Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Don Hoey
Rob,
I think thats a good idea.
This is something I would be interested in. Thought about it today and am going to do a test using XP, 2000, and 98SE. to see if the modern program writes more info to the file.
Personal example ; We moved to Norfolk, and are now 5 hours one way from my mother. I now write using word ( her eyesight is not what it was ), and add pictures to make the letters more interesting. When we joined the RSPB and started visiting Tichwell, I took lots of pictures, some became joiners. I downsized and compressed these, as that letter was to have around 10 pics and the printer stuggled with that. Those with large areas of blue skies showed the dreaded banding. The result of overcompression.
If I was new to this forum and posting a gallery pic, and did not understand compression at all, I could be quite frustrated posting that glorious summer scene and looking at the final result in the gallery and not understanding why.
Don
|
Surely the operating system writes nothing to the file, especially as you are not using it to resave the images. Differences in file size it seems tome come about as a result of resaving the file in different progs at different compression levels. With the file you refer to I saved it in PS using the Save for Web command but had to go much much lower than normal,round about 30% to get it to the size you had. Normally I would use no less than 50% for a file approx 800pix wide to keepit under 200kb. BTW Save for Web in PS strips out all the exif data.
With regard to your printing Don, I can't help feeling that the banding to which you refer was as a result of printing on ordinary letter paper and the standard print quality, it could also mean your print heads could do with cleaning
