Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is PSD the best option to work on?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is PSD the best option to work on?

    Hi
    I've been doing restorations for about a year now, flying by the seat of my pants and have come to the conclusion that I need to "refine my techniques". I have memory problems (not the RAM
    kind!) and would have been lost without my son's help. I have to keep doing something new over and over to get it to stick.
    I stumbled across Doug's site and am amazed at the willingness
    of the people to lend a hand.

    I'm new to using a forum, but here goes: I have PS 7.0; is it best
    to always convert a file to PSD before working on it? I will usually scan a photo at 300 but sometimes have JPG's from the digital camera.

    Thank you.

    Attached is a recent job I did.
    Attached Files

  • #2
    Hi Danno,

    Welcome to the site. I'm sure you'll like it here. I also have a digital camera that puts out Jpeg files. When I get them into the computer, I save them as Tiff files and make them read only. That's not to say that's the *best* way, but it works for me. When I work on the file, it is usually saved as a Photoshop file because it has layers and additional channels in many cases. Jpg is not used except for special conditions, like posting to the web. Again, that's just my preference. Does your scanner only output Jpg? BTW, take what I have to say with a grain of salt. There are many others more knowledgable on the site. Again, welcome aboard! Nice job on the restoration. The vignette looks great! It does look as if you've lost a lot of detail in the clothing, which could have been saved by using layer masks or other methods (if you wanted to save the detail).

    Ed

    Comment


    • #3
      Ed
      sorry, I wasn't clear. my scans go directly in as a PSD. I thought I had read of people working on images while in JPG, but that causes loss of info, right?
      thanks for the suggestion on layer masks. that's the kind of "refinement" I need!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Danno
        I thought I had read of people working on images while in JPG, but that causes loss of info, right?
        Danno, welcome to the bb. I'm new here too and there are some very talented folks here!

        About jpeg from digital cameras, if the images are from a digital camera you own, make sure you set the picture quality to best quality jpeg (and largest image size), that will have the least amount of compression and image data loss. As Ed suggested always resave the images in another lossless format such as tiff or in Windows bmp, although tiff is better for cross platform work between Windows and Mac. You may wish to save a jpeg copy too after you finish with any enhancements or corrections. I usually resize the final image after saving one copy at full size, to something like 640x480 jpeg for sharing on the internet or in email. I hope this helps a bit...

        Comment


        • #5
          Welcome, Danno! It is probably best to avoid JPEG as much as possible due to the degradation and artifact production that format is subject to unless there are special reasons for using it.
          You dont have to change the format when working on the raw photo, as when you go to save it, PS will automatically save it in PSD if you have layers and so on. Tom

          Comment


          • #6
            Hi Danno! Welcome to RP! I'm glad you found us...

            I'd pretty much agree with what was said, except that I don't avoid JPEG completely as many people do. There's absolutely nothing wrong with deciding to avoid JPEGs. The decision to use them is a personal choice for me based on a few different things.

            I don't print my work at home, so the format I use to carry it to the lab is a consideration for me. I've taken TIFF files to labs and they weren't able to print them. Although it hasn't happened often, it has happened often enough to make me decide that it's not worth the risk of having to come home, convert the file and make another trip to the lab. The ability for a lab to convert and print from PSD files is very chancy since PSD files are not as widely recognized by all types of printing equipment. I've never had a problem getting a good print from a JPEG, so that is what I prefer to use for printing and to present to clients.

            Another reason is that most of my clients are not techno-geeks, but they may want to use the images I provide to them on CD to email to relatives, print on their home printers, post on personal web pages, etc. in addition to possibly wanting to have more prints made at their local photo lab. I feel that large TIFF files aren't as suited to that kind of thing, and that a JPEG file gives my clients more flexibility as far as general use goes without requiring that they make size changes or convert file formats.

            I usually work on images in either TIFF or PSD format and then go to JPEG as my final step, which is to burn the image to CD to take to the lab for printing.

            Most articles I've read suggest working with TIFF, BMP, or PSD files and only saving as JPEG in the final step, but at that final step, using a JPEG is a very acceptable option.

            I do not do any manipulation or repair directly to JPEG files unless I know that I will complete the work in one session. If I have to save my work to continue later, I always save as TIFF or PSD.

            Although JPEG is lossy, here is what I've found out about it from some research I've done:

            1. Saving an image to JPEG format, always introduces some loss in quality, though a quality setting of 100 will usually not be detectable by the average naked eye.

            2. Simply opening or displaying a JPEG image does not harm the image in any way. Even opening an image and saving it again under a new name will not introduce further compression, unless additional editing was performed on the image. Saving a JPEG repeatedly during the same editing session (without ever closing the image) will not accumulate a loss in quality.

            3. JPEG is not good for small, detailed text or images with hard edges. The JPEG standard is excellent for most realistic images (photos for example, but not line drawings or logos).

            Here are some of the resources I used to come to my conclusions:

            http://graphicssoft.about.com/librar...4jpegmyths.htm

            http://www.webfront.net.au/~bargi/gifvsjpg/gifanjpg.htm

            http://www.gwu.edu/~ttl/updates/publ...eference_3.htm

            http://www.bris.ac.uk/depts/Pharmaco...ics/colour.htm

            http://www.twcny.rr.com/technofile/t...fmt103001.html

            http://www.netventure.com/cpc/imgfaq.html

            http://www.agfanet.com/en/cafe/photo...chapter04.php3

            http://www.pctechguide.com/18scan2.htm

            Comment

            Loading...
            Working...
            X