[Fait2]

Just wondering what other's experience has been.

When saving .jpg files you can choose "Baseline" (Standard) "Baseline Optimized" or "Progressive". What in considered opinions here seems to be the best?

If Progressive, what has been found to be the optimal number of scans?

[buck52]

"You can also select a format option for the JPEG file. Select Baseline (“Standard”) to use a format recognizable to most Web browsers. The Baseline Optimized format optimizes the color quality of the image and can produce a slightly smaller file size, but is not supported by all Web browsers. The Progressive format causes the image to display gradually as it is downloaded. However, progressive JPEG images files are slightly larger in size, require more RAM for viewing, and are not supported by all applications and Web browsers. "
from here...http://www.library.georgetown.edu/de...ics/index1.htm

buck

[erick295]

That's true, but out of date - browsers support all three formats now.

Baseline Standard is your best choice... Progressive is pretty useless.

[Fait2]

Thanks, Buck and Eric. "Optimized" is what I've been using and I have never had any problems that I know of. I was wondering if I were missing a bet with the others. Looks like I was not.

[prophoto]

Jpeg's are fine but if you are going to do any serious work and shoot jpg's you ought to convert to "tiifs" first cause if you keep opening and closing and opening and do editing in jpg's you are going to eventually lose resloution and your jpg file is going to go "kaput".

[slipe]

Originally Posted by prophoto

Jpeg's are fine but if you are going to do any serious work and shoot jpg's you ought to convert to "tiifs" first cause if you keep opening and closing and opening and do editing in jpg's you are going to eventually lose resloution and your jpg file is going to go "kaput".

There is no reason to convert a JPG to a TIFF unless you alter it and do another save. Even in that case most people feel you should “Save as” a TIFF and also keep the original JPG, which is your original negative.

You can open a JPG and close it as many times as you want and it will not change in any way. Only recompressing it as a JPG with a Save will add additional compression artifacts.

[prophoto]

Some very serious photographers will if they shoots "jpg's" immediately convert to tiff. If you open a 'jpg" close it and open it say 7-8 more times, you may not notice but it will change. That's why the change to "tiff" right away. Beside which, most pro working photographers use "raw" and if they have adobe photoshop after processing that raw file, save as a "psd" file. Some don't bother with the native format, but convert to "tiff" right away.

I'm not lambasting jpg though, and if you want to keeping opening and closing jpg's, that may be your stlye and your way of working and that's ok too. The next time you open a jpg take your magnifying tool and go up to 100% and take a very close look. Close that jpg, reopen it and take another look. After 7-8 openings and closings and looking at the image file at 100% magnification, maybe you will see a slight change. A lot will depend on your monitor, and the way it was calibrated also. Maybe you won't see a change but it's there nevertheless.

[lister]

Originally Posted by prophoto

After 7-8 openings and closings and looking at the image file at 100% magnification, maybe you will see a slight change. A lot will depend on your monitor, and the way it was calibrated also. Maybe you won't see a change but it's there nevertheless.

Huh? Rubbish! No offence Prophoto.

[prophoto]

No offense taken. I have said what I have to say about jpg and I now will quit that subject and go on to something else.

Amen

[buck52]

Howdy prophoto

opening then viewing then closing a jpg does nothing to effect the file, no matter how many times it's viewed

opening then altering then resaving is another story...

buck