Igor.Burshteyn
02-14-2007, 04:43
My experience is a mixed bag - it's usually enough for pictures that don't contain vignettes and are not packed with details. Yesterday I downloaded to my gallery scan of shot which exhibits visually perceivable quality degradation when compressed to 150K.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=56091
I usually crop to 800x600 and compress with jpeg quality factor 9-10 in order to get to 150K area. This time it was ~400K compressed as I used to, and I had to compress it with jpeg quality 4 (!). Result? jpeg artifacts all over the picture.
What is your experience?
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=56091
I usually crop to 800x600 and compress with jpeg quality factor 9-10 in order to get to 150K area. This time it was ~400K compressed as I used to, and I had to compress it with jpeg quality 4 (!). Result? jpeg artifacts all over the picture.
What is your experience?