What to do with this graphic?

[namvet]

[confused] [confused] ... Erik ... I understand your explanation (seems quite logical) ... but, I've just tried the following ... take jpg image duplicate it, do a save as (it's still the original image - right?) ... now I duplicate the saved as and do just a 'save' ... the 'jpg options box' pops up (I go with what it gives me - medium [6]) and image is saved (some pixels will have been 're-assigned' causing the image to deteriorate - right") ... I then bring back the 'new' saved image and repeat on each new 'saved' image .. this now gives me 10 images each saved from the previous ... I wanted to see how much the images deteriorated .... they did'nt [confused] ... not trusting my eyes, I took the 10 saved images into IR and made them run in the browser ... no noticable change .... so I boosted the image size to 400% to watch pixels of similar colour levels 'move about' ... but .. no changes in any part of the pic .. why?? .. am I doing something wrong with my 'test'??

 

[docilebob]

Personally, I never flatten a psd. It`s a great convenience at times to have the original layered file available. Just having to rebuild ONE because somebody wants *that* moved *over there* makes all the space required worth it.
If I need a *flattened* copy for something, I save one with a new name as a jpg, gif, tiff, or whatever.
Just my .02

 

[sal4gal]

Thanks, I am learning from everyone!

Sallie

 

[wbiss]

Bubble: I certainly don't flatten my work and then save. Should I? Is there a purpose in doing this?

Only if you want to conserve disk space and you have no further use for keeping a layered (large) PS file hanging around, Bubble! i.e. you won't be make any further modifications to it.

Ian (namvet), my question to you would be, with the test that you ran, did you compare the file sizes??? Perhaps, visibly there was no noticeable degradation because you were working with good quality jpegs! [confused]

 

[namvet]

Wendy wrote:

Perhaps, visibly there was no noticeable degradation because you were working with good quality jpegs!

.. thanks for reply Wendy ... the original pic was Dubya's and I chose it only because I thought that the similar skin tones around the eyes would show up the degradation ... although it is what I would call "a good pic" I don't think it is a high quality jpg (597x600 pixels at 67kb) ... pic below gives more info ... first image is the info of original pic .. second image is the cropped pic that I then saved x 10 ... third image is info about cropped pic ... does this help?

 

[wbiss]

You have to compare "apples to apples", Ian (namvet) and the files that you posted with the corresponding sizes that you've shown me isn't doing that. Take a look at the file size of "jpg01" and compare it to the file size of "jpg10".

I just ran a test myself and, although the degradation isn't "visibly perceptible", it's there when I compare the size of my starting jpeg and my ending jpeg. It went from 90.3 to 89.8...not much, 'cause I was using the same compression rate over and over. Had I compressed it further than 60% to say 50%, the results would have been more noticeable.

Another thought... Photoshop "uncompresses" the jpeg and converts it to its native format. Perhaps you're "recompressing" at a higher quality than the original? [confused]

 

[Bubble]

Thanks all for your 'flattening' explanations :}

Wendy wrote:

Only if you want to conserve disk space and you have no further use for keeping a layered (large) PS file hanging around

That's why I keep a .psd copy on cd and a .jpeg copy for use if it doesn't need tampering. I always keep the psd's cause you just don't know when you want to go back and fiddle later, even if it's years down the track. However, having said that, I still don't flatten my work before saving as jpeg. I just go ahead and save. Maybe I should read the PS Manual, then I might get what this flattening stuff is all about. [:I

 

[Guest]

However, having said that, I still don't flatten my work before saving as jpeg.

That's good, because there's no need for that Bubble