Re: Discouraged.
What's wrong with it? Well it was supposed to replace the jpeg and gif standards in web pages, (when it looked like jpeg might have been patented and of gif always had always been owned by CompuServe IIRC and there were threats of lawsuits over licensing), both of which ware relatively lightweight image files that should be used for different purposes. PNG tries to replace both and does it badly, and also can be used as a general purpose editing format, so it also want's to be a Tiff or maybe a PSD file. If they had just tried to make a lossless equivalent of Jpeg, (and isn't there a JPEG 2000, standard that's supposed to be lossless, anyway which while larger than normal jpegs is still much smaller than PNG), The designers tried to put too much into it, and almost no one uses it, now that the threat to users of jpegs and gifs has receded. On 5/15/2014 2:53 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: P.J. Alling wrote: You just described what png should have been except that it became a bloated misbegotten camel from a committee trying to design a horse. I don't understand what you mean by this. What's wrong with PNG? The files are much larger than JPEG but that's an unavoidable consequence of using lossless compression with image data. -- A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, crazier. - H.L.Mencken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Discouraged.
P.J. Alling wrote: What's wrong with it? Well it was supposed to replace the jpeg and gif standards in web pages, (when it looked like jpeg might have been patented and of gif always had always been owned by CompuServe IIRC and there were threats of lawsuits over licensing), both of which ware relatively lightweight image files that should be used for different purposes. PNG tries to replace both and does it badly, and also can be used as a general purpose editing format, so it also want's to be a Tiff or maybe a PSD file. If they had just tried to make a lossless equivalent of Jpeg, (and isn't there a JPEG 2000, standard that's supposed to be lossless, anyway which while larger than normal jpegs is still much smaller than PNG), The designers tried to put too much into it, and almost no one uses it, now that the threat to users of jpegs and gifs has receded. Almost all of that is wrong. The 8-bit version of PNG (PNG-8) was intended to replace GIF with a non-proprietary format that offered smaller file size. In that it succeed almost completely. It's non-proprietary and if makes for smaller files except for a few cases with really small images. I don't know any web designer who uses GIF for still graphics any more, PNG-8 is near universal. PNG-24 was never intended to replace JPEG for photographs for web purposes. The main purpose of PNG-24 is graphic design images (as opposed to photographic images) which require alpha channel transparency. Neither JPEG nor GIF can do that at all. No form of PNG was ever intended to replace PSD or TIFF (PNG stands for Portable Network Graphics) - PNG doesn't support layers and though it theoretically does support embedded ICC profiles, I don't know of any software that will embed profiles in PNGs. JPEG2000 had multiple compression options, one of which was lossless, but it was generally less efficient than PNG. -- Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Discouraged.
Thinking in terms of my workflow where I save all my layers, intermediate steps stuff in PSD files; when I have the image ready to print or upload, I convert to a profile (sRGB) which also flattens the image. Would that be the same as an embedded profile? I re-size it to appropriate dimensions and save it in a final output form - new file name, new extension. How well does PNG work in terms my wish for a file format I can use to provide an image that won't be trashed if some clueless person re-sizes it again to make it fit in their newsletter? On 5/16/2014 7:55 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: P.J. Alling wrote: What's wrong with it? Well it was supposed to replace the jpeg and gif standards in web pages, (when it looked like jpeg might have been patented and of gif always had always been owned by CompuServe IIRC and there were threats of lawsuits over licensing), both of which ware relatively lightweight image files that should be used for different purposes. PNG tries to replace both and does it badly, and also can be used as a general purpose editing format, so it also want's to be a Tiff or maybe a PSD file. If they had just tried to make a lossless equivalent of Jpeg, (and isn't there a JPEG 2000, standard that's supposed to be lossless, anyway which while larger than normal jpegs is still much smaller than PNG), The designers tried to put too much into it, and almost no one uses it, now that the threat to users of jpegs and gifs has receded. Almost all of that is wrong. The 8-bit version of PNG (PNG-8) was intended to replace GIF with a non-proprietary format that offered smaller file size. In that it succeed almost completely. It's non-proprietary and if makes for smaller files except for a few cases with really small images. I don't know any web designer who uses GIF for still graphics any more, PNG-8 is near universal. PNG-24 was never intended to replace JPEG for photographs for web purposes. The main purpose of PNG-24 is graphic design images (as opposed to photographic images) which require alpha channel transparency. Neither JPEG nor GIF can do that at all. No form of PNG was ever intended to replace PSD or TIFF (PNG stands for Portable Network Graphics) - PNG doesn't support layers and though it theoretically does support embedded ICC profiles, I don't know of any software that will embed profiles in PNGs. JPEG2000 had multiple compression options, one of which was lossless, but it was generally less efficient than PNG. -- Science - Questions we may never find answers for. Religion - Answers we must never question. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Discouraged.
John wrote: Thinking in terms of my workflow where I save all my layers, intermediate steps stuff in PSD files; when I have the image ready to print or upload, I convert to a profile (sRGB) which also flattens the image. Would that be the same as an embedded profile? Nope. Converting to another profile and embedding the profile are different things. When you do a Save As in Photoshop, for example, you'll see a check box at the bottom of the dialog in the Color section that says ICC Profile. Checking that box embeds the profile. How well does PNG work in terms my wish for a file format I can use to provide an image that won't be trashed if some clueless person re-sizes it again to make it fit in their newsletter? No file format will protect against image quality loss through resizing. Truth to tell, once the image is out of your hands there's nothing you can do to prevent someone fscking it up. Photoshop is simply too complex and too readily available to people who don't know how to use it. Even if you provide a great file in PNG/PSD/JPEG format some can resave it as a JPEG with quality setting 0. All you can do is deliver the best quality JPEG you can make, in sRGB colorspace with embedded profile, and cross your fingers. -- Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Discouraged.
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote: No file format will protect against image quality loss through resizing. Vector. Muttley laugh / -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Discouraged.
Bruce Walker wrote: On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote: No file format will protect against image quality loss through resizing. Vector. Muttley laugh / Shoulda been Dick Dastardly. -- Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Discouraged.
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 02:37:45PM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote: Bruce Walker wrote: On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote: No file format will protect against image quality loss through resizing. Vector. Muttley laugh / Shoulda been Dick Dastardly. I disagree - I think the Muttley snigger would be entirely appropriate. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Discouraged.
That's so frustrating! I edit a small journal, and my problem tends to be the other way around: contributors send me copies of images scanned at about 10dpi and expect them to reproduce well at A4 size! John Coyle Brisbane, Australia -Original Message- From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of P.J. Alling Sent: Thursday, 15 May 2014 7:18 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Discouraged. It really is discouraging, I shot a couple of publicity photos, gratis, for a volunteer organization. I processed them each to a good looking jpeg, and sent them off to the secretary of said organization, for their use. I received back a copy of their electronic newsletter and the photos had been re-compressed and re-sized until all the quality had been wrung out of it, like so much dirty dishwater. I used to work for small newspapers, so I shouldn't be so depressed over this, but, somehow I still am. -- A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, crazier. - H.L.Mencken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Discouraged.
There needs to be a file format that would be just like JPEG but without the lossy compression? Get it to the size you want before saving in that format and then even if the client re-sized it saved it over and over again it wouldn't lose quality. On 5/14/2014 5:18 PM, P.J. Alling wrote: It really is discouraging, I shot a couple of publicity photos, gratis, for a volunteer organization. I processed them each to a good looking jpeg, and sent them off to the secretary of said organization, for their use. I received back a copy of their electronic newsletter and the photos had been re-compressed and re-sized until all the quality had been wrung out of it, like so much dirty dishwater. I used to work for small newspapers, so I shouldn't be so depressed over this, but, somehow I still am. -- Science - Questions we may never find answers for. Religion - Answers we must never question. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Discouraged.
You just described what png should have been except that it became a bloated misbegotten camel from a committee trying to design a horse. On 5/15/2014 1:06 PM, John wrote: There needs to be a file format that would be just like JPEG but without the lossy compression? Get it to the size you want before saving in that format and then even if the client re-sized it saved it over and over again it wouldn't lose quality. On 5/14/2014 5:18 PM, P.J. Alling wrote: It really is discouraging, I shot a couple of publicity photos, gratis, for a volunteer organization. I processed them each to a good looking jpeg, and sent them off to the secretary of said organization, for their use. I received back a copy of their electronic newsletter and the photos had been re-compressed and re-sized until all the quality had been wrung out of it, like so much dirty dishwater. I used to work for small newspapers, so I shouldn't be so depressed over this, but, somehow I still am. -- A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, crazier. - H.L.Mencken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Discouraged.
P.J. Alling wrote: You just described what png should have been except that it became a bloated misbegotten camel from a committee trying to design a horse. I don't understand what you mean by this. What's wrong with PNG? The files are much larger than JPEG but that's an unavoidable consequence of using lossless compression with image data. -- Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Discouraged.
been there... :-( ann On 5/14/2014 17:18, P.J. Alling wrote: It really is discouraging, I shot a couple of publicity photos, gratis, for a volunteer organization. I processed them each to a good looking jpeg, and sent them off to the secretary of said organization, for their use. I received back a copy of their electronic newsletter and the photos had been re-compressed and re-sized until all the quality had been wrung out of it, like so much dirty dishwater. I used to work for small newspapers, so I shouldn't be so depressed over this, but, somehow I still am. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Discouraged.
It's one of the sad parts of doing creative work for clients. They who pay get to say what is good.. Godfrey On May 14, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Ann Sanfedele ann...@nyc.rr.com wrote: been there... :-( ann On 5/14/2014 17:18, P.J. Alling wrote: It really is discouraging, I shot a couple of publicity photos, gratis, for a volunteer organization. I processed them each to a good looking jpeg, and sent them off to the secretary of said organization, for their use. I received back a copy of their electronic newsletter and the photos had been re-compressed and re-sized until all the quality had been wrung out of it, like so much dirty dishwater. I used to work for small newspapers, so I shouldn't be so depressed over this, but, somehow I still am -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
