Quote:>1. Where did you learn that jpg corrupts files? Nonsense.
I suspect the original poster meant that JPEG degrades image quality--which it
Quote:>2. Your camera is sRGB, your video display is sRGB. All printers are CMYK.
The camera and video display are RGB. sRGB is a color space; it can be assigned
to an image for display on a device, or assigned to an image captured by a
device, but the camera and video display are not sRGB. sRGB is a definition of
a working color space, not a device.
Quote:>We used .tif in the old days because resolution was poor and "save as" jpg
>many times would degrade the image.
Save As in JPEG multiple times will still cause cumulative degredation. TIFF is
a good, universal format for uncompressed or losslessly compressed images; it
is not useful only for low-resolution images.
Quote:>Things have changed dramatically and unless you want to print very
>large (by large I mean more than 12 x 18) from a pro shop there is
>absolutely no advantage to save tif files over jpg.
JPEG is lossy. TIFF is not. You may not be able to see the loss personally, but
I can, and others can too.
JPEG is only useful if you are short on space, and file size is more important
than quality. In the day of $80 hard drives, if you are so short on space you
care more about file size than about quality, you need a bigger hard drive.
Quote:>The first point is, every time you "Save as" a jpg there is a little loss
>and artifacts introduced, so if you edit a picture and you Save as many
>time, there is some degradation with each Save as, but not with Save if
>use Save to save your changes as you are editing
Incorrect. Saving a JPEG creates cumulative degredation. If you edit the image
and then Save, it does the same re-compression as if you had used Save As.
You can verify this for yourself easily.
Whether you use Save or Save As, the picture is compressed, and the compression
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more: