Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/02/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Alex, I support you in your new workflow. You described basically what I've been doing for the last year or so. The photofinisher develops and scans to CD (1524x1024 700kb jpg) for me to sort on my computer. Almost all of my PAWs that are shot on C-41 film come from those commercial scans, which I adjust in PS then save as 700pixel wide jpgs, aiming for 50-100kb files. At some point I scan the good ones myself for printing. It seems like a nice marriage of film and digital for those of us who aren't (currently) interested in shooting digitally but like using the web +/- digital darkroom. As far as your question: It makes sense that the more repetitions of compressing you do, and the greater each compression is, the worse the final outcome. In this case you may have started with a not-too-compressed jpg and only compressed it one additional time without a big effect on the screen image. I think the more salient fact is that web display is soooooo low resolution...it'll take much longer to see the multi-compression problems on the web then it would if you were making prints. As you're scanning separately for printing, I wouldn't worry about a couple of rounds of compression for web jpgs. Best, Aaron >As I was getting overwhelmed by proof prints, I instructed my friendly >photo processors to simply develop the film and provide a CD with a >reference print. This means I can review what I've got very quickly on the >Mac, find the average 3 or 4 keepers per roll, and scan the relevant negs >to produce decent prints. <snip> >My question is this: the hi-res disk files have a JPEG (jpg) handle, and >received wisdom is that quality deteriorates rapidly if you try to >re-compress an existing JPEG. So are these hi-res files really JPEGs? > >I took a deep breath and saved the adjusted and resized PS files as small >JPEGs, and, as you can see, the results seem pretty good - in fact more or >less on a par with what I would expect from a Net-ready JPEG where the >original data came from film. Am I missing something here?