On 13/5/04, GRAYWOLF, discombobulated, offered: >Actually the difference is that each time you save a jpeg you lose data. >That is >the price you pay for the compact file size. If you are going to shoot >and print >without much editing then jpeg is fine. > >But if you load your jpeg in photoshop and correct the color then save >it. Then >come back later load it, and crop it, then save it. And looking at it the >next >day decide it needs a little sharpening, so load it, sharpen, save. By >then you >have 4 saves and if it was a high compression jpeg, you only have about >1/2 the >data that you had in the first image. A tiff does not lose data when >saved. Nor >does a raw file, but the raw file has the advantage of being more compact. >Supposedly (I personally have never worked with raw files), another >advantage of >raw is you can determine the color balance and ASA at the editing stage . > >You can think of tiff and raw images as negatives, you can go and make many >different prints from it. Think of a jpeg as a slide that is best used as >is. Of >course you can save the jpeg as a tiff to edit and limit the amount of >damage, >but there will be some sight amount reguardless.
As I understand it Tom, if one shoots in jpeg and then opens it in PS, and saves as PSD, then no loss will result, no matter how many times it is worked on in PS. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _____________________________
