On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 08:37:55PM -0400, Matthias Julius wrote:
> "Alan Wolfe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Just curious, is there a reason that PNG is a bad choice for this?
> >
> > Lossless compression seems like it'd be a great advantage and it isn't a fly
> > by night file format.
>
> D
"Alan Wolfe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just curious, is there a reason that PNG is a bad choice for this?
>
> Lossless compression seems like it'd be a great advantage and it isn't a fly
> by night file format.
Does PNG support 16 bit per channel? If not then TIFF is probably the
better choi
Just curious, is there a reason that PNG is a bad choice for this?
Lossless compression seems like it'd be a great advantage and it isn't a fly by night file format.
On 10/25/06, Tom Purl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks Markus and Chris for the advice!I checked out the Wikipedia page on the JP
Thanks Markus and Chris for the advice!
I checked out the Wikipedia page on the JPEG format, and found this
excellent link on image degradation when you edit a jpeg:
* http://www.jmg-galleries.com/articles/jpeg_compression.html
It appears that at the very least, I should first convert my image i
Hi Tom!
In my opinion plain TIFF would be the format of choice for all the
criteria mentioned.
Using none of the features supported by non-ancient versions of
Photoshop like i.e. multi layers and omitting any kind of compression
you should be fine for the forseeable future.
Regards Markus
