On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 07:19:57 +0200, Guillermo Espertino <gespertino@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Se only opened the image from the camera, adjusted the curves, and > scaled it down (BTW, the downscale code should do oversamplig by > default. It always breaks a little the edges). Until she saved, the > image quality was good. > Then she saved with CTRL+S, without changing the "quality" factor, and > the picture turned out like that. Heavily compressed. Maybe you should try adjusting the compression level on the camera, it maybe a simple A,B or C choice and is probably not presented as "jpeg quality". Jpeg is a sensible choice for a memory limited device like a camera but you have to make a chioce in using it. Once the information is lost it is gone for ever. If you wish to readjust you colours and downscale you are completely altering the form of the image. This is probalby about the worst thing to do between two jpeg compressions. It's really not a case of "she only did..." . I dont think there is anything anomolous about what you describe. Now getting back main point of the thread, gimp vs. PS "quality" parameter. Thanks for the detail of the comparison. The jpeg quaility parameter is defined in the jpeg standard and its meaning is clear. It is possible that since the useful range of values tends to be 60 - 85 (and note this is not a percentage ) PS may be mapping this in someway in presenting it to the user to give a more intuitive idea of quality which is in any case rather subjective and difficult caracterise in a simple two digit number. I dont use PS but my guess is that there is no real difference in the implementation , simply in the way this parameter is presented to the user. Other programs give a "compression" parameter which in effect adjusts the jpeg compression. Does that tie in with your experience? Thx. _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
