> > I have been following this thread with interest so I decided to do some
> > tests. The results may be relevant or not as the case may be but I think
> > that they are interesting. My little camera gives a RAW image = 8.6 MB
> > and a jpeg image = 2.6 MB. The developed RAW image from UFRaw saved at
> > 98% jpeg = 17.2 MB
> What do you think are benefits of using jpegs with quality above 95%?
I have absolutely no idea, it is just that I came across a reference
somewhere which said "I use 98% jpeg compression when archiving images.
> Better use compressed 8-bit sRGB TIFF instead (all minilabs I know
> would reject TIFF with *any* compression, though...).
Why is that?
Gimp-user mailing list