Index  •   • New Posts  •   • RTAT  •   • "Best Of"  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New Posts  •   • RTAT  •   • "Best Of"  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing
Thread started 02 Jul 2007 (Monday) 19:33
PREV/NEXT

JPG Quality Level 12 Compression Loss?

 
sapearl
emailed Tim some prozac
sapearl's Avatar
14,912 posts

Joined Dec 2005

Cleveland, Ohio
MORE INFO

I realize that saving a RAW, PSDF, Tiff, DNG, etc. file as a jpg will result in loss of information through the compression nature of the jpg process. But will there always be significant (noticable?) "loss" even if you save at Quality level 12 in PhotoShop?

I am assuming that at Quality Level 12 in CS2 it will be minimal since in CS2 it shows "12" as MAXIMIUM qualityl. My starting point is always a RAW file, and I can see the file size shrink when I do a before and after comparison. So obviously there is loss going on.. I just wonder if it's only something that a mathematician will notice as compared to a person looking at an 11x14 print. - Stu

Jul 02, 2007 19:33

GEAR LIST
MY WEBSITEexternal link- MY GALLERIESexternal link- MY BLOGexternal link
Artists Archives of the Western Reserveexternal link - Board

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Damo77
Goldmember
Damo77's Avatar
4,245 posts

Joined Apr 2007

Brisbane, Australia
MORE INFO

There is some detail loss at Jpeg Level 12, but it's very negligible, and almost impossible to see with the naked eye.
As I've said in other threads, Jpeg is absolutely fine for a final save - eg to send to a client, or a lab, or whatever. But for your working files - the ones that you'll be opening and re-saving several times - you're better off choosing a non-compressed format.

Jul 02, 2007 19:55

Damien
Websiteexternal link | Blogexternal link | Groupexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sapearl
THREAD ­ STARTER
emailed Tim some prozac
sapearl's Avatar
14,912 posts

Joined Dec 2005

Cleveland, Ohio
MORE INFO

I completely agree with you Damo - my starting point is always the RAW file, and after making general tweaks there I'll save it as a PSD for final adjustments when I'm doing my attempts at "fine art" prints ;) . But for most of my wedding JPGs that end up as 4x6, 5x7, 8x10 prints, (starting as a 12-14MB RAW) I'll save at Quality level 10 prior to sending to the lab. Thanks Damo.

Damo77 wrote in post #3476863external link
..... But for your working files - the ones that you'll be opening and re-saving several times - you're better off choosing a non-compressed format.

Jul 02, 2007 20:18

GEAR LIST
MY WEBSITEexternal link- MY GALLERIESexternal link- MY BLOGexternal link
Artists Archives of the Western Reserveexternal link - Board

LOG IN TO REPLY
mabas9395
Member
80 posts
Joined Mar 2006

NW Burbs, IL
MORE INFO

Not to take this off on a tangent, but I've noticed that when I start with a jpg (my first digital only shot jpg's) and save it as a jpg with quality level 12, the resulting file is larger than what I started with. Why would the file be larger? Is this helping me or hurting me (any more than a re-save of a jpg would)?

Jul 03, 2007 10:55 as a reply to sapearl's post 14 hours earlier.

"You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn't waste either." - Galen Rowell

LOG IN TO REPLY
kevin_c
Cream of the Crop
5,745 posts
Joined Mar 2005

Devon, England
MORE INFO

mabas9395 wrote in post #3479880external link
Not to take this off on a tangent, but I've noticed that when I start with a jpg (my first digital only shot jpg's) and save it as a jpg with quality level 12, the resulting file is larger than what I started with. Why would the file be larger? Is this helping me or hurting me (any more than a re-save of a jpg would)?

Because you are editing the uncompressed file, which is actually quite large, when you go to save it the program will re-compress the file to the new compression level, which could be higher or lower.

Jul 03, 2007 14:32

-- K e v i n --

Nikon D700, 17-35mm, 28-105mm, 70-200mmVR, 50mm f/1.4
Canon EOS 3, 24-105L, 135L

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
René ­ Damkot
Cream of the Crop
René Damkot's Avatar
39,854 posts

Joined Feb 2005

enschede, netherlands
MORE INFO

The 'out of camera' jpg is probabely a higher compression jpg. (Say: comparable to PS jpg quality 8 or so)
If you use 'Save' it gets saved at the same compression level. If you 'Save as' you set the compression level. If you set 12, the rsulting file will be larger, and compressed less. (Have better IQ)

Jul 03, 2007 14:50

"I think the idea of art kills creativity" - Douglas Adams
Why Color Management.
Color Problems? Click here.
MySpaceexternal link
Get Colormanagedexternal link
Twitterexternal link
PERSONAL MESSAGING REGARDING SELLING OR BUYING ITEMS WITH MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO POSTS IN FORUMS AND/OR WHO YOU DO NOT KNOW FROM FORUMS IS HEREBY DECLARED STRICTLY STUPID AND YOU WILL GET BURNED.

LOG IN TO REPLY
sapearl
THREAD ­ STARTER
emailed Tim some prozac
sapearl's Avatar
14,912 posts

Joined Dec 2005

Cleveland, Ohio
MORE INFO

Which is what I'd been doing on a number of files.... using SAVE AS and selecting Quality level 12.

I guess what I'm still a little confused about is, if it was already compressed DOWN to a file of some smaller size, and then I saved it at 12, and the resultant is larger file, what is being added to it? Are more "filler" one's and zero's being pumped into it to make it larger?:lol: Obviously something I'm missing here.....

René Damkot wrote in post #3480993external link
..........If you use 'Save' it gets saved at the same compression level. If you 'Save as' you set the compression level. If you set 12, the rsulting file will be larger, and compressed less. (Have better IQ)

Jul 03, 2007 15:16

GEAR LIST
MY WEBSITEexternal link- MY GALLERIESexternal link- MY BLOGexternal link
Artists Archives of the Western Reserveexternal link - Board

LOG IN TO REPLY
René ­ Damkot
Cream of the Crop
René Damkot's Avatar
39,854 posts

Joined Feb 2005

enschede, netherlands
MORE INFO

If the jpg is opened, it is 'decompressed'. That's why a jpg out of an 8Mp camera of, say, 2Mb opens to a file that is roughly 23Mb according to Photoshops file info.
If you save it as a tiff, all individual pixels are saved, resulting in a large file (n pixels x 8bpc x 3 channels for an RGB file). If you save a s a jpg, the file is compressed again.

Jul 03, 2007 16:32

"I think the idea of art kills creativity" - Douglas Adams
Why Color Management.
Color Problems? Click here.
MySpaceexternal link
Get Colormanagedexternal link
Twitterexternal link
PERSONAL MESSAGING REGARDING SELLING OR BUYING ITEMS WITH MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO POSTS IN FORUMS AND/OR WHO YOU DO NOT KNOW FROM FORUMS IS HEREBY DECLARED STRICTLY STUPID AND YOU WILL GET BURNED.

LOG IN TO REPLY
chauncey
Cream of the Crop
chauncey's Avatar
8,561 posts

Joined Jun 2007

MI/CO
MORE INFO

Sapearl-this is from a neophyte, but why don't you save your "best" as a "smart object"?

Jul 03, 2007 17:11

The things you do for yourself die with you, the things you do for others live forever.
A man's worth should be judged, not when he basks in the sun, but how he faces the storm.

My stuff...http://1x.com/member/c​hauncey43external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
prime80
Goldmember
prime80's Avatar
2,312 posts

Joined Mar 2005

Celebration, FL
MORE INFO

OK, I'm confused here...If the initial image is a jpg out of a camera that is saved at PS equivelant of "8", then hasn't the lossy compression already thrown away the information required to make it a "12"? I understand that we can save-as a "12", but that can't return any image info that has already been discarded by the original jpeg compression. Aren't we just saving an "8" as a "12" and doing the least degradation of the "8" image on the resave? We're still stuck with the original "8" quality, aren't we?

Jul 03, 2007 17:45

John
7D Mk II, 7D, EF 100-400 L IS II, EF 85 f/1.8, EF-S 18-135 STM, EF-S 17-55 IS, Sigma 100-300 f4 EX DG, 580EX II, EOS M
Full Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
Damo77
Goldmember
Damo77's Avatar
4,245 posts

Joined Apr 2007

Brisbane, Australia
MORE INFO

Bingo! Yes, you can never get that detail back. That is why Raw photography is preferable in some cases.

In my experience, the highest quality jpeg setting in my wife's 5D is about equivalent to Photoshop's quality level 10. Perhaps somebody out there can confirm/contradict this.

Re: file sizes after compression - you have to remember that every photo is different. Large areas of low detail will compress a lot. Eg a photo of sky with one bird in it will compress a long way, whereas a complex photo of trees won't compress as far.

Likewise, if you apply sharpening to an image, the compressed size will be larger. This is why a lot of people recommend not too much sharpening on photos that you post on web sites - the bigger the file, the slower the viewing speed.

Jul 03, 2007 18:22

Damien
Websiteexternal link | Blogexternal link | Groupexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
sapearl
THREAD ­ STARTER
emailed Tim some prozac
sapearl's Avatar
14,912 posts

Joined Dec 2005

Cleveland, Ohio
MORE INFO

Ah, Rene - I know I can always count on you for a simple but thorough and comprehensible explanation.:D In addition to your impressive photographic talents, you must also write for a living.;)

René Damkot wrote in post #3481450external link
If the jpg is opened, it is 'decompressed'. That's why a jpg out of an 8Mp camera of, say, 2Mb opens to a file that is roughly 23Mb according to Photoshops file info.
If you save it as a tiff, all individual pixels are saved, resulting in a large file (n pixels x 8bpc x 3 channels for an RGB file). If you save a s a jpg, the file is compressed again.

Jul 03, 2007 18:40

GEAR LIST
MY WEBSITEexternal link- MY GALLERIESexternal link- MY BLOGexternal link
Artists Archives of the Western Reserveexternal link - Board

LOG IN TO REPLY
sapearl
THREAD ­ STARTER
emailed Tim some prozac
sapearl's Avatar
14,912 posts

Joined Dec 2005

Cleveland, Ohio
MORE INFO

Hello there Chauncey - well, I must confess my ignorance here as I don't know what a smart object is at it relates to Photoshop. BTW, is CRNA some flavor of RN? My wife is one of those :D .

chauncey wrote in post #3481671external link
Sapearl-this is from a neophyte, but why don't you save your "best" as a "smart object"?

Jul 03, 2007 18:43

GEAR LIST
MY WEBSITEexternal link- MY GALLERIESexternal link- MY BLOGexternal link
Artists Archives of the Western Reserveexternal link - Board

LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
tim's Avatar
49,786 posts

Joined Nov 2004

Wellington, New Zealand
MORE INFO

A smart object looks at the original source and works with that, not the current view. Say you take a 3000x2000 pixel image into photoshop, resize it to 3x2 pixels, then back to 3000x2000 pixels, you'll have almost a solid color with NO detail. The image will be 6 HUGE pixels. If you made it a smart object to start with, then do the same thing, when you take it back to 3000x2000 it will look fine. The easy way to explain it is to say photoshop remembers the original image, and checks back with it as needed. The disadvantage is it's a little slower and your files are larger. It'd be a handy technique for someone who designs wedding albums in PS and does lots of resizing.

Jul 04, 2007 04:26

NZIPP Qualified Professional wedding photographer.
Wellington Wedding Photographerexternal link ~ Camera and Lens Reviewsexternal link ~ Photographers Tech Supportexternal link
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
tim's Avatar
49,786 posts

Joined Nov 2004

Wellington, New Zealand
MORE INFO

Also, to make a layer a smart object you right click, or I think there's a menu command "paste as smart object" somewhere.

Jul 04, 2007 04:27

NZIPP Qualified Professional wedding photographer.
Wellington Wedding Photographerexternal link ~ Camera and Lens Reviewsexternal link ~ Photographers Tech Supportexternal link
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

LOG IN TO REPLY

2,812 views & 0 likes for this thread
JPG Quality Level 12 Compression Loss?
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing

NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO THE FORUMS
Registered members get all the features: search, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, own reviews...




SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF    •   JUMP TO FORUM    •   FORUM RULES    •   Index    •   New Posts    •   RTAT    •   "Best Of"    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality. We do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browsers' data storage methods.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.1version 1.1
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00123 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
Latest registered member is ChloeAnderson
596 guests, 529 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014