Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Why would you use JPEG for display and the uncompressed TIFF for print
> when any display device technology has a far greater dynamic range than
> any print technology. Doesn't make sense to me.
Compression artefacting is the big reason.
Move the 'quality' (or 'compression level') slider in your editing software
towards 'highest compression' and watch what happens. Even better, load the
same image, save it out, and repeat a few times.
Again this is pretty much a 'raw vs. JPEG' argument. You can convert a raw to
a TIFF and edit it to your heart's content with no degradation in image
quality (uncompressed TIFF files are lossless, but as a result they're
absolutely huge). Do the same with a JPEG, and every time you re-save the
image you'll lose some quality.
<http://ai.fri.uni-lj.si/~aleks/jpeg/artifacts.htm> has some more info on the
different types of JPEG compression artefacting (not just the 'blocking' kind
I mentioned).
--
Phil. | (\_/) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny
oly@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | (='.'=) into your signature to help him gain
http://www.philpem.me.uk/ | (")_(") world domination.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|