http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/graphics/saving_options_for_jpg_in_photoshop/ A Graphics forum thread at WPDFD.com en-us 01/06/04, 006 20 2004 2004:%i:1073366401 00:20:01 06/07/13, 158 12 2013 2013:%i:1370585526 02:12:06 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss NineLabs Framework Feed Generator sitemaster@wpdfd.com sitemaster@wpdfd.com http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/graphics/saving_options_for_jpg_in_photoshop/#p133
When saving a JPG in Photoshop (I'm using an old version: 4), it gives these options:

- Baseline 'Standard'
- Baseline 'Optimized'
- Progressive / # of Scans

Can anyone explain the difference to me, and which one offers the best optimization for the lowest file size? I've got GIF optimization figured out, but still end up with weighty files when saving as JPG.

TIA,

Terry

]]> 01/06/04, 006 20 2004 2004:%i:1073366401 00:20:01 http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/graphics/saving_options_for_jpg_in_photoshop/#p133 http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/graphics/saving_options_for_jpg_in_photoshop/#p134 is the correct format because you can compare GIF and PNG versions in the same field of view.

The options you mention are still present when you do a regular 'Save as...' with JPEG.

'Baseline Optimized' gives a slightly smaller file size than 'Baseline' at the expense of compatibility with older browsers. I wouldn't worry too much about older browsers these days, always use 'Optimized'. It is ticked as default in more recent versions of PS.

'Progressive' isn't very relevant these days either. It builds the picture up in the browser as the data downloads. It's only really significant with slow connections or very large images. Seeing the image gradually build up in resolution gives the impression of a faster download to the viewer – but if you measure it with a stopwatch, actually takes longer. This is unchecked by default now.

The 'Save for Web' feature that was introduced in later versions, also includes a 'blur' control that reduces filesize further, although I've never found it particularly useful.

The only thing that really matters with a JPEG is the 'Quality' slider and the little extra effort involved in catching that 'sweet point' where compression artefacts just become unnoticable.]]> 01/06/04, 006 23 2004 2004:%i:1073391810 07:23:30 http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/graphics/saving_options_for_jpg_in_photoshop/#p134 http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/graphics/saving_options_for_jpg_in_photoshop/#p135
Terry

]]> 01/06/04, 006 01 2004 2004:%i:1073419274 15:01:14 http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/graphics/saving_options_for_jpg_in_photoshop/#p135 http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/graphics/saving_options_for_jpg_in_photoshop/#p2418 07/06/08, 188 36 2008 2008:%i:1215358562 11:36:02 http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/graphics/saving_options_for_jpg_in_photoshop/#p2418 http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/graphics/saving_options_for_jpg_in_photoshop/#p2481
Virtual assistant and Data processing

]]> 09/11/08, 255 52 2008 2008:%i:1221191546 23:52:26 http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/graphics/saving_options_for_jpg_in_photoshop/#p2481