Re: jpg

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Yeah it's a real shame.
The technology has existed for a long time, but 24bit lossy jpeg has just been too successful to be replaced for most uses.

Jpeg LS is popular for medical imaging.
Jpeg 2000 is popular for satellite imaging.
There are non-Adobe plugins for Photoshop if you look for them...




Sent from my mobile.


On Aug 27, 2013, at 9:54 PM, Randy Little <randyslittle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Yes but not many if any programs support it.   



On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Rnuuja <rnuuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Sent from my mobile.


On Aug 27, 2013, at 11:18 AM, "Emily L. Ferguson" <elf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

My understanding is that jpg compression achieves smaller filesize by discarding data.  I've never heard of exceptions to that at any level of jpegging.

You can confirm that by examining a file at the pixel level, but why argue?  If you wish to retain all the data the camera collected, just don't jpg.  If you feel you don't need all the data, the issue is moot.

My pro shooter's opinion was that the publisher was going to be receiving a jpgged file from him anyway, and that magazine quality print wouldn't be able to reproduce the minutiae of uncompressed data anyway, so wotthehell.

I'm not sure he does "art" shows of his work, too.  He's been an editorial National Geographic photographer all his life.
--
Emily L. Ferguson
mailto:elf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
508-563-6822
New England landscapes, wooden boats and races
http://www.landsedgephoto.com
HOT OFF THE PRESS! SAILING SEPIA IMAGES VOL II:
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/elfpix
Check out my Spring daily photograph project at:
http://tinyurl.com/3a6m7g6
And Summer:
http://tinyurl.com/22juo5s
Autumn now complete here:
http://tinyurl.com/26pdgz9
Winter concluded here:
http://tinyurl.com/2co5wkg



[Index of Archives] [Share Photos] [Epson Inkjet] [Scanner List] [Gimp Users] [Gimp for Windows]

  Powered by Linux