Nelsonfoto Forums
May 23, 2013, 02:24:22 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to Nelson Foto Forums!
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Nelsonfoto Forums > Dude, I'm Geekin' Out Over Here! > Technical Central > Higher setting in Photoshop means lower quality?
Pages: [1]
« previous next »
  Print  
Author Topic: Higher setting in Photoshop means lower quality?  (Read 1021 times)
br1078lum
PFMcFarland
Prolific Poster
*****
Posts: 2788

Waiting for the light


View Profile
« on: August 29, 2011, 06:28:51 PM »
http://www.petapixel.com/2011/08/26/a-higher-quality-setting-in-photoshop-sometimes-reduces-jpeg-quality/

PF
Logged
Smile, it won't kill you
Captain Slack
Prolific Poster
*****
Posts: 898


View Profile Email
« Reply #1 on: August 30, 2011, 10:35:21 AM »
Well, that's good to know!!

So, to get the best quality I should use 6 & not 7?  What about values about between 8-10? 
Logged
br1078lum
PFMcFarland
Prolific Poster
*****
Posts: 2788

Waiting for the light


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2011, 07:25:42 PM »
Towards the end of the article it states that this phenomenum occurs only when going from 6 to 7.  After that, everything is okay.

PF
Logged
Smile, it won't kill you
LarryD
Karma is Real
Prolific Poster
*****
Posts: 12094


View Profile Email
« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2011, 06:30:52 AM »
Hmmm I have always used 10 now I know why.
Logged
Film photography and the Soviet Union are not dead. Just downsized.
Hoosier_Rich
Toxophilite
Prolific Poster
*****
Posts: 828


View Profile Email
« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2011, 07:45:33 PM »
Mine goes to 11.
Logged
Rich S.

PBase
Flickr
LarryD
Karma is Real
Prolific Poster
*****
Posts: 12094


View Profile Email
« Reply #5 on: September 01, 2011, 05:30:35 PM »
Spinal Tap ^^^^^^^^ You rock Rich.
Logged
Film photography and the Soviet Union are not dead. Just downsized.
br1078lum
PFMcFarland
Prolific Poster
*****
Posts: 2788

Waiting for the light


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: September 01, 2011, 06:52:27 PM »
There is also a reference to 11 on one of the early Chicago albums (CTA I think), where they are setting up the amps, and someone says "11".  :cool:

PF
Logged
Smile, it won't kill you
LarryD
Karma is Real
Prolific Poster
*****
Posts: 12094


View Profile Email
« Reply #7 on: September 01, 2011, 07:34:04 PM »
Yes the Beatles only went to Number 9. Number 9. Number 9. Smiley
Logged
Film photography and the Soviet Union are not dead. Just downsized.
Hoosier_Rich
Toxophilite
Prolific Poster
*****
Posts: 828


View Profile Email
« Reply #8 on: September 01, 2011, 10:56:07 PM »
LOL got me there Larry. I always wondered what happened to Revolutions 2 thru 8.
Logged
Rich S.

PBase
Flickr
br1078lum
PFMcFarland
Prolific Poster
*****
Posts: 2788

Waiting for the light


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: September 02, 2011, 06:24:56 AM »
Quote from: LarryD on September 01, 2011, 07:34:04 PM
Yes the Beatles only went to Number 9. Number 9. Number 9. Smiley

 :cool:

PF
Logged
Smile, it won't kill you
Pages: [1]
  Print  
« previous next »
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!