JPEG level 7 is already pretty low for printed works... Why don't you use Level 12 (max) if you are sending the full-size file to your client? If you're doing it in Photoshop, Level 12 should not introduce any visible compression artifacts at all into the file.
I don't think you make a compelling argument as to "Why JPEGS are just junk files."
At level 7 (Medium quality) of course you're going to have severe artifacts.
Being a photographer, you probably wouldn't mind the large size attachments, because you appreciate the nuances of image compression. But imagine if you receieve 100's of emails, each containing 48MB TIFFs...you'll quickly be annoyed of having a full mailbox (this applies those with fixed mailbox sizes typical of a corporate environment)
Jpeg's (because they're lossy) aren't the best image format for use with printpress graphics, sure, but that doesn't mean their junk.
MP3 is lousy for use in studios, but that doesn't mean its a junk audio format. It has its purpose.
TIFF is better for mulitple edits.
JPEG is better for efficient transmission.
A poor question can lead into great answers. Let's try that.
Often, we don't distinguish the "flexibility" that the RAW provides and the "loss of information" of jpeg by compression. As a compression scheme, JPEG is amazingly good. How good is it ?
Every one can try this. Put the camera on tripod and take two consecutive shots in RAW. Load them in PS and do the Difference between the two frames. What you see is Frame by frame diffence by random noise or by moving Sun or by vibration of camera etc.
Now, Save a shot as TIFF and save it as JPEG with, say, level 10. And do the Diff between them. You will see that the Loss by the JPEG comression is pretty negligible comparing to the result from the first comparison above.
RAW is convenient because it let you defer the shooting decisons to post-processing time. However, you won't lose the information by JPEG compression.
Surely JPEG would mainly be used as either the source from a Camera, the final result of an edit or where space was at an absolute premium.
In most other instances, intermediate edits or (if accepted by the Lab) for printing, the file would be saved as a Tiff or PSD.
JPEG itself is Lossy so, by definition, the more compression you add the more detail you lose. Saving at lower levels of compression should give better results.
When saving for the Web, you would probably have already reduced the dimensions to something more manageable, ie to fit a 800x600 or 640x480 screen, so the file should be a reasonable size without using a high level of compression.
Sorry I don't agree at all. For one learn the software you are using! It is then you learn how compression damages a jpeg.
Two to make such a statement (which is wrong) with two photos not treated the same or the same size??
This is one of the beauties of Digital each photographer can achieve there photo anyway they like.
jon1526 wrote:
most of us dont print posters that would fit on the side of a bulding, where you would see these differences
Well, Guy actually does on occasion.
But the point stands - I never save a JPEG below level 10, and I try to do most of the processing work in RAW before I convert.
I'd probably use TIFF files if my photographs were incredibly critical, but they're not. That, and my hard drives are too whimpy.
raw is obviously the format of choice for max quality/flexibility. but jpegs are useful if used properly. they're a tool, and they can yield great results. the image on the cover of sports illustrated most weeks starts as a jpeg because sports shooters almost always shoot jpeg for speed/time/storage. however few of them shoot "medium" quality.
For newbies there is a good discussion of JPEG and RAW in the first couple of chapters of Bruce Fraser's book Camera Raw with Abobe Photoshop CS. Agree that JPEGs can give some great pictures if compression is kept high and you don't re-edit previous edits. One of the huge advantages of RAW is that initial processing (edits if you will) are lossless and therefore leaves a lot more headroom for subsequent edits in photoshop. Watch your histograms and compare what happens when you work with JPEG or RAW workflows.
IdahoBob wrote:
... great pictures if compression is kept high and you don't re-edit previous edits. ...
Sorry, just clarifying a point so everyone can be clear, I think you meant to write "if compression is kept low". Low compression means less loss, meaning higher quality, and having the effect of creating big files (hence the "high" factor that crept in, I think). High compression would mean a lot of squishing and much loss of information and smaller files.
A poor question can lead into great answers. Let's try that.