Author Topic: Which quality level do you save your JPG's in (Read 23986 times)

leaf · « **on:** November 11, 2009, 09:52 »

So which is it?

When I edit and save the file I save it as a TIFF so it isn't compressed. When I upload to a stock site I save a JPG version. In photoshop you are asked at which quality level you want to save the JPG file. Some microstock sites say to save it at the highest level (12), others say quality level 10 is good enough.

Which do you use? The difference in file size on the disk is significant. For a regular file from the Canon 5D mark II the sizes are

Quality 12 : 10.5 MB
Quality 11 : 5.5 MB
Quality 10 : 3.5 MB

So in regards to storage and FTP uploading it is tempting not to use quality 12. There is obviously a lot more information in the Quality 12 file size but can you really see a difference? When opening the JPG files up in photoshop, putting them on top of each other as layers and clicking the hide/view button to toggle I really can't see a different. Not even with the Quality 10 file. If you were to save and open and save and open the file numerous times I could see a potential problem, but for a one time save perhaps Quality 11 is an OK middle ground?

Perry · « **Reply #1 on:** November 11, 2009, 10:01 »

Level 12 jpg is almost identical to 8bit tiff, so that's what I use. Except when a site (for example SX) has a size limit, then I either resize smaller and/or save at 10 or 11.

The quality difference between 12 and 11 is really small, but the size difference is quite noticeable.

vonkara · « **Reply #2 on:** November 11, 2009, 10:06 »

I always save at 12. But it would be nice to see a 100% crop if you have the two images.

leaf · « **Reply #3 on:** November 11, 2009, 10:12 »

boy, you guys are making me self conscious about my quality 11 jpgs.

I deleted my test images but I couldn't tell any difference .. so I am not sure there would be a point in posting them - unless of course it was just me.

vonkara · « **Reply #4 on:** November 11, 2009, 10:24 »

Well I had to save at 10 or 11 before for StockXpert size limit and I also didn't saw a difference. I would say... don't worry lol

sam100 · « **Reply #5 on:** November 11, 2009, 10:31 »

Quote from: leaf on November 11, 2009, 09:52

So which is it?

When I edit and save the file I save it as a TIFF so it isn't compressed. When I upload to a stock site I save a JPG version. In photoshop you are asked at which quality level you want to save the JPG file. Some microstock sites say to save it at the highest level (12), others say quality level 10 is good enough.

Which do you use? The difference in file size on the disk is significant. For a regular file from the Canon 5D mark II the sizes are

Quality 12 : 10.5 MB
Quality 11 : 5.5 MB
Quality 10 : 3.5 MB

So in regards to storage and FTP uploading it is tempting not to use quality 12. There is obviously a lot more information in the Quality 12 file size but can you really see a difference? When opening the JPG files up in photoshop, putting them on top of each other as layers and clicking the hide/view button to toggle I really can't see a different. Not even with the Quality 10 file. If you were to save and open and save and open the file numerous times I could see a potential problem, but for a one time save perhaps Quality 11 is an OK middle ground?

Did the same test and couldn't see any difference either... however, i save at 12.. you never know..

Patrick H.

sharpshot · « **Reply #6 on:** November 11, 2009, 11:29 »

There might not be much difference but is there more degradation when you edit and re-save a jpeg that is lower than level 12? I use 12 most of the time but drop to 11 or 10 if the file goes over 10mb.

eppic · « **Reply #7 on:** November 11, 2009, 11:34 »

I assume "12" is the best quality setting? I save at 100 using Lightroom and keep everything in Adobe1998 colorspace until I submit to stock in Srgb.

gbcimages · « **Reply #8 on:** November 11, 2009, 12:00 »

10 for me.

Fotonaut · « **Reply #9 on:** November 11, 2009, 12:07 »

Ten on my part too. In normal production, the difference is not noticable. In print a lot of other factors has far more impact on the outcome.

travismanley · « **Reply #10 on:** November 11, 2009, 12:09 »

12, but I have accidentally saved at lower and still got those images approved.

KB · « **Reply #11 on:** November 11, 2009, 12:31 »

I always save at 12.

The difference may not be noticeable, but it is there. The smaller file size isn't due to just "better" compression -- data is gone. Forever lost to the buyer, who will have less headroom available in case they want to make some exposure tweaks.

What is 5MB nowadays anyway, when 1GB costs less than $0.10? Let's see .... That means for less than $1.00 I can save 2000 images at 12 instead of 11. Sounds like a dollar well spent!

lisafx · « **Reply #12 on:** November 11, 2009, 13:48 »

I use 12. Storage space and bandwidth are both cheap.

vonkara · « **Reply #13 on:** November 11, 2009, 14:14 »

Who's the one who save at lower than 8

lower than 8 - 1 (2.3%)

cathyslife · « **Reply #14 on:** November 11, 2009, 14:25 »

Quote

Who's the one who save at lower than 8

Not me, I save at 12. Jpg is already lossy compressed. I wouldn't want to give anything less, even if there isn't any difference between 11 and 12.

mantonino · « **Reply #15 on:** November 11, 2009, 15:17 »

We had an action awhile back that ran a "save" and reopened the file - we reopened it 10, 25, 50, 100, 250 times - it doesn't change almost at ALL until 50 resaves. Even at 250 it's barely noticeable. I save at 10.

epantha · « **Reply #16 on:** November 11, 2009, 15:21 »

There used to be a time when printers wouldn't accept jpegs because of the lossy quality issue, only took tifs and eps. Because of this, I save at the highest quality setting.

Noodles · « **Reply #17 on:** November 11, 2009, 15:39 »

Quote from: epantha on November 11, 2009, 15:21

There used to be a time when printers wouldn't accept jpegs because of the lossy quality issue, only .took tifs and .eps. Because of this, I save at the highest quality setting.

Yeah, printers were very anti-jpeg - almost the opposite these days.

For DVD backup I save the RAW or any non compressed format - for Stock and my Photoshelter storage I use Jpeg highest quality setting.

microstockinsider · « **Reply #18 on:** November 11, 2009, 21:30 »

Level 10 for almost everything, unless it's something graphic or lots of contrasting edges on a flat background then 12

Quote from: mantonino on November 11, 2009, 15:17

We had an action awhile back that ran a "save" and reopened the file - we reopened it 10, 25, 50, 100, 250 times - it doesn't change almost at ALL until 50 resaves. Even at 250 it's barely noticeable. I save at 10.

That's because you only lost 'information' on the first save, in theory if you don't change anything and re-save with the same compression settings then nothing should change. The problem comes when you crop something that is not a multiple of 8 pixels from the top left or when you make any changes to the content of the image, then only those parts of the image will start to see artefacts, it's all based on 8x8 macroblocks (that's why you can rotate multiples of 90 degrees 'losslessly' if the images are themselves a multiples of 8 pixels in size along both edges)

RacePhoto · « **Reply #19 on:** November 11, 2009, 22:40 »

Quote from: microstockinsider on November 11, 2009, 21:30

Level 10 for almost everything, unless it's something graphic or lots of contrasting edges on a flat background then 12

Quote from: mantonino on November 11, 2009, 15:17
We had an action awhile back that ran a "save" and reopened the file - we reopened it 10, 25, 50, 100, 250 times - it doesn't change almost at ALL until 50 resaves. Even at 250 it's barely noticeable. I save at 10.

That's because you only lost 'information' on the first save, in theory if you don't change anything and re-save with the same compression settings then nothing should change. The problem comes when you crop something that is not a multiple of 8 pixels from the top left or when you make any changes to the content of the image, then only those parts of the image will start to see artefacts, it's all based on 8x8 macroblocks (that's why you can rotate multiples of 90 degrees 'losslessly' if the images are themselves a multiples of 8 pixels in size along both edges)

The results would have been different if the test had been run, open the file, save as version1, close, open version1, save as version2 Etc. Some people don't understand that it's not if you open and close a file (which think about it... makes no sense)

But if you open and save the file, which recompresses it. That's where the problem occurs.

qwerty · « **Reply #20 on:** November 12, 2009, 03:25 »

Quote from: leaf on November 11, 2009, 10:12

boy, you guys are making me self conscious about my quality 11 jpgs.

I deleted my test images but I couldn't tell any difference .. so I am not sure there would be a point in posting them - unless of course it was just me.

How did you know which one to delete ?

leaf · « **Reply #21 on:** November 12, 2009, 03:50 »

Racephoto just made a test for us
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/level-10-or-level-12-file-quality/

sam100 · « **Reply #22 on:** November 12, 2009, 03:51 »

Quote from: qwerty on November 12, 2009, 03:25

Quote from: leaf on November 11, 2009, 10:12
boy, you guys are making me self conscious about my quality 11 jpgs.

I deleted my test images but I couldn't tell any difference .. so I am not sure there would be a point in posting them - unless of course it was just me.

How did you know which one to delete ?

The quality setting is saved in the image data/exif info.

Patrick h.

leaf · « **Reply #23 on:** November 12, 2009, 03:52 »

Quote from: patrick1958 on November 12, 2009, 03:51

Quote from: qwerty on November 12, 2009, 03:25
Quote from: leaf on November 11, 2009, 10:12
boy, you guys are making me self conscious about my quality 11 jpgs.

I deleted my test images but I couldn't tell any difference .. so I am not sure there would be a point in posting them - unless of course it was just me.

How did you know which one to delete ?

The quality setting is saved in the image data/exif info.

Patrick h.

and I named the files image-q10, image-q11, image-q12

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #24 on:** November 12, 2009, 09:51 »

Quote from: mantonino on November 11, 2009, 15:17

We had an action awhile back that ran a "save" and reopened the file - we reopened it 10, 25, 50, 100, 250 times - it doesn't change almost at ALL until 50 resaves. Even at 250 it's barely noticeable. I save at 10.

I'm convinced that I can see the difference in quality between a first and second save. Or maybe I've convinced myself. However, because of this I don't like saving an image twice and never save it a 3rd time.

I usually save my pics at 11, sometimes at 12.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Poll

which quality level do you save your JPG files at

Author Topic: Which quality level do you save your JPG's in (Read 23986 times)

leaf

Perry

vonkara

leaf

vonkara

sam100

sharpshot

eppic

gbcimages

Fotonaut

travismanley

KB

lisafx

vonkara

cathyslife

mantonino

epantha

Noodles

microstockinsider

RacePhoto

qwerty

leaf

sam100

leaf

Microstock Posts

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors