Saving Jpeg as original size / quality ??

Right click the file and look at the details tab.

I find that unless you have changed the image size when editing, if you save the image in high quality it retains the original size, resolution, etc. ——-
*Report back, please*
[When responding to posts, please include the post(s) you are replying to so that others may learn and benefit from the issue]

[How to ask a question]
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

"steve" wrote in message

When I make a change to a jpeg I want to save the file in the same size as was the original. However when I save the jpeg It gives me the option of low, medium, high or maximum size. Is there an option to just save it in the same size or resolution or what ever as the original. I just want to edit the picture and save it as the same quality as I got it. But frankly I have no idea what the orignal was to begin with. I just want to save it as the same.

How can I do this or at least even figure out what quality the original is and then choose the same quality, low, medium etc.
By the way I have PE 5.

thanks.

"steve" wrote in message

When I make a change to a jpeg I want to save the file in the same size as was the original. However when I save the jpeg It gives me the option of low, medium, high or maximum size. Is there an option to just save it in the same size or resolution or what ever as the original. I just want to edit the picture and save it as the same quality as I got it. But frankly I have no idea what the orignal was to begin with. I just want to save it as the same.

How can I do this or at least even figure out what quality the original is and then choose the same quality, low, medium etc.
By the way I have PE 5.

thanks.

Hi.

It really is quite simple.

When you get to the dialogue box with the quality slider, towards the bottom left, there is an indication of the compressed size.

This is shown as xxx"k" @ yy "s". K is size and s is seconds, which applies to internet transmission times.

I believe that these figures can not be exact, because each image will compress differently, depending upon the amount of detail in it.

You should, of course, be aware that every time a Jpeg is saved it will be freshly compressed.

Each time this happens additional damage is done to its data.

The greater the degree of compression the greater the amount of damage, and the damage can be very obvious after a surprisingly low number of saves.

I suspect, each time you save, you are being given the option to minimise this damage by choosing a higher quality.
Doing so will not undo the damage already done to the image, but it will reduce the amount of new damage.

Storage space is so cheap nowadays, that there is almost no need to keep images in a heavily compressed form, except for internet transmission.

Roy G

Perhaps I’m thinking too much about and don’t understand it.

To the first answer, while I agree saving as High quality may give you good results, which may be all I need, its seems unfortunate that the software cannot detect what quality the picture is and give you the option of just saving it in the same quality. e.g. a setting that says original quality. Perhaps you cant do this because ultimately the software does not know or understand the quality of the picture file.

As to the second comment regarding the size of the picture and the time to download it. This does tell me the size of the picture which is generally an indicator of quality, but not always. While size of file may indicate quality to some degree. Its not perfect. Say for example you take a low picture and save it as high. I think the file will be big but it will not be a high "quality" picture. You cant make a silk purse out of a sows ear. You can degrade pictures, (which is what happens when ever you save a jpg.) but I dont believe you can make it better once you have degraded it.

It seems for what ever complex reason you just cannot save the picture as the original, like you can with say a nef or raw file.

The two suggestions given are good but they dont completely answer the question on saving just as the quality it was given in

I’m open to any other rebuttal’s or other comments to the contrary.

Regards
Steve

"steve" wrote in message

Perhaps I’m thinking too much about and don’t understand it.
To the first answer, while I agree saving as High quality may give you good results, which may be all I need, its seems unfortunate that the software cannot detect what quality the picture is and give you the option of just saving it in the same quality. e.g. a setting that says original quality. Perhaps you cant do this because ultimately the software does not know or understand the quality of the picture file.
As to the second comment regarding the size of the picture and the time to download it. This does tell me the size of the picture which is generally an indicator of quality, but not always. While size of file may indicate quality to some degree. Its not perfect. Say for example you take a low picture and save it as high. I think the file will be big but it will not be a high "quality" picture. You cant make a silk purse out of a sows ear. You can degrade pictures, (which is what happens when ever you save a jpg.) but I dont believe you can make it better once you have degraded it.

It seems for what ever complex reason you just cannot save the picture as the original, like you can with say a nef or raw file.
The two suggestions given are good but they dont completely answer the question on saving just as the quality it was given in

I’m open to any other rebuttal’s or other comments to the contrary.
Regards
Steve

Hi.

When I said "size" in my reply, I was meaning file size after saving and closing the image. (That is when it only shows as a File Icon).

I was not meaning the pixel count or resolution of an image, which is visible as an image in PSor any other viewer.

If you receive a Jpeg file which has a file size of 200K, it will have a much larger Pixel Count once opened in PS.

To apply the same amount of compression (quality level) when saving, just watch that Size indicator in the Quality Dialogue Box, as you move the quality slider, and when it reaches 200K then you will have roughly the same amount of compression as the original.

The difference between Jpegs and Tiffs is the corruption of the data which happens every time you save. It is drectly related to the amount of compression applied by each individual save, and is always an addition to the amounts of corruption caused by earlier saves, (even if they were at the same quality level).

Roy G

"Roy G" wrote in message

"steve" wrote in message

I have now re-read my last answer, and there is one very important point I should have made, but did not.

The use of the word "Quality" is not really appropriate, when discussing Saving as Jpeg.

The word "Compression" should be used, as that is what is actually being done to the image.

The more Compression the lower the image quality, but even when set to the highest number for the least amount of compression, and the biggest file size, a considerable amount of compression is still being applied.

When an image is compressed during a save, the data is damaged, and the damage will be increased each time it is saved and compressed, even if a lesser amount of compression is being applied.

Roy G

"Roy G" wrote in message

"Roy G" wrote in message

"steve" wrote in message

I have now re-read my last answer, and there is one very important point I should have made, but did not.

The use of the word "Quality" is not really appropriate, when discussing Saving as Jpeg.

The word "Compression" should be used, as that is what is actually being done to the image.

The more Compression the lower the image quality, but even when set to the highest number for the least amount of
compression, and the biggest file size, a considerable amount of compression is still being applied.

When an image is compressed during a save, the data is
damaged, and the damage will be increased each time it is saved and compressed, even if a lesser amount of compression is being applied.

I understand that any saving as a jpeg leads to redoing the compression process and almost certainly will degrade the image. I stopped buying updates of elements at version 4; does the latest version, whatever it is, allow uncompressed or raw images?

—
Jim Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

"James Silverton" wrote in message

"Roy G" wrote in message

"Roy G" wrote in message

"steve" wrote in message

I understand that any saving as a jpeg leads to redoing the compression process and almost certainly will degrade the image. I stopped buying updates of elements at version 4; does the latest version, whatever it is, allow uncompressed or raw images?

—
Jim Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Hi.

I also only have version 4, but I believe that that the latest one can handle RAWs using Plug Ins.

All versions allow working with uncompressed file types such as Tiff and Psd, although there is a lossless compression available for Tiff.

Roy G

I wondered if anyone was ever going to mention NON lossy formats like Tiffs.

JPG is a lossy format. You will use lose quality anytime you save with jpg. That’s the price for jpg compression.

A good habit to get in is always do your work in a NON lossy format, such as tif, then when you’re finished and need compression, save at a high setting in jpg.

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 01:20:02 GMT, "Roy G"
wrote:

"James Silverton" wrote in message

"Roy G" wrote in message

"Roy G" wrote in message

"steve" wrote in message

I understand that any saving as a jpeg leads to redoing the compression process and almost certainly will degrade the image. I stopped buying updates of elements at version 4; does the latest version, whatever it is, allow uncompressed or raw images?

—
Jim Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Hi.

I also only have version 4, but I believe that that the latest one can handle RAWs using Plug Ins.

All versions allow working with uncompressed file types such as Tiff and Psd, although there is a lossless compression available for Tiff.
Roy G

"jACK" wrote in message

I wondered if anyone was ever going to mention NON lossy formats like Tiffs.

JPG is a lossy format. You will use lose quality anytime you save with jpg. That’s the price for jpg compression.

A good habit to get in is always do your work in a NON lossy format, such as tif, then when you’re finished and need compression, save at a high setting in jpg.

Hi,

That is correct Jack.

A lot of people only ever work in Jpeg, and do so only because that is what their cameras save the pics as.

They don’t seem to understand about the artefacts being created, and the number of saves needed to produce them.

As I said the use of the word "Quality" in relation to Jpeg compression levels is incorrect, they should really be using "Quality Reduction".

A lot of people don’t know, or don’t care, enough to use non-lossy file types.

Also loads of people use their original file to do editing upon, instead of keeping that original as an "Archive" and doing the editing upon a copy.

We can advise them, (there is an old saying about horses and water), but at the end of the day it is not my stuff, or yours, they are ruining.

Roy G

In article <f1zHj.1682$>,
"James Silverton" wrote:

I understand that any saving as a jpeg leads to redoing the compression process and almost certainly will degrade the image. I stopped buying updates of elements at version 4; does the latest version, whatever it is, allow uncompressed or raw images?

What’s wrong with TIFF’s or PNG’s? Then when you want a smaller file, save as jpg.

Roy wrote on Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:48:11 GMT:

RG> "jACK" wrote in message
RG> ??>>
??>> I wondered if anyone was ever going to mention NON lossy ??>> formats like Tiffs.
??>>
??>> JPG is a lossy format. You will use lose quality anytime ??>> you save with jpg. That’s the price for jpg compression. ??>>
??>> A good habit to get in is always do your work in a NON ??>> lossy format, such as tif, then when you’re finished and ??>> need compression, save at a high setting in jpg. ??>>
RG> Hi,

RG> That is correct Jack.

RG> A lot of people only ever work in Jpeg, and do so only RG> because that is what their cameras save the pics as.

RG> They don’t seem to understand about the artefacts being RG> created, and the number of saves needed to produce them.

RG> As I said the use of the word "Quality" in relation to Jpeg RG> compression levels is incorrect, they should really be RG> using "Quality Reduction".

RG> A lot of people don’t know, or don’t care, enough to use RG> non-lossy file types.

RG> Also loads of people use their original file to do editing RG> upon, instead of keeping that original as an "Archive" and RG> doing the editing upon a copy.

RG> We can advise them, (there is an old saying about horses RG> and water), but at the end of the day it is not my stuff, RG> or yours, they are ruining.

At the present time, my camera only produces jpegs. Other types would have to be obtained by scanning. I asked the question because I am thinking of buying a Canon G9 that would allow "raw", tho’ it’s size is just a little off-putting. I bought one for my daughter and son-in-law as a Xmas present and I was very impressed. I am not exactly enough of an "artist" to consider Photoshop itself.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

"James Silverton" wrote in message

Hi.

My wife’s camera only takes Jpegs, so as soon as they are on the computer, I save a Psd copy of any "Keepers" for editing, and keep the original Jpeg as an Archive version.

The trouble with Photoshop is that for any newish camera the Raw Converter Plug In, (ACR), will only made available for the very latest version of PS.

So if you update your Camera, you will almost certainly need to update PS as well, and that can be just a bit too expensive.

At least with Elements the updating costs are much more reasonable.

Not being a Canon user I don’t know which ACR file for which PS or PSE version can convert the G9 RAWS.

Roy G

I thank you all for your contributions to my original post. If I may summarize a few things that I have learned here and through some further reading. In all of editing pictures these are probably the most confusing areas. Perhaps partly due to so many formats and and what the differences are between them.

1. By the way Elements 5 does edit raw images. If I understand what you mean by raw. eg I use a Nikon 70s and it shoots a variety of types of formats one of them is a Nikon proprietary format, the raw format is called a .nef. This is a loss less format if I understand the meaning. You can edit it and change it all you like and you can always go back to the original. Of course the problem with loss less photos (eg tiffs) is the size. Mine are about 6 meg. When you go away and shoot say 6 Gig of pictures Your drive fills up fast.

2. Many professionals do not shoot in raw format. They simply shoot in .jpg There is a very good article on this below. I can personally say that I was at a course on photography and was surprised to hear the instructor say the same thing. Read the articles below I think they really are informative.

http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/digitalphotography/a/raworj peg.htm http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/formatsjpeg/a/jpegmythsfact s.htm

The gist of what it says is shoot jpg medium quality and you will be fine. Raw or Fine Jpg is not really necessary. They have had pictures developed at a photo studio and people cant tell the difference.

3. Always make copies before you change your photos. When ever I take pictures as a jpg I just make two copies on my computer. I store the originals in \Originals then copy those to a folder called edited. That way anything I do I can always pull the original and start from scratch. Of course another method is to save it as a copy when I make changes. eg. Lake_001 becomes Lake_001a or b or c. so I can keep track of the progression of changes. Then just go back and delete the ones you don’t want to save disk space.

4. By the way once a year I go through my pictures (I store them based on year eg 2007 ) and choose the pictures that I know I will not blow up or want accept as a record. eg "Uncle Freds Birthday" and change them to a smaller size. Then copy them to Dvd or CD. for long term storage, in case my computer crashes etc.

5. To repeat based on my reading accept in some circumstances you only really need to shoot and save in medium jpg. Even if you are going to blow them up.

Im sure that this is not the end of the discussion and there are nuances that I have missed.

Regards

Just my thoughts anyway.

steve wrote on Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:17:20 -0700 (PDT):

s> 2. Many professionals do not shoot in raw format. They s> simply shoot in .jpg There is a very good article on this s> below. I can personally say that I was at a course on s> photography and was surprised to hear the instructor say the s> same thing. Read the articles below I think they really are s> informative.

s>
http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/digitalphotography/a/raworj peg.htm s>
http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/formatsjpeg/a/jpegmythsfact s.htm

Thanks, the information seems very sensible especially to an interested but not very artistic photographer like myself. My results don’t seem to have suffered much from using JPEGs but I have not had to cut out a small part of a picture very often.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

"steve" wrote in message

5. To repeat based on my reading accept in some >>circumstances you only really need to shoot and save in >>medium jpg. Even if you are going to blow them up.

Please feel entirely free to do exactly as you wish to your own photographs.

The arguments put forward may well be true for a Studio Pro, shooting under a controlled and well known lighting set-up, who is capable of producing the sort of images he requires straight from the camera and will not be doing much in the way of post processing.

Lesser mortals like myself, will still continue to shoot RAW, and use lossless formats like Psd for editing to be on the safe side, and might just buy an inexpensive external HDD should I run out of storage space.

BTW a 6meg Tiff File can hardly be described as large nowadays.

Roy G

James Silverton wrote:

I stopped buying updates of elements at version 4; does the latest version, whatever it is, allow uncompressed or raw images?

PSE4 already handles RAW images. The official Adobe line is that v3.7 of ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) is the latest which will work with PSE4. This is so much balderdash, I’ve been using v4.1 since it came out and had no problems (running on XP).

ACR v4.1 has additional – and useful – control options and delivers a superior rendition when compared with earlier versions so I strongly recommend it. It has a date stamp of May 2007, consequently it can only handle cameras which were released a few months prior to that date and, therefore, has no awareness of the G9.

Unfortunately, ACR v4.2, and later, have significantly changed internal functionality making them incompatible with PSE4 so to keep up with the latest cameras, and retain direct RAW importing, you would have to go to the latest version of PSE. Adobe haven’t abandoned users of earlier PSE versions though – they provide the DNG converter. Like ACR, the converter is updated regularly to accomodate the latest cameras so you can convert your G9 files to DNG format then open them with ACR for editing.

Go to –
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=1 06&platform=Windows

– and download ‘Camera Raw 4.1 update’ followed by ‘Adobe DNG Converter and Camera Raw 4.4 update’ to get the latest DNG Converter which covers the G9 (first introduced in the 4.3.1 update). Irritatingly, they don’t offer a seperate download for the converter only.

Note the installation instructions on the first of the download pages particularly with regard to removing any earlier installation of ACR.

—
Regards,
Chris Luck

—
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com