Warning about digitalmax photos

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by stuffthis, Mar 13, 2006.

  1. stuffthis

    stuffthis Guest

    The online digital photo processing lab call digitalmax are less than
    upfront about what they do in the processing of your photo's, they in fact
    compress your photo's so the file size is about 1/2 of the original size
    which of course results in a loss of quality but nowhere on their site does
    it tell you that they do this and if you ask them about it they will tell
    you that it makes no difference to the quality of the photo. There own
    webpage says the following - Do not compress your images
    We recommend that you do not resize or reduce the resolution of your images
    before sending them to be printed. Use the print wizard to print from those
    images directly produced from your digital camera. Many digital cameras come
    with photo editing software, or you may have purchased one of the popular
    photo editing programs for manipulating and enhancing your images.
    Unfortunately, you can unknowingly decrease the quality of your images. This
    is due to the software using JPEG (or JPG) format to save images. JPEG is
    known as a "lossy" compression because image quality degrades every time you
    re-save an image in this format. If you do repeated edits, your image may
    become useless for printing.

    But yet digitalmax compress your photo's for you. You can prove this for
    yourself by using their photo upload software, when you go to upload the
    photo's you will see that the file size is a lot less than the original. Are
    they breaking some sort of law with this misleading practice?

    On the other hand the frogprints online developer seems to indicate quite
    clearly that they do not compress your photo's and they also give a thorough
    explanation of compression etc...
     
    stuffthis, Mar 13, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "stuffthis" <stuff@stuffed> wrote in message news:4414f2a6$...
    > The online digital photo processing lab call digitalmax are less than
    > upfront about what they do in the processing of your photo's, they in fact
    > compress your photo's so the file size is about 1/2 of the original size
    > which of course results in a loss of quality but nowhere on their site
    > does
    > it tell you that they do this and if you ask them about it they will tell
    > you that it makes no difference to the quality of the photo. There own
    > webpage says the following - Do not compress your images
    > We recommend that you do not resize or reduce the resolution of your
    > images
    > before sending them to be printed. Use the print wizard to print from
    > those
    > images directly produced from your digital camera. Many digital cameras
    > come
    > with photo editing software, or you may have purchased one of the popular
    > photo editing programs for manipulating and enhancing your images.
    > Unfortunately, you can unknowingly decrease the quality of your images.
    > This
    > is due to the software using JPEG (or JPG) format to save images. JPEG is
    > known as a "lossy" compression because image quality degrades every time
    > you
    > re-save an image in this format. If you do repeated edits, your image may
    > become useless for printing.
    >
    > But yet digitalmax compress your photo's for you. You can prove this for
    > yourself by using their photo upload software, when you go to upload the
    > photo's you will see that the file size is a lot less than the original.
    > Are
    > they breaking some sort of law with this misleading practice?
    >
    > On the other hand the frogprints online developer seems to indicate quite
    > clearly that they do not compress your photo's and they also give a
    > thorough
    > explanation of compression etc...
    >
    >


    you get what you pay for generally - are digitalmax cheaper than frogprints?
    From you description I would tend to think so.
     
    news.xtra.co.nz, Mar 13, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. stuffthis

    XPD Guest

    "stuffthis" <stuff@stuffed> wrote in message news:4414f2a6$...
    > The online digital photo processing lab call digitalmax are less than
    > upfront about what they do in the processing of your photo's, they in fact


    And so on......

    Ive used Digital Max many times and have had no complaints in the quality of
    their work.
    Compression in images, then printed by Digital Max, is not noticable at all
    in the prints Ive had done.

    Im not looking at changing the company I use based on your post.
     
    XPD, Mar 13, 2006
    #3
  4. stuffthis

    Nova Guest

    stuffthis wrote:
    > The online digital photo processing lab call digitalmax are less than
    > upfront about what they do in the processing of your photo's, they in fact
    > compress your photo's so the file size is about 1/2 of the original size
    > which of course results in a loss of quality but nowhere on their site does
    > it tell you that they do this and if you ask them about it they will tell
    > you that it makes no difference to the quality of the photo. There own
    > webpage says the following - Do not compress your images
    > We recommend that you do not resize or reduce the resolution of your images
    > before sending them to be printed. Use the print wizard to print from those
    > images directly produced from your digital camera. Many digital cameras come
    > with photo editing software, or you may have purchased one of the popular
    > photo editing programs for manipulating and enhancing your images.
    > Unfortunately, you can unknowingly decrease the quality of your images. This
    > is due to the software using JPEG (or JPG) format to save images. JPEG is
    > known as a "lossy" compression because image quality degrades every time you
    > re-save an image in this format. If you do repeated edits, your image may
    > become useless for printing.
    >
    > But yet digitalmax compress your photo's for you. You can prove this for
    > yourself by using their photo upload software, when you go to upload the
    > photo's you will see that the file size is a lot less than the original. Are
    > they breaking some sort of law with this misleading practice?
    >
    > On the other hand the frogprints online developer seems to indicate quite
    > clearly that they do not compress your photo's and they also give a thorough
    > explanation of compression etc...
    >
    >


    Perhaps it is because NZ has such lame "broadband" and uploading photos
    at 128kbits takes forever. I do agree they should tell people that they
    compress the pictures but it is probably do cut down the upload time
    which is already slow enough at 128kbits..
     
    Nova, Mar 13, 2006
    #4
  5. stuffthis

    Zonky Guest

    "stuffthis" <stuff@stuffed> wrote in news:4414f2a6$:

    > But yet digitalmax compress your photo's for you. You can prove this
    > for yourself by using their photo upload software, when you go to
    > upload the photo's you will see that the file size is a lot less than
    > the original. Are they breaking some sort of law with this misleading
    > practice?


    Thank god for it though. Don't see the point of uploading 8 megapixel pics
    from my canon for a simple 6x4. Have ordered some large enlargements;
    interested to see how these come out. Will post when picked up tomorrow.

    Z.

    --
    Please remove my_pants when replying by email.

    BOYCOTT MIDAS NZ FOR PLACING ADVERTS DURING LIVE F1 on SKY SPORTS!
    http://boycottmidas.blogspot.com/
     
    Zonky, Mar 13, 2006
    #5
  6. stuffthis

    stuffthis Guest

    "news.xtra.co.nz" <> wrote in message
    news:Cv6Rf.5897$...
    >
    > "stuffthis" <stuff@stuffed> wrote in message

    news:4414f2a6$...
    > > The online digital photo processing lab call digitalmax are less than
    > > upfront about what they do in the processing of your photo's, they in

    fact
    > > compress your photo's so the file size is about 1/2 of the original size
    > > which of course results in a loss of quality but nowhere on their site
    > > does
    > > it tell you that they do this and if you ask them about it they will

    tell
    > > you that it makes no difference to the quality of the photo. There own
    > > webpage says the following - Do not compress your images
    > > We recommend that you do not resize or reduce the resolution of your
    > > images
    > > before sending them to be printed. Use the print wizard to print from
    > > those
    > > images directly produced from your digital camera. Many digital cameras
    > > come
    > > with photo editing software, or you may have purchased one of the

    popular
    > > photo editing programs for manipulating and enhancing your images.
    > > Unfortunately, you can unknowingly decrease the quality of your images.
    > > This
    > > is due to the software using JPEG (or JPG) format to save images. JPEG

    is
    > > known as a "lossy" compression because image quality degrades every time
    > > you
    > > re-save an image in this format. If you do repeated edits, your image

    may
    > > become useless for printing.
    > >
    > > But yet digitalmax compress your photo's for you. You can prove this for
    > > yourself by using their photo upload software, when you go to upload the
    > > photo's you will see that the file size is a lot less than the original.
    > > Are
    > > they breaking some sort of law with this misleading practice?
    > >
    > > On the other hand the frogprints online developer seems to indicate

    quite
    > > clearly that they do not compress your photo's and they also give a
    > > thorough
    > > explanation of compression etc...
    > >
    > >

    >
    > you get what you pay for generally - are digitalmax cheaper than

    frogprints?
    > From you description I would tend to think so.
    >


    Yeah sure but the average joe would not realise that they are getting
    compressed photo's, if digitalmax were up front about it I would obviously
    see no problem, as it is people will be comparing apples with apples when
    they should be comparing apples with oranges which i guess is what
    digitalmax want.
     
    stuffthis, Mar 13, 2006
    #6
  7. stuffthis

    stuffthis Guest

    "XPD" <....nz> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "stuffthis" <stuff@stuffed> wrote in message

    news:4414f2a6$...
    > > The online digital photo processing lab call digitalmax are less than
    > > upfront about what they do in the processing of your photo's, they in

    fact
    >
    > And so on......
    >
    > Ive used Digital Max many times and have had no complaints in the quality

    of
    > their work.
    > Compression in images, then printed by Digital Max, is not noticable at

    all
    > in the prints Ive had done.
    >
    > Im not looking at changing the company I use based on your post.
    >


    Good for you.
     
    stuffthis, Mar 13, 2006
    #7
  8. stuffthis

    stuffthis Guest

    "Nova" <> wrote in message news:...
    > stuffthis wrote:
    > > The online digital photo processing lab call digitalmax are less than
    > > upfront about what they do in the processing of your photo's, they in

    fact
    > > compress your photo's so the file size is about 1/2 of the original size
    > > which of course results in a loss of quality but nowhere on their site

    does
    > > it tell you that they do this and if you ask them about it they will

    tell
    > > you that it makes no difference to the quality of the photo. There own
    > > webpage says the following - Do not compress your images
    > > We recommend that you do not resize or reduce the resolution of your

    images
    > > before sending them to be printed. Use the print wizard to print from

    those
    > > images directly produced from your digital camera. Many digital cameras

    come
    > > with photo editing software, or you may have purchased one of the

    popular
    > > photo editing programs for manipulating and enhancing your images.
    > > Unfortunately, you can unknowingly decrease the quality of your images.

    This
    > > is due to the software using JPEG (or JPG) format to save images. JPEG

    is
    > > known as a "lossy" compression because image quality degrades every time

    you
    > > re-save an image in this format. If you do repeated edits, your image

    may
    > > become useless for printing.
    > >
    > > But yet digitalmax compress your photo's for you. You can prove this for
    > > yourself by using their photo upload software, when you go to upload the
    > > photo's you will see that the file size is a lot less than the original.

    Are
    > > they breaking some sort of law with this misleading practice?
    > >
    > > On the other hand the frogprints online developer seems to indicate

    quite
    > > clearly that they do not compress your photo's and they also give a

    thorough
    > > explanation of compression etc...
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Perhaps it is because NZ has such lame "broadband" and uploading photos
    > at 128kbits takes forever. I do agree they should tell people that they
    > compress the pictures but it is probably do cut down the upload time
    > which is already slow enough at 128kbits..


    I'm only on 56kbit dialup but I would still prefer to upload my photos at
    full quality, it still is going to take a long time even when they have been
    compressed, so what's the difference, it's not like i am sitting there
    waiting for the upload to complete.
     
    stuffthis, Mar 13, 2006
    #8
  9. stuffthis

    stuffthis Guest

    "Zonky" <zonky@my_pants.dialup-web.net> wrote in message
    news:Xns9785BFD9CFC41zonkydialupwebnet@203.109.252.31...
    > "stuffthis" <stuff@stuffed> wrote in news:4414f2a6$:
    >
    > > But yet digitalmax compress your photo's for you. You can prove this
    > > for yourself by using their photo upload software, when you go to
    > > upload the photo's you will see that the file size is a lot less than
    > > the original. Are they breaking some sort of law with this misleading
    > > practice?

    >
    > Thank god for it though. Don't see the point of uploading 8 megapixel pics
    > from my canon for a simple 6x4. Have ordered some large enlargements;
    > interested to see how these come out. Will post when picked up tomorrow.
    >


    But I'm only using a 3.2 megapixel which is only barely adequate as it is so
    I don't want any degrade in quality.
     
    stuffthis, Mar 13, 2006
    #9
  10. stuffthis

    El Penguino Guest

    On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:18:22 +1300, "stuffthis" <stuff@stuffed> wrote:

    <SNIP>
    I havent used the online service but I did just get 100 photos @ 32c
    each done from a CD via one of their agencies.
    Took a coupla days and turned out fine.
    Waaaaaaay cheaper than camera house, so I am trilled.

    FWIW.

    El P.
     
    El Penguino, Mar 13, 2006
    #10
  11. stuffthis

    Cadae Guest

    Not all image compression is lossy e.g. GIF compression achieves great
    reduction in image size, but is completely loss-less.
    Most JPEG compression is lossy, but if you can control the JPEG encoding
    parameters you can get compression without losing quality. Perhaps that's
    what digitalmax are doing.

    PC

    "stuffthis" <stuff@stuffed> wrote in message news:4414f2a6$...
    > The online digital photo processing lab call digitalmax are less than
    > upfront about what they do in the processing of your photo's, they in fact
    > compress your photo's so the file size is about 1/2 of the original size
    > which of course results in a loss of quality but nowhere on their site
    > does
    > it tell you that they do this and if you ask them about it they will tell
    > you that it makes no difference to the quality of the photo. There own
    > webpage says the following - Do not compress your images
    > We recommend that you do not resize or reduce the resolution of your
    > images
    > before sending them to be printed. Use the print wizard to print from
    > those
    > images directly produced from your digital camera. Many digital cameras
    > come
    > with photo editing software, or you may have purchased one of the popular
    > photo editing programs for manipulating and enhancing your images.
    > Unfortunately, you can unknowingly decrease the quality of your images.
    > This
    > is due to the software using JPEG (or JPG) format to save images. JPEG is
    > known as a "lossy" compression because image quality degrades every time
    > you
    > re-save an image in this format. If you do repeated edits, your image may
    > become useless for printing.
    >
    > But yet digitalmax compress your photo's for you. You can prove this for
    > yourself by using their photo upload software, when you go to upload the
    > photo's you will see that the file size is a lot less than the original.
    > Are
    > they breaking some sort of law with this misleading practice?
    >
    > On the other hand the frogprints online developer seems to indicate quite
    > clearly that they do not compress your photo's and they also give a
    > thorough
    > explanation of compression etc...
    >
    >
     
    Cadae, Mar 13, 2006
    #11
  12. stuffthis

    Adam Guest

    On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 01:14:29 +1300, Cadae wrote:

    >Not all image compression is lossy e.g. GIF compression achieves great
    >reduction in image size, but is completely loss-less.


    Yes - but doesn't GIF only save 256 colours? Not much use for
    photographic images.

    >Most JPEG compression is lossy, but if you can control the JPEG encoding
    >parameters you can get compression without losing quality. Perhaps that's
    >what digitalmax are doing.
    >
    >PC


    There's no way you can compress a JPG without *some* loss. The
    question is - is is noticeable?

    Adam.
     
    Adam, Mar 13, 2006
    #12
  13. stuffthis

    Kent Smith Guest

    "stuffthis" <stuff@stuffed> wrote in message news:4414f2a6$...
    > The online digital photo processing lab call digitalmax are less than
    > upfront about what they do in the processing of your photo's, they in fact
    > compress your photo's so the file size is about 1/2 of the original size
    > which of course results in a loss of quality but nowhere on their site
    > does
    > it tell you that they do this and if you ask them about it they will tell
    > you that it makes no difference to the quality of the photo. There own
    > webpage says the following - Do not compress your images
    > We recommend that you do not resize or reduce the resolution of your
    > images
    > before sending them to be printed. Use the print wizard to print from
    > those
    > images directly produced from your digital camera. Many digital cameras
    > come
    > with photo editing software, or you may have purchased one of the popular
    > photo editing programs for manipulating and enhancing your images.
    > Unfortunately, you can unknowingly decrease the quality of your images.
    > This
    > is due to the software using JPEG (or JPG) format to save images. JPEG is
    > known as a "lossy" compression because image quality degrades every time
    > you
    > re-save an image in this format. If you do repeated edits, your image may
    > become useless for printing.
    >
    > But yet digitalmax compress your photo's for you. You can prove this for
    > yourself by using their photo upload software, when you go to upload the
    > photo's you will see that the file size is a lot less than the original.
    > Are
    > they breaking some sort of law with this misleading practice?
    >
    > On the other hand the frogprints online developer seems to indicate quite
    > clearly that they do not compress your photo's and they also give a
    > thorough
    > explanation of compression etc...
    >

    They've just started doing this. I've always sent up my uncompressed
    originals even for 6x4's and I always expect it to take a while. However, I
    noticed when they uploaded recently, the size uploading was significantly
    smaller and therefore way faster. I actually rang them concerned they might
    not have got the whole file and they said they compress them now.

    The compression also seems to be based on size as I had a couple of
    enlargements done and I noticed they were bigger in size when they uploaded
    than the 6x4's.

    When I got the photos back they were fine - no complaints. As long as the
    compression isn't greater that anything I can detect in my photos, I'm
    happy.


    -KENT
     
    Kent Smith, Mar 13, 2006
    #13
  14. stuffthis

    stuffthis Guest

    "Kent Smith" <> wrote in message
    news:dv4m19$ell$...
    >
    > "stuffthis" <stuff@stuffed> wrote in message

    news:4414f2a6$...
    > > The online digital photo processing lab call digitalmax are less than
    > > upfront about what they do in the processing of your photo's, they in

    fact
    > > compress your photo's so the file size is about 1/2 of the original size
    > > which of course results in a loss of quality but nowhere on their site
    > > does
    > > it tell you that they do this and if you ask them about it they will

    tell
    > > you that it makes no difference to the quality of the photo. There own
    > > webpage says the following - Do not compress your images
    > > We recommend that you do not resize or reduce the resolution of your
    > > images
    > > before sending them to be printed. Use the print wizard to print from
    > > those
    > > images directly produced from your digital camera. Many digital cameras
    > > come
    > > with photo editing software, or you may have purchased one of the

    popular
    > > photo editing programs for manipulating and enhancing your images.
    > > Unfortunately, you can unknowingly decrease the quality of your images.
    > > This
    > > is due to the software using JPEG (or JPG) format to save images. JPEG

    is
    > > known as a "lossy" compression because image quality degrades every time
    > > you
    > > re-save an image in this format. If you do repeated edits, your image

    may
    > > become useless for printing.
    > >
    > > But yet digitalmax compress your photo's for you. You can prove this for
    > > yourself by using their photo upload software, when you go to upload the
    > > photo's you will see that the file size is a lot less than the original.
    > > Are
    > > they breaking some sort of law with this misleading practice?
    > >
    > > On the other hand the frogprints online developer seems to indicate

    quite
    > > clearly that they do not compress your photo's and they also give a
    > > thorough
    > > explanation of compression etc...
    > >

    > They've just started doing this. I've always sent up my uncompressed
    > originals even for 6x4's and I always expect it to take a while. However,

    I
    > noticed when they uploaded recently, the size uploading was significantly
    > smaller and therefore way faster. I actually rang them concerned they

    might
    > not have got the whole file and they said they compress them now.
    >
    > The compression also seems to be based on size as I had a couple of
    > enlargements done and I noticed they were bigger in size when they

    uploaded
    > than the 6x4's.
    >
    > When I got the photos back they were fine - no complaints. As long as the
    > compression isn't greater that anything I can detect in my photos, I'm
    > happy.
    >
    >
    > -KENT
    >


    It would be good if they gave customers the choice of a fast upload or no
    compression. Whatever anyones subjective opinion might be on whether they
    can notice the difference in quality the fact remains they should be
    disclosing the fact that they are compressing.
     
    stuffthis, Mar 13, 2006
    #14
  15. stuffthis

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    stuffthis wrote:
    > But yet digitalmax compress your photo's for you. You can prove this
    > for yourself by using their photo upload software, when you go to
    > upload the photo's you will see that the file size is a lot less than
    > the original. Are they breaking some sort of law with this misleading
    > practice?


    That doesn't necessarily prove that they are re-compressing, is the
    compression visibly noticeable, ie jpeg artifacts? Otherwise the file size
    is probably smaller not because they are re-compressing your image, but
    because they are stripping out the EXIF data, which can be quite big on some
    files.
     
    Nik Coughlin, Mar 14, 2006
    #15
  16. stuffthis

    stuffthis Guest

    "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
    news:44161780$...
    > stuffthis wrote:
    > > But yet digitalmax compress your photo's for you. You can prove this
    > > for yourself by using their photo upload software, when you go to
    > > upload the photo's you will see that the file size is a lot less than
    > > the original. Are they breaking some sort of law with this misleading
    > > practice?

    >
    > That doesn't necessarily prove that they are re-compressing, is the
    > compression visibly noticeable, ie jpeg artifacts? Otherwise the file

    size
    > is probably smaller not because they are re-compressing your image, but
    > because they are stripping out the EXIF data, which can be quite big on

    some
    > files.
    >


    Well if that is the case it would be in their best interest to explain that
    wouldn't it. They reduce your total file size by about 1/2, does this still
    fit with your theory?
     
    stuffthis, Mar 14, 2006
    #16
  17. stuffthis

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    stuffthis wrote:
    > "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
    > news:44161780$...
    >> stuffthis wrote:
    >>> But yet digitalmax compress your photo's for you. You can prove this
    >>> for yourself by using their photo upload software, when you go to
    >>> upload the photo's you will see that the file size is a lot less
    >>> than the original. Are they breaking some sort of law with this
    >>> misleading practice?

    >>
    >> That doesn't necessarily prove that they are re-compressing, is the
    >> compression visibly noticeable, ie jpeg artifacts? Otherwise the
    >> file size is probably smaller not because they are re-compressing
    >> your image, but because they are stripping out the EXIF data, which
    >> can be quite big on some files.
    >>

    >
    > Well if that is the case it would be in their best interest to
    > explain that wouldn't it. They reduce your total file size by about
    > 1/2, does this still fit with your theory?


    Not even close, unless the photos were quite low res or highly compressed
    already. I did a couple of tests and removing EXIF data knocked about 50k
    off a 450k file -- however the size of the EXIF data will vary with
    different cameras and also depending on whether you have picture organisers
    like Picasa adding metadata to them (just as an example, for all I know
    Picasa keeps its own database and doesn't make use of EXIF, I have no idea).
    But yeah, in that case sounds like they are re-compressing.
     
    Nik Coughlin, Mar 14, 2006
    #17
  18. stuffthis

    stuffthis Guest

    "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
    news:441621b4$...
    > stuffthis wrote:
    > > "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
    > > news:44161780$...
    > >> stuffthis wrote:
    > >>> But yet digitalmax compress your photo's for you. You can prove this
    > >>> for yourself by using their photo upload software, when you go to
    > >>> upload the photo's you will see that the file size is a lot less
    > >>> than the original. Are they breaking some sort of law with this
    > >>> misleading practice?
    > >>
    > >> That doesn't necessarily prove that they are re-compressing, is the
    > >> compression visibly noticeable, ie jpeg artifacts? Otherwise the
    > >> file size is probably smaller not because they are re-compressing
    > >> your image, but because they are stripping out the EXIF data, which
    > >> can be quite big on some files.
    > >>

    > >
    > > Well if that is the case it would be in their best interest to
    > > explain that wouldn't it. They reduce your total file size by about
    > > 1/2, does this still fit with your theory?

    >
    > Not even close, unless the photos were quite low res or highly compressed
    > already. I did a couple of tests and removing EXIF data knocked about 50k
    > off a 450k file -- however the size of the EXIF data will vary with
    > different cameras and also depending on whether you have picture

    organisers
    > like Picasa adding metadata to them (just as an example, for all I know
    > Picasa keeps its own database and doesn't make use of EXIF, I have no

    idea).
    > But yeah, in that case sounds like they are re-compressing.
    >


    The photos were straight from my 3.2 megapixel canon a75 camera, resolution
    was set to highest and compression to lowest, the camera outputs jpeg images
    so compressing them again as digitalmax do is bad.
     
    stuffthis, Mar 14, 2006
    #18
  19. stuffthis

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    stuffthis wrote:
    > "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
    > news:441621b4$...
    >> stuffthis wrote:
    >>> "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:44161780$...
    >>>> stuffthis wrote:
    >>>>> But yet digitalmax compress your photo's for you. You can prove
    >>>>> this for yourself by using their photo upload software, when you
    >>>>> go to upload the photo's you will see that the file size is a lot
    >>>>> less than the original. Are they breaking some sort of law with
    >>>>> this misleading practice?
    >>>>
    >>>> That doesn't necessarily prove that they are re-compressing, is the
    >>>> compression visibly noticeable, ie jpeg artifacts? Otherwise the
    >>>> file size is probably smaller not because they are re-compressing
    >>>> your image, but because they are stripping out the EXIF data, which
    >>>> can be quite big on some files.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Well if that is the case it would be in their best interest to
    >>> explain that wouldn't it. They reduce your total file size by about
    >>> 1/2, does this still fit with your theory?

    >>
    >> Not even close, unless the photos were quite low res or highly
    >> compressed already. I did a couple of tests and removing EXIF data
    >> knocked about 50k off a 450k file -- however the size of the EXIF
    >> data will vary with different cameras and also depending on whether
    >> you have picture organisers like Picasa adding metadata to them
    >> (just as an example, for all I know Picasa keeps its own database
    >> and doesn't make use of EXIF, I have no idea). But yeah, in that
    >> case sounds like they are re-compressing.
    >>

    >
    > The photos were straight from my 3.2 megapixel canon a75 camera,
    > resolution was set to highest and compression to lowest, the camera
    > outputs jpeg images so compressing them again as digitalmax do is bad.


    I'd go along with that. I was thinking, it may be that the software is
    smart enough to use a level of compression that, while being higher than the
    original, is still low enough to be completely unnoticable at the targeted
    print size. Even that is problematic because some photos don't compress
    anywhere near as nicely as others, so even if they got away with it most of
    the time some photos (maybe only a small minority) would almost certainly
    look worse.
     
    Nik Coughlin, Mar 14, 2006
    #19
  20. stuffthis

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    Nik Coughlin wrote:
    > stuffthis wrote:
    >> The photos were straight from my 3.2 megapixel canon a75 camera,
    >> resolution was set to highest and compression to lowest, the camera
    >> outputs jpeg images so compressing them again as digitalmax do is
    >> bad.


    Strange, I just uploaded a 3.2 megapixel, max resolution, lowest compression
    image from my Pentax 330, it was 1.53mb on my disk, and is showing up in my
    photo gallery as being 1.6mb, which is bigger (though more likely they are
    rounding the file size displayed). I used the upload function on the
    website, maybe it is a problem with their downloadable application rather
    than something they are doing deliberately?
     
    Nik Coughlin, Mar 14, 2006
    #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. Charles

    Warning: WARNING

    Charles, Aug 15, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    4,765
    =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Brian_H=B9=A9?=
    Aug 16, 2005
  2. beachpirate2

    Misc mountain photos and beach sunrise photos

    beachpirate2, Nov 12, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    632
    Paul Heslop
    Nov 12, 2003
  3. Iconoclast

    Are digital photos better than B/W photos?

    Iconoclast, Dec 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    717
    Steve House
    Jan 24, 2004
  4. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    650
    kz8rt3
    Aug 20, 2005
  5. Craig Shore

    DigitalMax Online

    Craig Shore, Dec 10, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    388
    Nelly
    Dec 10, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page