This applies to photo-archiving only, so others can move on. It's a bit of
I learned another lesson this morning, that I thought I should pass along.
As I've mentioned more than once, I've been archiving photos for my family
at 300dpi by X, and JPEGing them. That size because it will make a decent
printout. I've also mentioned that I got 5000+ pictures onto one CD by using
JPEG compression. That number was unexpected but appreciated--if you're
distributing to a lot of people, *One Disc* is a good number to use. :-)
Some of the downsides I'd noticed before: 1> Photos that had to be modified
to bring up detail occasionally posterized when I JPEGed them. At least,
that's what they do when they're brought up on an LCD screen. No way did I
see it when I saved them. 2> A photo at 900ppi that's viewed as a Web
picture (some basic systems automatically do this) overflows the screen, and
you have to move the scroll bars to see them. I added IrfanView freeware to
avoid this, but probably some of my audience/family isn't computer-savvy
enough to handle it.
Now I've just found an isolated *third* downside problem--"unverified" JPEGs
are not as good as you'd think they are. And if you need to do image
enhancement later, a compressed JPEG is *not* what you'll want to work from!
Case-in-point: I'm looking for a Birthday Remembrance for my 2nd cousin
once-removed (yeah, figure *that* out if you're not a "familyologist"!),
who is turning 80-years-young next week. I find a picture in my files, and
it's almost perfect--an aunt and 2 cousins (including the one who's turning
80), taken 71 years ago. Problem: the aunt (now deceased) is backed by a
bright sky, who, given the cheapness of the lens and camera, is very "burned
out" in this print. Doing the retouching at the time I scanned it would have
been a smart thing to do, but I had 5000 pictures to do in 10 month's time
(while attempting to lead a life)--and I simply didn't have time to do it.
Cut to the chase: The photo looks "fine" printed at 4"x5" and even at
8"x10", but it could look a lot better if my aunt's face weren't so
overexposed. But "burning in" the details on a JPEG causes big-time
artifacts. Can it be corrected with retouching? Yes I think so. Should I
have JPEGed it as low as 40kb? No, that was a mistake.
Can I do this retouching? Yes. Do I think you can? Yes. Do I think you'd
*need to* if I hadn't passed this info along? Probably. So the moral of the
story is, "For best results, save JPEGs in a program that give you a choice
of compressions, and a preview of what you'll supposedly get when you save
your JPEG." And always save at a little less compression than you think
you'd need, if you can. 100% is good--work down from there.
Oh. And if you have any suspicion that you'll need to retouch something at
some later date, also save the picture in a less-compressed format. :-)
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp