanted to print at best
    > quality, you cannot. You are left with a third rate picture (the
    > JPEG).


    I get the feeling that some disciplin has to be adopted to keep serios
    tracks on all pictures on the HDD, and on regular basis burn to well labeled
    and stored CD's.


    Morgan O.
     
    Morgan Ohlson, Nov 27, 2003
    #19
  20. "Ray Murphy" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:...
    >
    > ----------
    > In article <8NZwb.35372$>, "Morgan Ohlson"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > >"Morgan Ohlson" <> skrev i meddelandet
    > >news:AIGwb.39159$...
    > >> Which is the best way to save originals to CD?
    > >>
    > >> jpeg ?
    > >> other std-files ?
    > >> html ?
    > >> albumformat ?
    > >> other software-specific ?
    > >>
    > >> Please tell about your choices! What, and why?

    > >
    > >Are there any way to store extra information in some smother way then a
    > >manual txt-file onto the CD whithout picture damages?
    > >
    > >
    > >Morgan

    >
    > RM: I'm not sure what you mean.
    > Are you talking about placing a description of a JPEG with it?
    > If that is the case, then normally we name JPEGS appropriately - such
    > as:
    > "Maria_Paris1.jpg"
    > "Maria_Paris2.jpg
    > "MariaRotterdam.jpg"
    >
    > You could simply rename the jpeg OR keep your original safe and make a
    > copy of it and THEN re-name it.


    I will probably have "mastered originals" to save sometimes and may whant to
    save a description of how it was edited /filtered etc. It can, in some cases
    be half pages of descriptions, settings etc.


    Morgan O.
     
    Morgan Ohlson, Nov 27, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jaime
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    594
    Jaime
    Sep 20, 2003
  2. Jimmy Dean
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,241
    Duane Arnold
    Jul 25, 2005
  3. Frank Calidonna

    Basic question about saving a jpg as a tif file

    Frank Calidonna, Jan 29, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    276
    _nemo_
    Jan 29, 2007
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,500
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. Sharp Dressed Man

    TurboTax Basic vs. Taxcut Basic?

    Sharp Dressed Man, Jan 10, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    694
    Sharp Dressed Man
    Jan 12, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page