For this to work you have to make a change in the Jpeg. Otherwise most editing programs won't re-compress the image which is were the loss in image quality comes in, but editing Jpegs and saving your work between edits is not advisable.
At 11:06 AM 7/6/03 -0400, you wrote:
Well, take that jpeg and save it as another jpeg, then take that new jpeg and save it as another, do it about five times. Now get back to me on how jpegs are just fine.
Each time your image is saved as a jpeg data is lost. How much data depends on how much it is compressed. To me and others this kind of defeats the purpose of digital images, which is you can make multiple generations without losing data.
If you are never going to manipulate (edit) that jpeg it will stay as good as it starts out, but that first copy is not as good as the raw file or a tiff would be, though it may be acceptable for your use, if you don't mind your 6 mp camera giving you 4 mp images.
This is not said from theory (though theory says the same thing), it is partical experience.
Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
----- Original Message ----- From: "Lon Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 7:08 AM Subject: Re: Digital Delays?
> I've noticed the same thing on scans. A good quality JPEG > is virtually indistinguishable from a TIFF, and a heck of > a lot smaller. I archive in JPEG. > > Cotty wrote, in part: > > > > A 2.5 MB jpeg / a larger RAW file / a massive MF digital file = all > > printed on an inkjet at 300 dpi - I defy anyone to tell the difference. >
To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is designed by
the post office, even the sleaze.
O'Rourke, P.J.
