It's a bird

by Vian Esterhuizen

submit your photo

Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tag Info

New answers tagged


Nope. From a manufacturers point of view, it wouldn't even be a different camera. They'd sell the exact same camera with some firmware that prevented jpeg compression. When it comes to integrated circuits, mass production is where the money comes from. A product with reduced feature set is often just cannibalised with a special firmware. I remember how I ...


There is no justification for removing JPEG processing in digital cameras for the foreseeable future, there are plenty of reasons not to use jpeg but none to make it completely unavailable. From a performance perspective the biggest bottleneck is writing the file to storage card(s) and mandating bigger files would yield no speed improvement at all. Cost ...


I'm not familiar with Photoshop Elements, but the "small" and "large" quality options are probably referring to file size, whereas the "can't print at that picture size because your image is too small" message is probably referring to pixel dimensions. To print a large canvas print, you need plenty of pixels, and the JPEG quality setting is not related. In ...


If you're lucky, you won't lose any quality, but you certainly won't gain any. The best thing to do is to re-process the RAW file. Whilst doing so, you can ask your wife if she wants is exactly the same or you could change the framing etc if desired. Bear in mind that canvas wraps can sometimes 'lose' part of the image near the edge, as it is wrapped around ...


keep=$(ls | grep -v ps | grep -A1 JPG | grep NEF); for i in $keep; do mv $i $i.keep; done; ls | egrep -v '(JPG|keep)' | xargs rm -f; change=$(ls | grep keep | sed 's/.keep//g'); for i in $change; do mv $i.keep $i; done;


At least in my computers (Windows, various versions) editing a .jpg file in Photoshop and saving it creates a situation where, if there is some type of embedded thumbnail, Photoshop does not update it, later on while viewing the file in another program (Windows Image Viewer for example) the thumbnail is loaded first and shown (upscaled to fit) while the ...


JPG: 8 bits per color channel, the data compression dismisses small details in the information provided by the scanner; i.e. the compression is "lossy". TIF: Possibly 8 but also allows 16 bits per channel - Packbits, ZIP and LZH compressions are lossless. For archival purposes I'd use TIF 16-bit. The files may though become huge, especially in comparison ...


For archival purposes it makes sense to scan in a lossless format. Depending on what software you are using, you can save NEFs from Nikon Scan, or RAW from VueScan. I prefer that latter, because it saves the actual data coming from the sensor, thus allowing for lossless editing in the future.


JPEG is lossy, so the image loses some detail, but the file size may be smaller and compression and extraction can be faster. Wikipedia states, "[It] somewhat reduces the image fidelity... JPEG is also not well suited to files that will undergo multiple edits, as some image quality will usually be lost each time the image is decompressed and recompressed." ...


Given the language of OP's question it sounds like he/she is using Lightroom. If so, then simply select multiple images before doing the export.

Top 50 recent answers are included