Printing Digital Images (1 Viewer)

I'm not surprised you're confused, Christine. Practically speaking, I believe that you will save a perfectly acceptable photo image if you save as a jpeg using minimum compression (i.e. by choosing "maximum file size" in Photoshop).

Keeping a copy on your hard drive and a back up on a CD-ROM would be good practice, but keeping a further copy just in case for important files would be ideal.

I'm not sure I haven't confused you further by that last message.

I use Photoshop Elements 2 - but as I recall Photoshop is the same: when you click "save" or "save as" and choose "jpeg" you will find an option box always pops up before the save goes ahead. In this, leave all options as standard apart from under "Image Options" - change this to "12 Maximum" then click "OK".

Regarding saving as a .tif file, this must surely be the choice for your most important and treasured shots but I believe that the digital camera itself needs setting to this, i.e. to maximum quality photo, otherwise I believe the camera itself saves the image as a JPEG, leaving no point in saving the final image as anything else (someone might correct me on this).

With my own camera (a Fuji S602) this seems to be the case - and, of course, the problem with saving a shot as a raw .tif image is that the file size is huge, meaning that relatively few images fit even on a 128mb memory card.

Pops_uk said:

Hi Jay, We both agree that a Joint Photographic Experts Group format image is automatically decompressed when opened. A higher level of compression results in lower image quality, and a lower level of compression results in better image quality, (we agree albeit, the difference is minimal at Photoshop’s highest setting) but with to days processing power of your average personal computer and the cheapness of storage (media) why, settle for second best?
Regards Glyn

Click to expand...

Because the difference between second best and best is for all practical and
even most impractical purposes, imperceivable. But the cost difference is more
than a factor of two. CD-Rs are inexpensive, but they aren't free. My CD-R
burner is fast, but it isn't instantaneous. I use a 5MP camera and suspect an
8MP or larger looms on the horizon.

My originals are in JPEG format and their archival is vital. Modified versions are
nice to keep and may save me time in the future with making a print etc., but
I don't consider them vital. So using twice the storage for a difference I can't
perceive makes no sense to me.

But these are decisions everyone must make for themself. I think if people
make some side-by-side comparisons of their own images, they will see that
they must go through extraordinary steps to perceive a difference between a
"best quality" JPEG and a lossless format. And even then, the difference is
slight and not necessarily even subjectively worse.

And for Scampo or others confused by this issue, the only time there is any
question of whether to save in JPEG or a lossless format (TIFF, BMP, etc.)
is when the original image is modified. Then you must choose which format
you would prefer to save your modified version in. If you are archiving original
files, there is nothing to be gained (at least from a standpoint of image quality)
by converting them to a lossless format.

It wasn't me who was confused, but if I had been you have certainly made it very clear. Well done for that explanation.

Steve and Jay,thankyou for the info.Yes ,Jay it is me who gets very confused re these hi -tech things.The reason why I save on a disc and save the image before working on it,is because I do clear the images from the pc once I have finished with them.
When our hard drive packed up after we moved,we lost all our beloved dog photos,99 per cent ,and I am always nervous about the same thing happening again,also do not want to clutter up the pc with loads of stuff which is not being used as it can tend to slow things down.But thankyou Jay,you have made things clearer.
Christine.

scampo said:

It wasn't me who was confused, but if I had been you have certainly made it very clear. Well done for that explanation.

Click to expand...

Oops! My goof. Sorry 'bout that.

This might me useful for those wanting to preserve their images with minimal
overhead in time. I use a program called Autosave.
http://www.v-com.com/product/as_ind.html

This program will automagically copy the contents of designated folders to a
folder on another drive. That drive can be on a completely different PC on a
network if you wish. Drive capacities don't have to be similar at all. It will also
keep mulitple iterations of a file (you designate how many), so it becomes a
failsafe for the accidental overwriting of files. I've used this in our studio (3D
graphics) for years and it has saved many hours of work on the occasions where
someone goofed and did a "save" instead of a "save as".

My photo directory is designated for Autosave and copies are made to a
separate drive almost as soon as they are copied to my "server". When my
server starts to fill up, I then take some time and copy files to CD-Rs in bulk -
making an additional copy which I should (but haven't yet) take off-site. Once
archives are created, I can move files off of the drives.


Autosave allows me to safely make the archiving something I only do every few
months. Drive mirroring has similar benefits, but without the overwrite
protection.

Sounds complicated ,Jay,but seems to make sense.I will make a note of the site and have a look around.
Christine.
Jay,what does "drive mirroring " mean ,please.
Christine.

christineredgat said:

Jay,what does "drive mirroring " mean ,please.
Christine.

Click to expand...

Drive mirroring is a scheme where two (usually identical) hard drives run
simultaneously and appear as one drive. Each drive has the same identical
information on it. Hence the term "mirror". The idea is that if one drive fails,
the other has a realtime perfect copy. Odds are that two drives won't fail at the
same time. It is also called RAID level 1 or RAID-1.

If you do a web search on RAID (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Drives) you can
find out more on this and related topics.

In the past, special and relatively expensive drive controllers were needed (or an
expensive operating system like Windows NT Server), but that is no longer the
case. Some motherboards have RAID capable drive controllers built into the
motherboard.

In the studio, I run a "mirror" set on the server and also let Autosave make an
extra copy with 5 file iterations. I don't bother with that kind of "belt and
suspenders" redundancy at home though.

At last I know what RAID is - after a couple of quick searches in the past I was left even more confused. You have proved it can be made clear - and what a good idea given the cheapness of hard drives these days.

Thanks,Jay,to my totally un technical mind I am completely lost,but at least Scampo Steve has benefited.
But thanks ,Jay,for explaining .
Christine.

I was frustrated about not knowing what RAID meant, Christine because my friends all think I am a computer wizard...

Basically RAID means that your computer keeps a second copy of all its data updated constantly so that if you have a major crash from one set of corrupted data (say through a virus) then it simply reads off the uncorrupted second set of data and, with your okay I should think, then copies this across to the faulty side, thus correcting the fault. A bit like a helicopter with two engines - one there in case the first fails!

scampo said:

Basically RAID means that your computer keeps a second copy of all its data updated constantly so that if you have a major crash from one set of corrupted data (say through a virus) then it simply reads off the uncorrupted second set of data and, with your okay I should think, then copies this across to the faulty side, thus correcting the fault. A bit like a helicopter with two engines - one there in case the first fails!

Click to expand...

Hmmmm... this has wandered so far off topic ... but since we're here....

A RAID-1 or mirror set is simpler than that. A virus would probably corrupt both
drives. Just as a "delete" command or a "format" command would also wipe out
data. If the OS or a program (viruses included) initiates the change of data,
the relatively dumb controller will simply comply with the request. A RAID-1
makes sure that identical data is written to two physically separate drives. It
also notifies you of a drive failure and will continue to operate seemlessly on a single drive in that case. Software alerts you to the drive failure - essentially
saying, "this drive is toast - replace it." But otherwise, the computer goes on
and operates to the user's view as usual. Upon replacing the dead drive, it will
then rebuild the "mirror" using the data from the "good" drive.

A RAID-1 pretty much simply gives you assurance against mechanical drive failure. This is one reason I use RAID-1 and the Autosave utility in the studio.