A quick question about JPEGs in Photoshop CS • Non-Gaming • Photography • Eurogamer.net

Lukus 27 Jun 2006 15:28:43 24,643 posts
Seen 11 hours ago
Registered 17 years ago

I'm just wondering what settings to use whilst saving for best quality jpeg image: baseline/baseline optimized/progressive.
I'm assuming it's progressive?

But also the bit at the bottom where you choose the size (Kbps)- does this literally just effect loading times or will it effect the image quality too? What's best, higher or lower?

Whilst I'm here- If I'm not limited by space whilst saving out image files, what in CS is the best format to use for visual quality?

Edited by Lukus at 15:29:20 27-06-2006

TwistidChimp 27 Jun 2006 15:36:38 8,825 posts
Seen 14 years ago
Registered 16 years ago

If your doing web work, the Save for web option is a great way of seeing how the various options and quality settings can effect image quality and size. (Make sure you put on the side by side view)

Lukus 27 Jun 2006 15:39:38 24,643 posts
Seen 11 hours ago
Registered 17 years ago

Thanks Otto. So, Progressive on 12 with 5 scans(?) and the higher the Kbps the better the image quality?

Lukus 27 Jun 2006 15:41:00 24,643 posts
Seen 11 hours ago
Registered 17 years ago

TwistidChimp wrote:
If your doing web work, the Save for web option is a great way of seeing how the various options and quality settings can effect image quality and size. (Make sure you put on the side by side view)

Aah, good thinking.

Lukus 27 Jun 2006 15:46:41 24,643 posts
Seen 11 hours ago
Registered 17 years ago

Thanks again Otto. Noted. I'm just sorting through a few images in preparation for a website I've yet to make.

magicpanda 27 Jun 2006 15:47:54 15,130 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 17 years ago

I'm just sorting through a few images in preparation for a website I've yet to make.

My advice would be to use PSDs for now then.

Spanky 27 Jun 2006 15:48:35 15,037 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 18 years ago

Watch out for photoshops compression as it seems to add extra extraneous data to the file, bumping it up to a larger file size than necessary. If you open your flat files in sommat like paintshoppro or some other slightly less bloated program you can normally save down a jpeg of exactly the same quality but with a nice loss of file size. For me it normally works out even better, a better quality jpeg at less size.

Just something i noticed in me yonkyears of photoshop tomfoolery.

Dirtbox 27 Jun 2006 15:50:04 92,600 posts
Seen 49 minutes ago
Registered 19 years ago

Post deleted

Lukus 27 Jun 2006 15:53:18 24,643 posts
Seen 11 hours ago
Registered 17 years ago

Magic Panda wrote:

I'm just sorting through a few images in preparation for a website I've yet to make.

My advice would be to use PSDs for now then.

Yeah I'm keeping all the PSDs organized too.
Interesting Spanky, I'm pretty sure I have a demo of Paintshop lying around somewhere. May give it a go at a later date. Mostly cropping and editing photos at the mo.

Lukus 27 Jun 2006 15:59:01 24,643 posts
Seen 11 hours ago
Registered 17 years ago

Cheers everybody

TwistidChimp 27 Jun 2006 16:00:33 8,825 posts
Seen 14 years ago
Registered 16 years ago

Magic Panda wrote:

I'm just sorting through a few images in preparation for a website I've yet to make.

My advice would be to use PSDs for now then.

Yeah try and keep everything in psd format unless you absolutley need to do otherwise. Either that or some other lossless format like png.

Edited by TwistidChimp at 16:06:09 27-06-2006

wizbob 27 Jun 2006 16:02:57 938 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 17 years ago

Progressive JPEGs won't load in some applications, don't use them unless you need them

reflux 27 Jun 2006 16:10:47 1,804 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 20 years ago

Spanky wrote:
Watch out for photoshops compression as it seems to add extra extraneous data to the file, bumping it up to a larger file size than necessary.

Not if you use the Save for Web-command, then it skips all metadata. The problem is that it (to my knowledge) isn't fully batchable (haven't found a way to supress the Save-window?).

I use a small commandline tool that strips the extra metadata from the jpeg-files, totally painless and perfect when you've batch-processed 50 images and the Photoshop Save As.. command to output jpegs for the web.

If you have a folder full of images, you just write "jhead -purejpg *.*" and you're done. All data stripped. It even supports recursive structures. You can also use it to tag your images with metadata and manipulate EXIF-data in all possible ways.

I [heart] freeware.

Lukus 27 Jun 2006 16:14:23 24,643 posts
Seen 11 hours ago
Registered 17 years ago

wizbob wrote:
Progressive JPEGs won't load in some applications, don't use them unless you need them

But they will load work on the net right?

Lukus 27 Jun 2006 16:20:11 24,643 posts
Seen 11 hours ago
Registered 17 years ago

reflux wrote:

Spanky wrote:
Watch out for photoshops compression as it seems to add extra extraneous data to the file, bumping it up to a larger file size than necessary.
Not if you use the Save for Web-command, then it skips all metadata. The problem is that it (to my knowledge) isn't fully batchable (haven't found a way to supress the Save-window?).

I use a small commandline tool that strips the extra metadata from the jpeg-files, totally painless and perfect when you've batch-processed 50 images and the Photoshop Save As.. command to output jpegs for the web.

If you have a folder full of images, you just write "jhead -purejpg *.*" and you're done. All data stripped. It even supports recursive structures. You can also use it to tag your images with metadata and manipulate EXIF-data in all possible ways.

I [heart] freeware.

I've never quite got the hang of batch processing. Really gonna have to learn to do it properly one day! So where does this commandline tool install itself? Within the batch processing options?
Edit- ignore the above, just looked at the page. It's a standalone tool isn't it? Looks very useful Cheers!

Edited by Lukus at 16:21:52 27-06-2006

otto Moderator 28 May 2007 11:16:19 49,322 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 20 years ago

The algorithm doesn't matter as much as the compression level. Always go for 'highest' quality (12) unless you're posting on the web, in which case I go for 8 as the best compromise. The size does indeed affect loading times, but these days most connections are easily quick enough to cope. Obviously size is directly related to quality - the higher the quality, the lower the compression, the larger the file, etc.

For archiving I'd save as DNG or uncompressed TIFF.

Edited by otto at 15:31:59 27-06-2006

otto Moderator 28 May 2007 11:16:19 49,322 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 20 years ago

To be honest, the only thing I look at is the quality slider, so I can't comment on the compression methods. The 'kbps' is purely a product of the setting you choose on the slider. Go with 8 for the web (or 6 if quality really doesn't matter), go with 12 for your own archives (or better yet, save as a TIFF or DNG).