Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Software > Editors (Photoshop, Vegas, Final Cut Pro, Kdenlive, etc.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 21, 2005, 4:29 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Canna W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,038
Default



Would be most grateful for some advice ....

I have both PSE2 and Serif 8 Photoshop on my computer. I do all my photo editing on the former now, but following a recent topic on SF would love to try & zap pix out to Serif 8 for curves (no curves in PSE2), then back again into PS for the rest :whack:...

Is there any way I can do this without going backwards and forwards with jpegs? BTW I don't have a computer with vast memory resources, & (if relevant) pix leave my camera as jpegs...

Best wishes,

Canna.

Canna W is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 21, 2005, 9:05 AM   #2
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Canna:

I don't do thisvery oftenanymore, but in the past, it was not uncommon for me to use 3 or 4 different image editors on the same photo. My editing skills leave a lot to be desired (and that's an understatement). ;-)

So, I tend to use one package for one thing (for example, color correction, contrast adjustments), another for something else (for example, resizing and cropping), another for sharpening, etc. -- trying to use ones that I've found to bethe easiest/best for each enhancement that I may want to do, given myweak editing skills.

What I did was use the highest quality JPEG settingswhen saving from each editor. I couldn't really notice a problem doing it this way. For a final save, I usually go with a bit lower quality, depending on the use for the photo.

Now, even when the originals are JPEG, some other users may prefer to save in TIFF if they're doing this kind of thing. That way, you're not introducing any degradation from JPEG Compression after each save.

Mike Chaney's Monthly Tech Corner article for October 2004 addresses this issue. You may want to read through it.

It's titled JPEG Images: Counting Your Losses

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 21, 2005, 9:59 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 170
Default

Check this thread, you can add Curves to PE2:

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=59

Lou
derbunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 21, 2005, 1:47 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

You don't need vast storage resources to transfer single images between programs as TIFF and delete them when you are finished. And it doesn't matter whether you open the image from a TIFF or JPG for the same image as far as RAM use to manipulate the image once it is open in an editor. There isn't really any good reason to not use TIFF for that purpose.

I personally feel it is better to be competent at a single program than a dilettante at many. I'm not that familiar with Elements, but Photoshop only has two things I've encountered that other programs actually do better. One of those things is curves. Many programs combine curves and levels in a single box so you can see the results of one on the other. You have no feedback of your actual pixel density and distribution in Photoshop curves – it is quite primitive compared to some other programs. If I used curves more I would likely have another program with a decent curves/levels/histogram and use TIFF as my intermediary.

slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 22, 2005, 2:17 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Canna W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,038
Default

Hi folk,

Many many thanks for the help. I've printed it all out to read properly, and will checkout the links you have kindly given.

Very, very, very interesting!

All best wishes,

Cann a.

P.S. Jim, why, when you have moved stuff around as top quality jpegs, do you finally save them at a slightly lower resolution? Even for printing?Slipe, the tiff info was very helpful too.

P.P.S. I feel I'm sliding down a funnel, and the narrow bit at the end is called PSCS!



Canna W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 22, 2005, 1:13 PM   #6
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Canna W wrote:
Quote:
P.S. Jim, why, when you have moved stuff around as top quality jpegs, do you finally save them at a slightly lower resolution? Even for printing?
Slightly lower Quality (i.e., slightly more JPEG Compression) is what I meant when I said this:

Quote:
What I did was use the highest quality JPEG settingswhen saving from each editor. I couldn't really notice a problem doing it this way. For a final save, I usually go with a bit lower quality, depending on the use for the photo.

Resolution isreferring to the number of pixelsan image has (width x height). This is not changed when you use more compression. More JPEG Compression=Lower Quality=Smaller File Size. The resolution remains the same.

The JPEG compression algorithms can throw away some detail by doing things like representing more graduations between values of pixels with less graduations. This lets them represent more data with less space, but the files still get expanded when opened by viewers.

But, some of this occurs in images anyway. For example, you may have something that is a solid color that represents a portion of an image.Of course, this is still going to have graduations in texture, color and brightness.A compression algorithm caninternally note that x number of pixels are the same, and therefore it doesn't need to take up space in the file to represent each individual pixel.

I'm no expert on JPEG Compression, but the lossy part probablycomes inwith compressionwhen it starts to represent more pixelsthat are verysimilar as being the same, but not the same -- destroying detail and adding artificats toimages if you compress too much for the number of pixels you have representing your subject at your desired viewing size or print size.

The key is really how much quality you need for the images you save, and that can depend on what you are doing with an image.

Yes, I personally save in slightly lower than best JPEG Quality, even for printing (usually higher quality/lower compression than I would for web viewing though).

I don't reduce resolution for printing, except for any needed cropping (and may even increaseresolutionusing interpolationif I want larger prints - especially if I needed to crop any for composition purposes).

Now, if I wanted a print at a larger than 8x10" size, then I'd probably go with the highest JPEG quality.

Smaller file sizes also improve load time "over the wire", for those viewing your images. Not everyone hasa broadband connection yet.

As for resolution,I may reduce it too,depending on what an image's purpose is (for example,if it's web viewing only). For something like a forum post, around 640x480 is about right.

One reasonI use slightly lower JPEGquality for final edits is for saving space (for example, in accounts like pbase.com, or in space allocated by your ISP or hosting service). Althoughpbase.com doesn't,some hosting services have bandwidth limitations that need to be taken into consideration, too.

You also use less space onyourlocal hard disk drives.

For some albums of images, I have several edited versions of each photo, including versions withdifferent crops (printing at 4x6", 5x7",and 8x10" sizes; as well as the final edit in the original aspect ratio).

I also keep the originals from the camera, never overwriting them (so you can always start fresh withan unedited copyas you get new tools and skills to improve upon your older images later, or if you decide to do something different from your original edits).

Also, you never know how good image editing tools andmediums for viewing images may get to be (and/or your editing skills may get to be).
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 22, 2005, 3:38 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Canna W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,038
Default

Jim,

Thank you for a marvellous description of the nature of jpeg files, and why you save at different sizes/qualitiesfor different applications. I really learnt a lot!

I was alsovery interestedto hear that you sometimes increase size with interpolation when you want to crop.I must try it. It is so easy to make mistakes and lose informationby accident- I've done it lots of times.

Thank you again for writing all this up so clearly - itis incredibly useful.

Best wishes,

Canna.
Canna W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 22, 2005, 5:59 PM   #8
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Canna W wrote:
Quote:
I was alsovery interestedto hear that you sometimes increase size with interpolation when you want to crop.I must try it.
It depends on how much I crop, and how large I want to print (and if I'm printing myself, or ordering prints from elsewhere).

Interpolation won't increase detail captured, but it can help to prevent pixelation.

That's another topic... But, as a general rule, I like to keep my images around 200 pixels per inch or more for printing purposes.

So, if I want to take a 2 Megapixel Image after cropping and print it at an 8 x 10 inch print size, I'll interpolate up to around1600 x 2000 (3.2 Megapixels) first (8 inchesx 200 = 1600; 10 inchesx 200 = 2000).

Sometimes I'll just go to 300 pixels per inch when interpolating (but I really don't think that's necessary for mostprinters).

Again, interpolation is really another topic (and you'll see a number of threads on it here, too). There are a number of ways of doing it (with different algorithms, photoshop actions, and even dedicated products for it).

Most of the time, I just do a quick interpolation withLanczos in Irfanview. But, others may use something like Fred Miranda's stairstep action for Photoshop, or products like Genuine Fractals.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2005, 12:45 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Canna W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,038
Default

Thanks again...

I've never tried interpolation because the whole business just seems too big and obscure, but you've given me enough info here to have a first bash.

Canna.
Canna W is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:34 PM.