Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: The View on November 10, 2008, 05:04:35 pm

Title: JPEG 2000
Post by: The View on November 10, 2008, 05:04:35 pm

I regularly have to upload images in JPEG to a printers server.

JPEG, because otherwise I can't get the file size down, and those guys really have limits.

I really hate JPEGging my images.

Even at maximum quality (12) I suppose you lose quite a lot in skin tones.


How is JPEG 2000. It's much more modern. Does it do better?

Title: JPEG 2000
Post by: Schewe on November 10, 2008, 05:08:27 pm

Quote from: The View

How is JPEG 2000. It's much more modern. Does it do better?

Highly unlikely to be supported by printers requiring JPEG...

A final JPEG at high quality will actually lose very little...repeated opening and resaving of a JPEG will ruin it.

Title: JPEG 2000
Post by: The View on November 10, 2008, 05:13:11 pm

Quote from: Schewe

Highly unlikely to be supported by printers requiring JPEG...

A final JPEG at high quality will actually lose very little...repeated opening and resaving of a JPEG will ruin it.

Thank you.


Good to know that opening and resaving a JPEG reduces quality (even without changing anything).

I only use mode/8-bit conversion of the original, flattened TIFF, save as a JPEG at quality 12, and then leave it alone.


PS: It's actually not the printer requiring JPEG, but the maximum file size he accepts can only be done by JPEG compression. My files consist of a lot of layers, which, even when flattened, result in a rather large file of 100 mb. I'm blowing their limits anyway as I refuse to do any JPEGs below quality level 12.