It was 4/8/03 8:27 pm, when Paul Tansley wrote:
> Shangara, I really have no interest in whether PS can rotate a JPG
> losslessly or not. I have no need of that function.
Paul, I think you may find there are other members on this list who are
interested.
> However please
> appreciate what I am saying. Given the choice of rotating 100% lossless (in
> GC) or rotating 99.9999999999999 recurring losselessly in PS, I'm going to
> choose GC.
That is your choice. Given the information I provided, others may wish to do
it in Photoshop.
>> BTW, iView takes 163 secs to do a lossless rotation on a 3.3MB JPEG and it
>> takes a couple of seconds to rotate the thumbnail in Photoshop's file
>> browser and then 2-3 seconds to open and rotate the file and another couple
>> of seconds to save the file.
>
> I rarely (read never) rotate one file, and I must say 163 seconds to rotate
> one 3.3MB file seems horrendous. Are you sure you've not made a typo there?
No, not a typo. I did the test on two JPEGs.
> I hope you don't take that as me being rude, I'm really not. Its just that
> posts like Williams, where he says "I thought Shangara's reference to a RAW
> file as a negative was very valuable" and "Personally I would prefer that
> this was not devalued by applying the negative analogy to all digital
> capture" referring to my previous post, really annoying.
It was meant to annoy you...why else would we post any thoughts to a public
discussion about imaging? <g>
> If you feel the need to defend PS, by all means go ahead. But the fact is
> plain and simple AFAIK, that PS "cannot" do a lossless rotation (on a JPG)
> and resave as a JPG. It can do something so close that "no human alive" will
> ever notice, but it CANNOT do it losslessly (100% lossless, not 99.999%
> recurring).
At least people can now make their decision to use Photoshop or not to use
it based on some facts, instead of an old wives tale that it "degrades"
images. Now they know it "can do something so close that "no human alive"
will notice..."
> As far as I can see, I still have no need to rotate JPG's in PS.
> If someone want to (I'm sure there is someone out there) apparently its OK,
> because you won't ever see the difference. Fair enough, I accept that.
I think there's more than "someone" who needs to or would do if they weren't
put off by people saying it "degrades" quality. There's no apparentness
about it either, anyone can test it, all you need is Photoshop.
> PS - Why can photoshop not do a 100% lossless rotation. Since it can't be
> that hard, as other software manages it?
If enough people request it, Adobe usually include the feature. Perhaps they
feel it's not a priority since it doesn't "degrade" when it rotates JPEGs?
>> To degrade an image, the change must be noticeable and for the worse.
>
> I think you'll find that's your own definition of the word degrade.
Er, I think you will find an awful lot of people who use the word to mean
the same thing: when you degrade an image, the "grades" have to be
noticeable. If you can't even notice the grades of difference, then how can
you grade it as "degraded?" The dictionary definition is to come down a
step(s). I put it to you, if you can't spot the steps, how can something be
degraded?
> Again,
> I'm not interested in writing dictionary terms. As far as I am concerned it
> degrades the image. Whether the degradation is .0000000001% or 1% is not
> really of interest to me. Why? Because I can do the same function, quicker,
> using a third party piece of software. Without ANY degradation.
Well, that really is your definition of the word. In my book (backed up by
the Oxford English Dictionary and Robert Robinson, no less), if you can't
see a difference, it's not DE-graded.
> As I've said over and over, "So what?" I don't need to perform that function
> in PS. I can perform it 100% losslessly in GC much quicker.
You may not, but I think this list has more than one member! <g> There are
also members who may be interested who do not want to buy GC.
>> When I say degradation, I'm not implying that you are accepting inferior
>> quality (there's always a trade off between quality and speed). I mean it in
>> the sense that it's possible to demonstrate degradation by outputting the
>> same
>> image in RAW and JPEG and doing 16-bit color correction on the RAW and 8-bit
>> correction on the JPEG. No prize for guessing which will "degrade" first.
>
> I am sure that you are correct on this point, but have no interest in it
> either way.
You seem to think we are interested in what you are interested in (count the
number of times you say it). We're all here to share knowledge and expand
our knowledge about digital photography. If something doesn't interest you,
it doesn't automatically mean it doesn't interest others.
>> However, if your color balance and exposures are perfect, the degradation
>> will
>> be hard to demonstrate but not impossible, just depends how far you want to
>> take the file from the "original" capture.
>
> I never stray far from my original capture, my skill is mainly in my
> lighting and composition, not in my Photoshop Skills, I leave that to others
> :-)
Paul, that's your workflow, others have different workflows and depend on
their Photoshop skills just to produce something acceptable or
extra-ordinary.
> You seem to be arguing a point that I have no interest in. I've no interest
> in how much the degradation might or might no be in varying circumstances.
There you go again. But others might be interested in what I have to say!
> Once that "original" file leaves my camera, I will try my utmost not to
> degrade it any further than it has already been by the initial JPG
> compression the camera gave it. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Possibly because I'm oh-so-thick and your workflow is so alien it needs an
Einstein to understand it? <g>
> I'm not saying everyone else has to work the way I do.
Most can't. Not everyone shoots fashion - or wants to!
> They can use whatever
> workflow they want, I merely try and tell people mine, so that they can make
> an informed choice as to the possibilities open to them, nothing else.
And what do you think was I trying to do? Convert you?...I am not interested
in converting you (royalties are in the post for using your phrase). I was
merely putting the opposite view and listed alternatives. Let the members
take what they want and leave what they don't.
> I'm not slamming RAW either, as I said originally. There is a time and place
> for shooting RAW and same goes for JPG. The choices you/one should make
> after that original capture, should be informed ones.
And you consider the information I provided not informative? What about the
other members of this list who do?
> I personally consider
> myself, informed enough to make those decisions. Given a clear choice of
> 100% lossless actions or "near as dammit" lossless rotations, I will choose
> whichever is easiest for me to perform. As the 100% lossless is easiest,
> I'll choose that for the time being.
So quality is NOT an issue after all you protestations, it's ease. Hmmm...
Nuff Said.
--/ Shangara Singh
:: Adobe Certified Expert ~ Photoshop 7.0
:: Adobe Photoshop 7.0 Essential Tips
:: Exam Aids for Photoshop, Illustrator & Dreamweaver
:: Http://www.shangarasingh.com
===============================================================
GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
