jadin
The Mad Hatter
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,753
- Reaction score
- 10
- Location
- Down the Rabbit Hole.
- Website
- jadinhanson.smugmug.com
Wrong file. 4212 please.I already did. Oops fixed it.
Wrong file. 4212 please.I already did. Oops fixed it.
Yes there is. Just because it's the original compression grid biting you from the original camera save doesn't mean you're not experiencing degradation in the image from using the software editing tools. In fact this is the more severe and damaging degradation.But even if you are right, which you seem to be before I test myself - this is still true:
"Compression from the JPEG to the tiff has the original loss saved already. Nothing can be done about that."
Continuing to edit and have "further issues" is just extended results of the original compression. There's no NEW compression being done, so for Marc's question, as long as he gets out of JPEG right away (or skips JPEG completely if he has RAW files), then no, there is no continued degradation just from using the software.
People don't understand. They think they can convert a JPEG to a TIFF and not experience further degradation due to the JPEG compression. They are mistaken.At least not in the sense people are referring to when they ask about lossy compression.
Yes there is. Just because it's the original compression grid biting you from the original camera save doesn't mean you're not experiencing degradation in the image from using the software editing tools. In fact this is the more severe and damaging degradation.
People don't understand. They think they can convert a JPEG to a TIFF and not experience further degradation due to the JPEG compression. They are mistaken.
The question wasn't about further compression. This was the question: "then when you are using the various tools in say Elements, does your picture continue to lose detail as you use the program?" And the answer is yes.That's fine. But if the only file they have access to is a JPEG, then there's nothing left for them to do but get out of JPEG as soon as possible. It's that or not edit the file ever again. So again, just for people like Marc, I think the original answers are best. There is no additional degradation due to further compression.
And I'm pretty sure that's all that anyone like Marc cares about. Although he can certainly correct me if I'm putting words in his mouth.
That is degradation. JPEG works by hiding the compression grid. Edit changes to tone and color after the original lossy compression make the grid visible in the form of mottling noise and banding in the image.I'm still not convinced.
Are the artifacts more noticeable? Sure.
If you didn't see it before and you do see it now as you say, "more noticeable" then of course.But is there more degradation?
Big difference: JPEG has effectively rendered the artifacts nearly invisible. Editing makes them more visible -- that's degradation.Like at all? Not that I'm seeing.
The same artifacts are in both. No difference.
The edit changes you made have degraded the image by adding mottling artifacts to the sky. It is clearly visible. Continued editing of tone/color will cause continued degradation.These are the changes I made if you are curious.
At least you learned something ;-)But no matter what, I'm done with this. What a waste of time.
At least you learned something ;-)