save jpg as tif before editing?

Trying to retain the best possible quality, will I be maintaining the files integrity by taking jpegs shot with a digital camera and first saving a duplicate as Tif, and then doing the photoshop editing on it ?

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:08:46 -0400, "frankg" found these unused words floating about:

Trying to retain the best possible quality, will I be maintaining the files integrity by taking jpegs shot with a digital camera and first saving a duplicate as Tif, and then doing the photoshop editing on it ?

no.

save as, AFTER !

Trying to retain the best possible quality, will I be maintaining the files
integrity by taking jpegs shot with a digital camera and first saving a duplicate as Tif, and then doing the photoshop editing on it ?

no.

save as, AFTER !

So first do all the PS editing (col, contrast, retouching, sharpening etc) on the Jpeg and Then when done Save As a Tif file ?
The first problem I see with this is that I cant do any layers on the jpeg, but if it’s going to retain better file quality I’ll work without layers.

can’t you shoot raw or tif in the foist place?

—
"frankg" schreef in bericht

Trying to retain the best possible quality, will I be maintaining the

files

integrity by taking jpegs shot with a digital camera and first saving a duplicate as Tif, and then doing the photoshop editing on it ?

So first do all the PS editing (col, contrast, retouching, sharpening

etc)

on the Jpeg and Then when done Save As a Tif file ?
The first problem I see with this is that I cant do any layers on the

jpeg,

but if it’s going to retain better file quality I’ll work without layers.

Won’t make any difference. Save as tiff first. Jpg looses quality each time you alter and re-save.

No unfortunately the camera I am using on this particular project (Canon S2 IS) has Jpeg only – best i can do is choose superfine compression & Large qjality. So now I am trying to figure the best workflow with what I have in front of me – jpegs.

can’t you shoot raw or tif in the foist place?

—
"frankg" schreef in bericht

Trying to retain the best possible quality, will I be maintaining the

files

integrity by taking jpegs shot with a digital camera and first saving a duplicate as Tif, and then doing the photoshop editing on it ?

frankg wrote:

Trying to retain the best possible quality, will I be maintaining the files
integrity by taking jpegs shot with a digital camera and first saving a duplicate as Tif, and then doing the photoshop editing on it ?

no.

save as, AFTER !

So first do all the PS editing (col, contrast, retouching, sharpening etc) on the Jpeg and Then when done Save As a Tif file ?
The first problem I see with this is that I cant do any layers on the jpeg, but if it’s going to retain better file quality I’ll work without layers.

You have to understand that when the file is open for editing it does NOT have a format (jpeg is a compression standard rather than a file format anyway). So you can do layers etc. What matters is how you save at the end.

—
Comic book sketches and artwork:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/edjh.html
Comics art for sale:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/batsale.html

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:55:58 -0400, "frankg" found these unused words floating about:

Trying to retain the best possible quality, will I be maintaining the files
integrity by taking jpegs shot with a digital camera and first saving a duplicate as Tif, and then doing the photoshop editing on it ?

no.

save as, AFTER !

So first do all the PS editing (col, contrast, retouching, sharpening etc) on the Jpeg and Then when done Save As a Tif file ?
The first problem I see with this is that I cant do any layers on the jpeg, but if it’s going to retain better file quality I’ll work without layers.

GEE .. I do layers on .jpg original imagery all the time. Must be another ‘improvement’ in the latest version. 5.5 doesn’t seem to care what it opens – it works away, then you ‘save as’ in .tif or .psd and when finished ‘save a copy’ into .jpg to flatten and have a webbie.

Coming from an original .jpg it is what it is, changing the file type -during- editing makes no sense or difference (well at least not in 5.5)! FINAL or INTERIM saves, there’s the potential for loss, so you ‘save as’ in a lossless format.

In article <jgnRe.7592$ says…

No unfortunately the camera I am using on this particular project (Canon S2 IS) has Jpeg only – best i can do is choose superfine compression & Large qjality. So now I am trying to figure the best workflow with what I have in front of me – jpegs.

can’t you shoot raw or tif in the foist place?

It is only a jpeg until you load it in. Once any image is imported into photoshop you can do layers, filters, whatever,
to your hearts content. When you have completed this process and want to save the work is the point at which you neeed
to decide what file format you want.

For example, if there is any possibility that you will want to come back and do further editing you may want to save it
as a .psd file with all the layers intact. If you won’t ever want to alter things again but want the best possible
quality, you could flatten it and save it losslessly as a .tiff file. If you want a little more compression save it as
a .jpeg file. If you want more than one option, save it losslessly first, then save a copy – e.g. as a highly
compressed image to send to Uncle Harry via email.

Mike

Trying to retain the best possible quality, will I be maintaining the files
integrity by taking jpegs shot with a digital camera and first saving a duplicate as Tif, and then doing the photoshop editing on it ?

no.

save as, AFTER !

So first do all the PS editing (col, contrast, retouching, sharpening etc) on the Jpeg and Then when done Save As a Tif file ? The first problem I see with this is that I cant do any layers on the jpeg, but if it’s going to retain better file quality I’ll work without layers.

You have to understand that when the file is open for editing it does NOT have a format (jpeg is a compression standard rather than a file format anyway). So you can do layers etc. What matters is how you save at the end.

assuming working with a jpeg – if as you do a bunch of editing & you save the file along the way, doesnt each Save cause you to lose data/quality? In which case it’d be better to convert (Save As) a tif right off the top ?

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:08:49 +0200, DD found these
unused words floating about:

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 02:29:33 +0200, "Greg N." wrote:

tacit wrote:

assuming working with a jpeg – if as you do a bunch of editing & you save the file along the way, doesnt each Save cause you to lose data/quality?

Yes.

No.

you can save it a thousand times in one session, it will always be the same quality.

It’s when you re-open a jpeg and save it again where you lose quality.

This Greg, is something important you’re saying here.
It seems to be an open question whether moving JPG’s
from one file to another and one drive to another, do cause lost.

Nope !!! The image is never uncompressed and recompressed in such a move.

OPEN it in a program and then ‘move it’ (save as, save to, whatever!) from within the program and yes, it gets recompressed and more is lost.

This is what I’ve been told. What about renaming a pic?

You’re renaming the entry on the FAT, not IN the file.

I am not sure whether everybody agree’s here.

"agree’s" … what belongs to ‘agree’?

Dave

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 08:08:51 +1000, "Mike Warren" found these unused words
floating about:

Clyde wrote:

No it isn’t just a communication problem. I believe that you are wrong. However, I’m not the greatest expert on this.

When you execute the Save command in Photoshop, it saves the current state of the open file to a file on disk. It does that the same every time you save. It makes no difference whether you keep working or not. Photoshop has no concept of a "session". That is just your human time being projected.

So if you open a JPEG file, edit it, and just do Save, it will compress the file and save it as a JPEG file. It rewrites it over the older file that you opened. You can NOT save a JPEG file without doing some degree of compression. That degree may be very small at levels 10 – 12, but it will always change the the bits of what you had just edited.
Therefore, opening, editing, saving, editing, saving, editing, saving, editing, saving without doing a Save As into a lossless file format will give you JPEG compression every single time you Save. Photoshop doesn’t know any other way of doing it.

Keep in mind that the level of destruction is a debate that flairs up here many times. It may or may not compress it to a point that destroys the image. It will depend greatly on how much and what kind of editing you do AND the level of JPEG compression that you use. Some of this can be accumulative and really screw up your picture. Some of it may never been seen by the human eye and may not matter. The problem is that you don’t and can’t know when you are saving as JPEG over and over. Once you do know, it will be too late.

The file in memory has no compression applied to it. When a JPEG is opened the file is decompressed into individual pixels. Whenever the file is saved, a copy of the pixels is compressed and written to the disk. The actual pixels in memory are not changed.

Degradation only happens when the file is opened again because that is the only point that the compressed pixels are accessed.
This is not hard to test:

1) Load a file. Any file will do but a small one will be better.
2) look carefully for compression artefacts. If it already has
visible artefacts, it’s not a good file for this test.
3) Save the file as Test1.jpg To accentuate any error choose a high compression (low quality), say level 3.
4) Save again as Test2.jpg Use the same compression as the first file.
5) Grab a brush and paint something (anything) in one corner.
6) Save the file (Ctrl+S)
7) Paint in the same corner again. This is necessary to make PS recognise a change so it will save. Keep all painting in the same corner.
8) Repeat steps 6 and 7 as many times as you like.
9) Close the file.
10) Open Test1.jpg and Test2.jpg.

On examination, you will notice that apart from near the area you were painting, the 2 files are close to identical.

IIRC … there are some programs (and PS may have the switch option) that re-open a file after saving. IF that occurs, then a degredation will take place.

OTW, as you say very clearly, the file in memory is NOT compressed, QED an infinite number of changes may be made UNTIL the file is reopened, usually by saving and exiting. At THAT time, if a lossy file mode has been chosen, upon re-opening and aditional editing, further loss will take place.

"frankg" wrote in message

Trying to retain the best possible quality, will I be maintaining the

files

integrity by taking jpegs shot with a digital camera and first saving a duplicate as Tif, and then doing the photoshop editing on it ?

Personally I save as PSD, make all my changes, and then save a flattened version as a TIFF when I’m done.

Someone once told me that JPG set on 12 is actually lossless, though I haven’t tested this and I’m not sure I believe them… can anyone verify?

In article <C9qRe.4355$>,
"frankg" wrote:

assuming working with a jpeg – if as you do a bunch of editing & you save the file along the way, doesnt each Save cause you to lose data/quality?

Yes.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

assuming working with a jpeg – if as you do a bunch of editing & you save the file along the way, doesnt each Save cause you to lose data/quality?

Yes.

then contrary to some posts above, i should indeed immediately Save As the jpeg file to a psd or tif PRIOR to doing any editing.
the only time the Save As can be left to the end is is there is no saving of the file during the course of the image editing correct ?

tacit wrote:

assuming working with a jpeg – if as you do a bunch of editing & you save the file along the way, doesnt each Save cause you to lose data/quality?

Yes.

No.

you can save it a thousand times in one session, it will always be the same quality.

It’s when you re-open a jpeg and save it again where you lose quality.

—
Gregor’s Motorradreisen:
http://hothaus.de/greg-tour/

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 23:22:18 GMT, "OcTavO"
wrote:

"frankg" wrote in message

Trying to retain the best possible quality, will I be maintaining the

files

integrity by taking jpegs shot with a digital camera and first saving a duplicate as Tif, and then doing the photoshop editing on it ?

Personally I save as PSD, make all my changes, and then save a flattened version as a TIFF when I’m done.

Someone once told me that JPG set on 12 is actually lossless, though I haven’t tested this and I’m not sure I believe them… can anyone verify?

There is no such thing as a lossless jpg file.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:24:21 -0400, "frankg"
wrote:

assuming working with a jpeg – if as you do a bunch of editing & you save the file along the way, doesnt each Save cause you to lose data/quality?

Yes.

then contrary to some posts above, i should indeed immediately Save As the jpeg file to a psd or tif PRIOR to doing any editing.
the only time the Save As can be left to the end is is there is no saving of the file during the course of the image editing correct ?

Correct. If you edit and save and edit and save (I tend to), then you’ll want your save to be other than jpg at any time you’re saving.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: (strip the .invalid to email)

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 23:22:18 GMT, "OcTavO"
wrote:

"frankg" wrote in message

Trying to retain the best possible quality, will I be maintaining the

files

integrity by taking jpegs shot with a digital camera and first saving a duplicate as Tif, and then doing the photoshop editing on it ?

Personally I save as PSD, make all my changes, and then save a flattened version as a TIFF when I’m done.

Someone once told me that JPG set on 12 is actually lossless, though I haven’t tested this and I’m not sure I believe them… can anyone verify?

It’s not bad, especially if you only do it once, but with other formats so much more accurate, why do it, except for snapshots for email?

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: (strip the .invalid to email)

In article ,
"Greg N." wrote:

assuming working with a jpeg – if as you do a bunch of editing & you save the file along the way, doesnt each Save cause you to lose data/quality?

Yes.

No.

you can save it a thousand times in one session, it will always be the same quality.

When you hit Save, the copy on disk which you have just saved is recompressed, resulting in image degradation. The copy you’re working on in memory is not degraded, but the copy you’ve just saved is.

A wise person doesn’t degrade the image unnecessarily; after all, it only takes a power flicker or a computer crash to make the undegraded version in memory suddenly disappear…

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

tacit wrote:

When you hit Save, the copy on disk which you have just saved is recompressed, resulting in image degradation. The copy you’re working on in memory is not degraded, but the copy you’ve just saved is.
A wise person doesn’t degrade the image unnecessarily; after all, it only takes a power flicker or a computer crash to make the undegraded version in memory suddenly disappear…

I’m not sure if this is just a communication problem.

In *one* session, there is no difference to the finished file regardless of if you save once at the end or one thousand times while working on it.

Compression takes place but only the last time you save during a session. Later saves overwrite the earlier ones as if the earlier saves did not exist.

My workflow, however, is to save any JPEG as a PSD immediately after opening it. That way I just have to hit Ctrl+S every few minutes while working.

The final file gets saved as a TIFF or JPEG *copy* in addition to the PSD depending on what the file is required for.

-Mike

frankg wrote:

Trying to retain the best possible quality, will I be maintaining the files
integrity by taking jpegs shot with a digital camera and first saving a duplicate as Tif, and then doing the photoshop editing on it ?

no.

save as, AFTER !

So first do all the PS editing (col, contrast, retouching, sharpening etc) on the Jpeg and Then when done Save As a Tif file ? The first problem I see with this is that I cant do any layers on the jpeg, but if it’s going to retain better file quality I’ll work without layers.

You have to understand that when the file is open for editing it does NOT have a format (jpeg is a compression standard rather than a file format anyway). So you can do layers etc. What matters is how you save at the end.

assuming working with a jpeg – if as you do a bunch of editing & you save the file along the way, doesnt each Save cause you to lose data/quality? In which case it’d be better to convert (Save As) a tif right off the top ?

Yes, that’s the point everyone is trying to make…. Do whatever you want, but never resave a JPEG as a JPEG. The first save you make after editing a JPEG needs to be in a lossless file format. PSD, TIFF, JPEG2000, PNG, or any other lossless format will work just fine.

Clyde

Mike Warren wrote:

tacit wrote:

When you hit Save, the copy on disk which you have just saved is recompressed, resulting in image degradation. The copy you’re working on in memory is not degraded, but the copy you’ve just saved is.
A wise person doesn’t degrade the image unnecessarily; after all, it only takes a power flicker or a computer crash to make the undegraded version in memory suddenly disappear…

I’m not sure if this is just a communication problem.

In *one* session, there is no difference to the finished file regardless of if you save once at the end or one thousand times while working on it.

Compression takes place but only the last time you save during a session. Later saves overwrite the earlier ones as if the earlier saves did not exist.

My workflow, however, is to save any JPEG as a PSD immediately after opening it. That way I just have to hit Ctrl+S every few minutes while working.

The final file gets saved as a TIFF or JPEG *copy* in addition to the PSD depending on what the file is required for.

-Mike

No it isn’t just a communication problem. I believe that you are wrong. However, I’m not the greatest expert on this.

When you execute the Save command in Photoshop, it saves the current state of the open file to a file on disk. It does that the same every time you save. It makes no difference whether you keep working or not. Photoshop has no concept of a "session". That is just your human time being projected.

So if you open a JPEG file, edit it, and just do Save, it will compress the file and save it as a JPEG file. It rewrites it over the older file that you opened. You can NOT save a JPEG file without doing some degree of compression. That degree may be very small at levels 10 – 12, but it will always change the the bits of what you had just edited.

Therefore, opening, editing, saving, editing, saving, editing, saving, editing, saving without doing a Save As into a lossless file format will give you JPEG compression every single time you Save. Photoshop doesn’t know any other way of doing it.

Keep in mind that the level of destruction is a debate that flairs up here many times. It may or may not compress it to a point that destroys the image. It will depend greatly on how much and what kind of editing you do AND the level of JPEG compression that you use. Some of this can be accumulative and really screw up your picture. Some of it may never been seen by the human eye and may not matter. The problem is that you don’t and can’t know when you are saving as JPEG over and over. Once you do know, it will be too late.

Clyde

In article <4316d3d1$0$243$>,
"Mike Warren" wrote:

In *one* session, there is no difference to the finished file regardless of if you save once at the end or one thousand times while working on it.

Yes, that’s true.
The question is one of workflow. In any one session, there’s no difference–but experience and time have taught me two things:

1. Never count on doing all your work in one session; anything from a power flicker to a computer crash may just take care of that; and

2. You’re never really done editing an image. Keeping the layered, uncompressed Photoshop file intact is never a bad idea.

For that reason, a workflow involving repeated saves as JPEG is unwise–sooner or later, you’ll need to go back and edit, even if it’s only because your machine crashed or you forgot to do something, and at that point you’ll be working with a degraded image.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 02:29:33 +0200, "Greg N." wrote:

tacit wrote:

assuming working with a jpeg – if as you do a bunch of editing & you save the file along the way, doesnt each Save cause you to lose data/quality?

Yes.

No.

you can save it a thousand times in one session, it will always be the same quality.

It’s when you re-open a jpeg and save it again where you lose quality.

This Greg, is something important you’re saying here.
It seems to be an open question whether moving JPG’s
from one file to another and one drive to another, do cause lost. This is what I’ve been told. What about renaming a pic?
I am not sure whether everybody agree’s here.

Dave

Clyde wrote:

No it isn’t just a communication problem. I believe that you are wrong. However, I’m not the greatest expert on this.

When you execute the Save command in Photoshop, it saves the current state of the open file to a file on disk. It does that the same every time you save. It makes no difference whether you keep working or not. Photoshop has no concept of a "session". That is just your human time being projected.

So if you open a JPEG file, edit it, and just do Save, it will compress the file and save it as a JPEG file. It rewrites it over the older file that you opened. You can NOT save a JPEG file without doing some degree of compression. That degree may be very small at levels 10 – 12, but it will always change the the bits of what you had just edited.
Therefore, opening, editing, saving, editing, saving, editing, saving, editing, saving without doing a Save As into a lossless file format will give you JPEG compression every single time you Save. Photoshop doesn’t know any other way of doing it.

Keep in mind that the level of destruction is a debate that flairs up here many times. It may or may not compress it to a point that destroys the image. It will depend greatly on how much and what kind of editing you do AND the level of JPEG compression that you use. Some of this can be accumulative and really screw up your picture. Some of it may never been seen by the human eye and may not matter. The problem is that you don’t and can’t know when you are saving as JPEG over and over. Once you do know, it will be too late.

The file in memory has no compression applied to it. When a JPEG is opened the file is decompressed into individual pixels. Whenever the file is saved, a copy of the pixels is compressed and written to the disk. The actual pixels in memory are not changed.

Degradation only happens when the file is opened again because that is the only point that the compressed pixels are accessed.

This is not hard to test:

1) Load a file. Any file will do but a small one will be better.
2) look carefully for compression artefacts. If it already has
visible artefacts, it’s not a good file for this test.
3) Save the file as Test1.jpg To accentuate any error choose a high compression (low quality), say level 3.
4) Save again as Test2.jpg Use the same compression as the first file.
5) Grab a brush and paint something (anything) in one corner.
6) Save the file (Ctrl+S)
7) Paint in the same corner again. This is necessary to make PS recognise a change so it will save. Keep all painting in the same corner.
8) Repeat steps 6 and 7 as many times as you like.
9) Close the file.
10) Open Test1.jpg and Test2.jpg.

On examination, you will notice that apart from near the area you were painting, the 2 files are close to identical.

-Mike

DD wrote:

This Greg, is something important you’re saying here.
It seems to be an open question whether moving JPG’s
from one file to another and one drive to another, do cause lost. This is what I’ve been told. What about renaming a pic?
I am not sure whether everybody agree’s here.

No. Any copy you make *at the file system level* is an
exact binary copy of the original. There is no added
degradation. The degradation happens when a JPEG file
is opened and resaved.

-Mike

Clyde wrote:

assuming working with a jpeg – if as you do a bunch of editing & you save the file along the way, doesnt each Save cause you to lose data/quality? In which case it’d be better to convert (Save As) a tif right off the top ?

Yes, that’s the point everyone is trying to make…. Do whatever you want, but never resave a JPEG as a JPEG. The first save you make after editing a JPEG needs to be in a lossless file format. PSD, TIFF, JPEG2000, PNG, or any other lossless format will work just fine.

This is what makes me think there is a communication problem. There is nothing wrong with your sentence above but it is incorrect when applied to Franks question.

If it isn’t a communication problem, try the test I gave in my other reply to you.

-Mike

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 08:12:23 +1000, "Mike Warren" wrote:

DD wrote:

This Greg, is something important you’re saying here.
It seems to be an open question whether moving JPG’s
from one file to another and one drive to another, do cause lost. This is what I’ve been told. What about renaming a pic?
I am not sure whether everybody agree’s here.

No. Any copy you make *at the file system level* is an
exact binary copy of the original. There is no added
degradation. The degradation happens when a JPEG file
is opened and resaved.

-Mike

So Mike, just viewieng a jpeg is degrading it?
Opening the file, running through the pics to see what to write to CD, before you resave it on CD, is degrading it? Otherwise you better be sure by reading the description without opening it?

Because if I understand you right, resaving cause no damage unless you first viewed it. At least, viewing it is opening it.

Dave

DD wrote:

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 08:12:23 +1000, "Mike Warren" wrote:

DD wrote:

This Greg, is something important you’re saying here.
It seems to be an open question whether moving JPG’s
from one file to another and one drive to another, do cause lost. This is what I’ve been told. What about renaming a pic?
I am not sure whether everybody agree’s here.

No. Any copy you make *at the file system level* is an
exact binary copy of the original. There is no added
degradation. The degradation happens when a JPEG file
is opened and resaved.

-Mike

So Mike, just viewieng a jpeg is degrading it?
Opening the file, running through the pics to see what to write to CD, before you resave it on CD, is degrading it? Otherwise you better be sure by reading the description without opening it?

You must do 2 things to cause a recompression (and quality loss).
1) Open the file to view it. This decompresses the file.
2) Save the file. This recompresses it.

Just closing the file after viewing doesn’t change the file at all.

If you open a JPEG file and then "Save As" to another location then you are degrading it. If you just copy the file to another location using a file manager, no quality loss occurs.

Because if I understand you right, resaving cause no damage unless you first viewed it. At least, viewing it is opening it.

Degradation happens whenever a format change occurs if either the starting format or destination format are compressed regardless of whether in memory or file.

-Mike

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 22:35:42 +0200, DD found these
unused words floating about:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:11:17 -0700, J. A. Mc.
wrote:

"agree’s" … what belongs to ‘agree’?

Dave

thanks JAM, what you said is complete in line with what Mikes said. Referring to your last sentence, I do think I can make myself quite clear in English, but I have got no clue what you are referring to here. Maybe you should shed light?

The apostrophe is used for contractions (it’s => it is) or possession (Mike’s book => a book belonging to Mike).

It is not used in pluralization.
It is never used in 2nd part verbs. I agree, he agrees, they agree.

Nothing serious, just a light bit of salt on yer tail. <G>

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 22:41:45 +0200, DD found these
unused words floating about:

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:31:35 -0400, howldog
wrote:

This Greg, is something important you’re saying here.
It seems to be an open question whether moving JPG’s
from one file to another and one drive to another, do cause lost. This is what I’ve been told. What about renaming a pic?
I am not sure whether everybody agree’s here.

only SAVING it causes data loss, because each time you save a file as a JPG, it undergoes compression.

Opening the file and then closing it without saving it, doesnt change it either.

If I am in error, I’d be surprised, as i’ve been practicing this workflow with jpgs for years and noticed no loss in quality except when continually saving the same file as jpg over and over.

see, there we are at it again. Read what I asked and what you said. Remember, to move a pic to another file or drive, or even renaming it, is RESAVING it.

ONLY if that is done from -within- a program that has OPENED the image.

IF it is done with (say) Windoze’s File Mangler, it is a bit for bit transfer and NO ‘resaving’ or recompression is done.

Renaming in File Mangler is an alteration of the FAT, nothing is done to the file, PERIOD!

Mike said ‘opening it’ read unzip and resave do damage
but not simply resaving it, like in moving it.

Perhaps if you used ‘transfer’ rather than ‘resave’. To most ‘resave’ means converting the bitmap (opened image) into a file format. ‘Transfer’ is simply a copy, in a different location and is a bit for bit, undisturbing of the file contents application.

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 08:49:47 +1000, "Mike Warren" wrote:

DD wrote:

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 08:12:23 +1000, "Mike Warren" wrote:

DD wrote:

This Greg, is something important you’re saying here.
It seems to be an open question whether moving JPG’s
from one file to another and one drive to another, do cause lost. This is what I’ve been told. What about renaming a pic?
I am not sure whether everybody agree’s here.

No. Any copy you make *at the file system level* is an
exact binary copy of the original. There is no added
degradation. The degradation happens when a JPEG file
is opened and resaved.

-Mike

So Mike, just viewieng a jpeg is degrading it?
Opening the file, running through the pics to see what to write to CD, before you resave it on CD, is degrading it? Otherwise you better be sure by reading the description without opening it?

You must do 2 things to cause a recompression (and quality loss).
1) Open the file to view it. This decompresses the file.
2) Save the file. This recompresses it.

Just closing the file after viewing doesn’t change the file at all.
If you open a JPEG file and then "Save As" to another location then you are degrading it. If you just copy the file to another location using a file manager, no quality loss occurs.

Because if I understand you right, resaving cause no damage unless you first viewed it. At least, viewing it is opening it.

Degradation happens whenever a format change occurs if either the starting format or destination format are compressed regardless of whether in memory or file.

-Mike

Thanx for making it clear.
I am alway saving in PSD
but what we discussed here, was important to know. It is a relieve to know I can rename jpg’s without losing quality.

1:15 am. See you’s in the evening. It’s already the 2nd here:-)

Here is something I’m working in PSD on – still batling to get the sand colour the way I want it:-)
http://home.intekom.com/davesplace/sunrise/seagull.jpg

Thanks again; talk again later.

Dave

J. A. Mc. wrote:

IIRC … there are some programs (and PS may have the switch option) that re-open a file after saving. IF that occurs, then a degredation will take place.

I seem to remember a setting for that but I just looked and can’t find it in PS CS2. I hope it isn’t still there.

-Mike

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 01:15:41 +0200, DD wrote:

Here is something I’m working in PSD on – still batling to get the sand colour the way I want it:-)
http://home.intekom.com/davesplace/sunrise/seagull.jpg

Thanks again; talk again later.

What colour do you want the sand?

And that seagull…did you mean it to look as if someone is holding a taxidermists model off camera? 😉

Sorry, but it’s just incredibly unnatural – for a start, the lighting is all wrong. It’s a nice idea though. 🙂

(I used to do things like that <g>).

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 23:22:18 GMT, "OcTavO"

Someone once told me that JPG set on 12 is actually lossless, though I haven’t tested this and I’m not sure I believe them… can anyone verify?

There is no such thing as a lossless jpg file.

Thought as much.

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:08:49 +0200, DD wrote:

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 02:29:33 +0200, "Greg N." wrote:

tacit wrote:

assuming working with a jpeg – if as you do a bunch of editing & you save the file along the way, doesnt each Save cause you to lose data/quality?

Yes.

No.

you can save it a thousand times in one session, it will always be the same quality.

It’s when you re-open a jpeg and save it again where you lose quality.

This Greg, is something important you’re saying here.
It seems to be an open question whether moving JPG’s
from one file to another and one drive to another, do cause lost. This is what I’ve been told. What about renaming a pic?
I am not sure whether everybody agree’s here.

wot? no, moving it or renaming it doesnt change the data inside the file itself.

only SAVING it causes data loss, because each time you save a file as a JPG, it undergoes compression.

Opening the file and then closing it without saving it, doesnt change it either.

If I am in error, I’d be surprised, as i’ve been practicing this workflow with jpgs for years and noticed no loss in quality except when continually saving the same file as jpg over and over.

Mike Warren wrote:

Clyde wrote:

No it isn’t just a communication problem. I believe that you are wrong. However, I’m not the greatest expert on this.

When you execute the Save command in Photoshop, it saves the current state of the open file to a file on disk. It does that the same every time you save. It makes no difference whether you keep working or not. Photoshop has no concept of a "session". That is just your human time being projected.

So if you open a JPEG file, edit it, and just do Save, it will compress the file and save it as a JPEG file. It rewrites it over the older file that you opened. You can NOT save a JPEG file without doing some degree of compression. That degree may be very small at levels 10 – 12, but it will always change the the bits of what you had just edited.
Therefore, opening, editing, saving, editing, saving, editing, saving, editing, saving without doing a Save As into a lossless file format will give you JPEG compression every single time you Save. Photoshop doesn’t know any other way of doing it.

Keep in mind that the level of destruction is a debate that flairs up here many times. It may or may not compress it to a point that destroys the image. It will depend greatly on how much and what kind of editing you do AND the level of JPEG compression that you use. Some of this can be accumulative and really screw up your picture. Some of it may never been seen by the human eye and may not matter. The problem is that you don’t and can’t know when you are saving as JPEG over and over. Once you do know, it will be too late.

The file in memory has no compression applied to it. When a JPEG is opened the file is decompressed into individual pixels. Whenever the file is saved, a copy of the pixels is compressed and written to the disk. The actual pixels in memory are not changed.

Degradation only happens when the file is opened again because that is the only point that the compressed pixels are accessed.
This is not hard to test:

1) Load a file. Any file will do but a small one will be better.
2) look carefully for compression artefacts. If it already has
visible artefacts, it’s not a good file for this test.
3) Save the file as Test1.jpg To accentuate any error choose a high compression (low quality), say level 3.
4) Save again as Test2.jpg Use the same compression as the first file.
5) Grab a brush and paint something (anything) in one corner.
6) Save the file (Ctrl+S)
7) Paint in the same corner again. This is necessary to make PS recognise a change so it will save. Keep all painting in the same corner.
8) Repeat steps 6 and 7 as many times as you like.
9) Close the file.
10) Open Test1.jpg and Test2.jpg.

On examination, you will notice that apart from near the area you were painting, the 2 files are close to identical.

-Mike

That would be true if you opened a JPEG file and saved it without any editing. But who does that?

If you open a JPEG file Photoshop uses just as much memory as if it was a TIFF or PSD. However, Photoshop does not restore any of the data that was lost during the original save. So, the number of colors is reduced.

If you save the JPEG file without editing using exactly the same settings as it was originally save with, it shouldn’t change anything. One of the big problems is that it’s almost impossible to save with the same settings. One reason is that you don’t know what compression level was used the first time. Another reason is that it was probably compressed with a slightly different method. I’m sure my Canon camera, Minolta camera and Photoshop all use slight different algorithms to compress JPEG files.

If you edit anything in JPEG file that you open, you change all the bits in the file. The more you editing the more you change. You could change some of them or you could change every single bit in the picture. So, when you save that into a JPEG file, it compresses it according to the setting that you choose. Since it doesn’t know that it was a compressed JPEG file before, it can’t compensate for left over JPEG artifacts. Therefore the most recent compression may exacerbate the existing JPEG compression artifacts.

So, except for saving a file with Photoshop and then resaving it unchanged in Photoshop (a useless exercise), resaving JPEG files as JPEG will change the file and its artifacts.

Once again, that may or may not be damaging to the picture, but you may not know until its too late.

Clyde

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 02:01:33 +0100, Hecate wrote:

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 01:15:41 +0200, DD wrote:

Here is something I’m working in PSD on – still batling to get the sand colour the way I want it:-)
http://home.intekom.com/davesplace/sunrise/seagull.jpg

Thanks again; talk again later.

What colour do you want the sand?

And that seagull…did you mean it to look as if someone is holding a taxidermists model off camera? 😉

Sorry, but it’s just incredibly unnatural – for a start, the lighting is all wrong. It’s a nice idea though. 🙂

(I used to do things like that <g>).

—

Hecate – The Real One

Don’t say sorry; of course I know it:-)
And what a surprise, the printer did not noticed it, while it is sò obvious. I had it printed in A4, and his question was only ‘where I’ve taken the photo’.
I have taken the seagull photo a few days back a few hundred yards from there;on the Waterfront and in the afternoon. Already tried to fill the body with shadow further, but it did worked out well. The answer will thus be to move it to a picture where it is not so obvious where the sun is shining from.

What colour do you want the sand?

Maybe closer to the sand in:
http://finepix.95mb.com/sunrise/slides/DSCF7880b.html

At least there’s a hint of a compliment (‘nice idea though’:-)))

Dave

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:11:17 -0700, J. A. Mc.
wrote:

"agree’s" … what belongs to ‘agree’?

Dave

thanks JAM, what you said is complete in line with what Mikes said. Referring to your last sentence, I do think I can make myself quite clear in English, but I have got no clue what you are referring to here. Maybe you should shed light?

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:31:35 -0400, howldog
wrote:

This Greg, is something important you’re saying here.
It seems to be an open question whether moving JPG’s
from one file to another and one drive to another, do cause lost. This is what I’ve been told. What about renaming a pic?
I am not sure whether everybody agree’s here.

only SAVING it causes data loss, because each time you save a file as a JPG, it undergoes compression.

Opening the file and then closing it without saving it, doesnt change it either.

If I am in error, I’d be surprised, as i’ve been practicing this workflow with jpgs for years and noticed no loss in quality except when continually saving the same file as jpg over and over.

see, there we are at it again. Read what I asked and what you said. Remember, to move a pic to another file or drive, or even renaming it, is RESAVING it. Mike said ‘opening it’ read unzip and resave do damage but not simply resaving it, like in moving it.

. Already tried to
fill the body with shadow further, but it did worked out well. The answer will thus be to move it

read: it did not work out well.
Dave

Hi Clyde,

I have a very good understanding of how this all works but I can’t follow this answer of yours or how it relates to the original question. I should reiterate here: It makes no sense to save an edited file as a JPEG when there is *any* chance you may need to work on it again. Space isn’t at that much of a premium on modern computers.

That would be true if you opened a JPEG file and saved it without any editing. But who does that?

I don’t understand what this sentence relates to.

If you open a JPEG file Photoshop uses just as much memory as if it was a TIFF or PSD.

Correct. The file *must* be decompressed in order to work on it.

However, Photoshop does not restore any of the data that was lost during the original save.

Also correct.

So, the number of colors is reduced.

The number of colours does not change. Compression artefacts are a side effect of the 8 x 8 pixel blocks the JPEG compression uses.

If you save the JPEG file without editing using exactly the same settings as it was originally save with, it shouldn’t change anything.

If you open a JPEG and then "Save As" another JPEG without editing the picture is definitely degraded. "Save" is not possible in Photoshop until a change has been made to the picture. Even if a straight save over the top of an unedited file was allowed, degradation would still occur. (Once in a session.)

One of the big problems is that it’s almost impossible to save with the same settings. One reason is that you don’t know what compression level was used the first time. Another reason is that it was probably compressed with a slightly different method. I’m sure my Canon camera, Minolta camera and Photoshop all use slight different algorithms to compress JPEG files.

See above.

If you edit anything in JPEG file that you open, you change all the bits in the file.

Once a file is opened it is no longer a JPEG. All files, regardless of disk format are bitmaps while in memory.

The more you editing the more you change. You could
change some of them or you could change every single bit in the picture. So, when you save that into a JPEG file, it compresses it according to the setting that you choose. Since it doesn’t know that it was a compressed JPEG file before, it can’t compensate for left over JPEG artefacts. Therefore the most recent compression may exacerbate the existing JPEG compression artefacts.

Correct. I don’t, however, see the relevance to the discussion.

So, except for saving a file with Photoshop and then resaving it unchanged in Photoshop (a useless exercise), resaving JPEG files as JPEG will change the file and its artefacts.

My confusion now (and the reason why I think we are having a communication problem) is: Everything up until now has had nothing to do with what we were discussing. Namely, "does saving a file as a JPEG multiple times while working on it compound the degradation?" The answer is: No, it doesn’t, as long as the file is not reopened.

Once again, that may or may not be damaging to the picture, but you may not know until its too late.

This is the crux of the matter (but not what we were discussing). JPEG is not a suitable format for editing. JPEG is useful as an output format only. The confusion arises because camera manufacturers have chosen to use JPEG to increase the number of pictures that can be held on a memory card and to speed up writing to the card.

-Mike

DD wrote:

see, there we are at it again. Read what I asked and what you said. Remember, to move a pic to another file or drive, or even renaming it, is RESAVING it. Mike said ‘opening it’ read unzip and resave do damage but not simply resaving it, like in moving it.

Dave,

I guess English is not your native language? I have enough trouble with it and English is the only language I know. 🙂

I have never heard anyone use the term "Saving" to refer to copying or renaming a file.

Saving is writing the data in memory (photo editor, word processor etc.) to a disk and is accomplished by using a button or menu called "Save" or "Save As…".

I am however, confident that you do understand the meaning of what I said.

-Mike

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 08:16:29 +1000, "Mike Warren" wrote:

If you open a JPEG and then "Save As" another JPEG without editing the picture is definitely degraded. "Save" is not possible in Photoshop until a change has been made to the picture. Even if a straight save over the top of an unedited file was allowed, degradation would still occur. (Once in a session.)

Hi Mike,

There is a Gotcha, though. You open a jpg, make a selection, undo the selection and as far as PS is concerned you made a change so *can* save it. At least that’s how it was. I haven’t tried it in CS and I haven’t in CS 2 either which I’ve just loaded on without using at the moment (except to find out that Bridge was slower than a snail with arthritis.).

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 22:25:26 +0200, DD wrote:

Don’t say sorry; of course I know it:-)

I posted it and a couple of hours afterwards I thought, omigod that sounded horrible and I didn’t mean to be 🙂

And what a surprise, the printer did not noticed it, while it is sò obvious. I had it printed in A4, and his question was only ‘where I’ve taken the photo’.

LOL!

<snip>

What colour do you want the sand?

Maybe closer to the sand in:
http://finepix.95mb.com/sunrise/slides/DSCF7880b.html

At least there’s a hint of a compliment (‘nice idea though’:-)))

Well, it was <g>

As to the sand, a couple of things. One is that that colour would look a bit unnatural with the scene you have in that it’d be way too light. The second is, have you tried selecting it and using colour range?

Oh, and a third, you might want to consider using the colour but waking it quite a lot darker and see if that’s any better. But remember, in the scene you have it’s the shading that’s making it dark gray. The French have a saying:

"Dans la nuit, touts les chats est gris" (In the night all cats are gray) and that’s the same reason you have the dark gray beach.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate wrote:

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 08:16:29 +1000, "Mike Warren" wrote:

If you open a JPEG and then "Save As" another JPEG without editing the picture is definitely degraded. "Save" is not possible in Photoshop until a change has been made to the picture. Even if a straight save over the top of an unedited file was allowed, degradation would still occur. (Once in a session.)

Hi Mike,

There is a Gotcha, though. You open a jpg, make a selection, undo the selection and as far as PS is concerned you made a change so *can* save it. At least that’s how it was. I haven’t tried it in CS and I haven’t in CS 2 either which I’ve just loaded on without using at the moment (except to find out that Bridge was slower than a snail with arthritis.).

LOL. We seem to be getting off the track again.

Yes, it is possible to trick PS (Even CS2).

-Mike

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 15:53:28 -0700, J. A. Mc.
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 22:35:42 +0200, DD found these
unused words floating about:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:11:17 -0700, J. A. Mc.
wrote:

"agree’s" … what belongs to ‘agree’?

Dave

thanks JAM, what you said is complete in line with what Mikes said. Referring to your last sentence, I do think I can make myself quite clear in English, but I have got no clue what you are referring to here. Maybe you should shed light?

The apostrophe is used for contractions (it’s => it is) or possession (Mike’s book => a book belonging to Mike).

It is not used in pluralization.
It is never used in 2nd part verbs. I agree, he agrees, they agree.
Nothing serious, just a light bit of salt on yer tail. <G>

thanks for this explanation – it’s saved (up here:-)

Dave

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 09:14:18 +1000, "Mike Warren" wrote:

DD wrote:

see, there we are at it again. Read what I asked and what you said. Remember, to move a pic to another file or drive, or even renaming it, is RESAVING it. Mike said ‘opening it’ read unzip and resave do damage but not simply resaving it, like in moving it.

Dave,

I guess English is not your native language? I have enough trouble with it and English is the only language I know. 🙂

LOL – it serves as a compliment that you are not sure;
I like the way you’re saying it. On a NG in my own language which is Afrikaans, there is permanently hassles about grammar. I am also member on a Netherlands group, and you should hear the fights about grammar over there.

I have never heard anyone use the term "Saving" to refer to copying or renaming a file.

So didn’t I – but it is simple logic that copying is saving somewhere else. What else is it? And we discussed saving.

Saving is writing the data in memory (photo editor, word processor etc.) to a disk and is accomplished by using a button or menu called "Save" or "Save As…".

I am using Total Commander (formerly Windows Commander)
It is a very important part of my setup.

My first computer was a 286 – in 1990 – Windows was new. 286 was top of the range. There was still people using XTs:-) Then I bought a 386 with Windows 3.1! And later a 486 without selling any of the other. That was the time when condoms was sold and plastic bags was free.

I am however, confident that you do understand the meaning of what I said.

I do Mike, and thanks. I should explain that I am only working on photos seriously, relatively new. Earlier years I simply buggered around with HTML, Java Scripting as well as always also having a notebook in my office for the sake of spread sheet facility. JPG’s? Ja’a… but simply on HotDog & Dreamweaver type programs. And I was over the years aware of the differences in ideas of what we discussed now, but never really worried about it, until now when my interests changed, and it became important.

Thanks for your contributions as well as JM, Hecate and the rest.

Dave

Hecate, when realising how nasty she really is, said:

that sounded horrible and I didn’t mean to be 🙂

As to the sand, a couple of things. One is that that colour would look a bit unnatural with the scene you have in that it’d be way too light. The second is, have you tried selecting it and using colour range?
Oh, and a third, you might want to consider using the colour but waking it quite a lot darker and see if that’s any better. But remember, in the scene you have it’s the shading that’s making it dark gray. The French have a saying:

"Dans la nuit, touts les chats est gris" (In the night all cats are gray) and that’s the same reason you have the dark gray beach.
—

Hecate – The Real One

"Dans la nuit, touts les chats est gris" Shucks! That sounds like a useable saying in South Africa:-) Specially in French so everybody don’t know what you are muttering:-)

(and do not ask – there is no change at all that I would explain myself this time!)

…. and you’re right you horrible woman – that gull can not be in the same photo, and the sand should be ‘gris’:-)))

Talk later in the evening to you

Dave

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 09:33:01 +0200, DD found these
unused words floating about:

Hecate (with that I_know_smile) wrote:

Ah, so you’d be the Boer at parties? 😉

that’s me:-)

the Boer

Ve vill see !

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 15:24:43 +0200, DD wrote:

… and you’re right you horrible woman – that gull can not be in the same photo, and the sand should be ‘gris’:-)))

LOL!

Talk later in the evening to you

K,

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 15:11:42 +0200, DD wrote:

I guess English is not your native language? I have enough trouble with it and English is the only language I know. 🙂

LOL – it serves as a compliment that you are not sure;
I like the way you’re saying it. On a NG in my own language which is Afrikaans, there is permanently hassles about grammar. I am also member on a Netherlands group, and you should hear the fights about grammar over there.

Ah, so you’d be the Boer at parties? 😉

I do Mike, and thanks. I should explain that I am only working on photos seriously, relatively new. Earlier years I simply buggered around with HTML, Java Scripting as well as always also having a notebook in my office for the sake of spread sheet facility. JPG’s? Ja’a… but simply on HotDog & Dreamweaver type programs. And I was over the years aware of the differences in ideas of what we discussed now, but never really worried about it, until now when my interests changed, and it became important.

Thanks for your contributions as well as JM, Hecate and the rest.

We do try. In fact we’re all very trying… 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate (with that I_know_smile) wrote:

Ah, so you’d be the Boer at parties? 😉

that’s me:-)

the Boer

Why are you a Dutchman in South Africa at parties? (Sorry if I’m being boring!)

Hecate (with that I_know_smile) wrote:

Ah, so you’d be the Boer at parties? 😉

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 11:28:23 +0100, BigBrum
wrote:

Why are you a Dutchman in South Africa at parties? (Sorry if I’m being boring!)

Hecate (with that I_know_smile) wrote:

Ah, so you’d be the Boer at parties? 😉

you are not boring at all.
Why do you think the meaning of ‘Boer’ is ‘Dutcman’?
A Boer is a Boer – the brave historian people that went over the Drakenberge (mountains) with oxwagons.

Talking about Dutchman – quite clever and up to date with writing skills. On the Dutch NG’s most of then do not even top post.

Dave the Boer

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 09:20:00 -0700, J. A. Mc.
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 09:33:01 +0200, DD found these
unused words floating about:

Hecate (with that I_know_smile) wrote:

Ah, so you’d be the Boer at parties? 😉

that’s me:-)

the Boer

Ve vill see !

jòé vill see, like u said
but ve, ve vil smail

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 11:28:23 +0100, BigBrum
wrote:

Why are you a Dutchman in South Africa at parties? (Sorry if I’m being boring!)

If he’s from the Netherlands, I’m a Dutchman.

A Boer is a member of the voortrekking classes, the first, originally Dutch, settlers in the Cape in South Africa. Since then, they’ve become South Africans in much the same way as all our ex-convicts became Australians (except for the ones that became Americans) – the difference being they wanted to be there.

There, that should have offended almost everyone … 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate wrote:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 11:28:23 +0100, BigBrum
wrote:

Why are you a Dutchman in South Africa at parties? (Sorry if I’m being boring!)

If he’s from the Netherlands, I’m a Dutchman.

A Boer is a member of the voortrekking classes, the first, originally Dutch, settlers in the Cape in South Africa. Since then, they’ve become South Africans in much the same way as all our ex-convicts became Australians (except for the ones that became Americans) – the difference being they wanted to be there.

There, that should have offended almost everyone … 😉

Yep 😉

-Mike
(Australia)

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 22:42:33 +0100, Hecate wrote:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 11:28:23 +0100, BigBrum
wrote:

Why are you a Dutchman in South Africa at parties? (Sorry if I’m being boring!)

If he’s from the Netherlands, I’m a Dutchman.

A Boer is a member of the voortrekking classes, the first, originally Dutch, settlers in the Cape in South Africa. Since then, they’ve become South Africans in much the same way as all our ex-convicts became Australians (except for the ones that became Americans) – the difference being they wanted to be there.

There, that should have offended almost everyone … 😉
—

Hecate – The Real One

Thanx for this explanation to BigBrum, Hecate.
And to follow up:

That was followed by a large scale emigration of French Huguenots to the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa during 1688 – 1689. However, even before this large scale emigration individual Huguenots such as François Villion (1671) and the brothers François and Guillaume du Toit (1686) fled to the Cape of Good Hope. In 1692 a total of 201 French Huguenots had settled at the Cape of Good Hope.
They are my ancestors and many of us still bear our original French names. I do.

At least 250 000 French Huguenots fled to countries such as Switzerland, Germany, England, America, the Netherlands, Poland and South Africa, where they could enjoy religious freedom.
http://www.cyndislist.com/huguenot.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/8140/hist-hug.htm

Dave

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:31:27 +0200, DD wrote:

Thanx for this explanation to BigBrum, Hecate.
And to follow up:

That was followed by a large scale emigration of French Huguenots to the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa during 1688 – 1689. However, even before this large scale emigration individual Huguenots such as François Villion (1671) and the brothers François and Guillaume du Toit (1686) fled to the Cape of Good Hope. In 1692 a total of 201 French Huguenots had settled at the Cape of Good Hope.
They are my ancestors and many of us still bear our original French names. I do.

At least 250 000 French Huguenots fled to countries such as Switzerland, Germany, England, America, the Netherlands, Poland and South Africa, where they could enjoy religious freedom.
http://www.cyndislist.com/huguenot.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/8140/hist-hug.htm

And my partner’s descended from French Huguenots how settled in Nottinghamshire 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:31:27 +0200, DD wrote:

Thanx for this explanation to BigBrum, Hecate.
And to follow up:

That was followed by a large scale emigration of French Huguenots to the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa during 1688 – 1689. However, even before this large scale emigration individual Huguenots such as Fran