I would agree about converting to Tiff. But, one mistake everyone seems to
make is that each time you open a JPEG file and then close it, that it
somehow looses quality.
The only time that happens is if you EDIT or make any kind of changes to the
original image. And then save it back to the original filename. That's when
the degredation occurs. Opening and just closing (without editing) doesn't
Think about it, if that were the case, jpg's used on websites would
degrade and look horrible in no time at all if just opening and closing
could cause that sort of problem.
Most image editing software Opens the image file, copies it to a temporary
buffer and all editing takes place on the in-memory copy of the image, not
the original image.
I have written a small image editing program in VB.NET and have opened and
closed some of my test jpg images hundreds of times during testing. And
there has been no loose of detail or artifically introduced artifacts in the
images that were just opened and closed. It will only occur when the image
is edited and saved back to the original filename.
"Jim Townsend" <notreal.address> wrote in message
news:vh1kfh5g65in79news.supernews.com...Each>>> Save again as TIFF.
> When a JPEG image is opened, it gets read from disk then uncompressed and
> loaded into RAM by your imaging software. When you save it, it gets
> compressed again and saved back your disk. JPEG compression is lossy.times> time you do an open and save, you are losing quality.
> If you only do one 'open and save', and, keep the compression low, I doubt
> you'd be able to see any noticeable degredation in quality. Two or more> and JPEG artifacts will probably start to become obvious.
> If the qualty is mission critical.. Save as TIFF.>