[Digikam-users] jpeg compression

Bjørn Kvisli bjorn.kvisli at tele2.no
Thu Jun 28 22:22:23 BST 2007

Torsdag 28 juni 2007 23:09, skrev Jakob Østergaard:
> On Thursday 28 June 2007 18:20:43 Daniel Bauer wrote:
> > On Donnerstag, 28. Juni 2007, Bjørn Kvisli wrote:
> > > If I understand this right, assuming that the Kodac C340 uses jpeg
> > > quality of 70 internally, it makes no sense to set a higher value in
> > > Digikam?
> >
> > it still makes sense, because every new save looses some more
> > information. Although its not that dramatic in reality, you could think
> > of percents just to better understand: then if you save the 70% with 100%
> > you get 70% again, if you save it with 70% you get only 49% (70% of 70%)
> > and so on.
> >
> > I found that a jpg value of 88 in digiKam gives approx. same results as
> > 80 in photoshop (in quality and size). That's the value I use for my web
> > pics.
> >
> > However, as long as you work with the pictures better use a lossless file
> > format and only save the final pictures to .jpg (if at all). And leave
> > the originals untouched.
> A tip;
> When order paper photos from my digital images at the local shop (which
> uses a Fujicolor service which means the actual paper photos get developed
> somewhere in germany then shipped back to .dk so I can pick them up at the
> local shop), I found that JPEG images are a lot better than uncompressed
> It turns out, that if I deliver TIFFs, the "clever" kiosk system will
> convert them (most likely to JPEG) with a pretty heavy compression. If I
> deliver JPEGs (at 95% quality) the images are not further compressed, and
> they look crisp and sharp on paper.
> I tried a test run with several different pictures, two copies of each
> picture (one JPEG one TIFF), and the TIFFs were very noticeably "smudged"
> or "blurred", suffering the artifacts of a heavy JPEG compression (or other
> compression that cuts out high frequencies).
> That's one case where I've found JPEGs to be superior to TIFFs, although
> not for the reasons one would usually expect  ;)

Interesting! I'll probably do as you in the futures. keep my images in a 
lossless format and convert to jpg before sending them off to the print shop.

Now, I've heard about two lossless formats here on the mailing list: tiff and 
png. Which one is bes to use with Digikam? It seems like you keep all the 
exif data with png, but lose them with tiff.

More information about the Digikam-users mailing list