View Single Post
Old 01-13-2005, 12:10 AM   #8
Mike McCarty Mike McCarty is offline
PHOTOGRAPHY MODERATOR
SOG Member
'03 Finalist Taos SOPA
'03 HonMen SoCal ASOPA
'03 Finalist SoCal ASOPA
'04 Finalist Taos SOPA
 
Mike McCarty's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Posts: 2,674
Quote:
It would seem that only the act of saving a JPEG that was properly exposed does not create the kind of deterioration that I expected to see
I think what I said above doesn't make good sense. It has to be true that the saving program doesn't no beans about whether the image is properly exposed or not. It just saves whatever it finds and lets mine eyes determine if it is proper. But, the point is still the same.

You might be right John, maybe if I took the harshly saved image to the printer I might see a difference, but I don't see why really. If I get ambitious I might try it.

I also don't understand the "resolution" thing anymore. When I worked in film the only way I could get my image into the computer was to scan the hard copy. At the time of scanning I would select a resolution. This had a real impact on the quality of the image. Now, when I check the resolution of my digital images they all say 200 no matter what. I suppose if I change that number to the down side I would start loosing something, but I can't imagine having a positive impact by increasing that number after the fact. I thought maybe the ISO had something to do with resolution because I shot most of my stuff at 200. But that ain't it, the image below was shot at 800 ISO and it still shows 200 resolution.
Attached Images
 
__________________
Mike McCarty
  Reply With Quote