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


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." ...


At the basic level: Transferring a file over the internet will not, in itself, cause it to lose quality, and The point of the ROES software is to make it simple to transfer files correctly. While it is possible for such software to send only a downsized sample of the image, this would largely defeat the purpose. Whatever the problem you had with image ...


If you have experience of sending files for print in the past and receiving prints that are "muddy" and don't match your expectations, the culprit here is "colour management", not the file format. The bits and bytes you upload to the internet are going to be the same ones that arrive at the print shop; the problem is whether they are "interpreted" correctly. ...

Top 50 recent answers are included