Ron is correct. .Jpg is called a loosey format for good reason. If you mess with them too much you can see blurry spots develop. I keep a master file in .tif format and convert them to .jpg copies for usage.
Sally Miller Hindley In a message dated 1/29/2010 6:26:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: Brian, Broadly speaking I can confirm your comments, but with a slight reservation. In general, even jpeg images have a resolution which is much higher than required for web pages and viewing on PCs, especially if they are from a digital camera. As a result frequent editing and saving will make little difference as to how the images appear on the screen, or indeed on web pages. This is less true for printed copies though, and degradation of the image is noticeable after far fewer "save as". I still recommend saving a master copy using a lossless format (.bmp or .tiff, for example) and using jpegs, gifs, png etc. on web pages where the resolution is less critical. Indeed, I would recommend that the resolution should be significantly reduced for web pages to enable faster loading. Ron Ferguson _____________________________________________________ Create your Website with Legacy, see Tutorials at: http://www.fergys.co.uk Includes the family tree for Alan J Grimshaw http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/ For The Fergusons of N.W. England http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/ ____________________________________________________ Brian L. Lightfoot wrote: > Since all of us probably have many JPEG pictures to go with our > Legacy database, your post probably grabbed the attention of quite a > few people. > > Unfortunately you are mistaking a "copy" with doing a "save as". When > you make a copy of a JPEG image using Windows Explorer, you get > exactly that: the same exact image with no loss in quality. They are > bit-for-bit identical. Even if you just change the filename, it is > still the same exact image. Make a copy 100 times over and the last > one is identical to the first one. > > On the other hand, if you load a JPEG image into any photo program, > make the most minor change, and then change the JPEG compression > factor from what the original image as you do a "Save As", then yes, > there will be some loss of data. You can never get back what was > there before. > > Now here is the most important part: even if you resave the image a > dozen times over again, the human eye will never see any loss of > image quality (assuming the compression factors were all reasonably > the same as the original). This concept has bounced around the > Internet for years now and on some photography forums tests were done > by resaving an image over 100 times. The result was that the vast > majority of users could not tell the resaved image from the original. > > So don't be afraid to make a copy of an image over and over again. > And with the vast amount of cheap hard drive space available now, > keep your compression factors down low (large file size) and you'll > never see any differences even if you have to edit the picture a > dozen times. > > More info at: > http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00695v > > > Brian in CA Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
