Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Not bad, as such.

The comments suggest that people who don't already understand it are somewhat confused by the description of JPEG and PNG differences. Personally I thought the example photos do not show clearly enough what the text says they show.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

forgot to add "incomplete" I guess. :)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

This article seems to support most of what you say btw:

http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/workflow/the-right-resolution.html#.U-Fwr_ldV8F

I just ignore the whole upsample downsample correct resolution quagmire and use Qimage Ultimate - which still provides much better print quality than anything short of a hardware RIP.

canon Lee

Exactly!

canon Lee

My suggestion as well.

canon Lee

Keep shooting in RAW! If you do a lot of post editing save to a folder as a TIFF, as this will preserve all of the layers and data. I use LR because I shoot large amounts of images and LR speeds up the process of editing. Unlike Photoshop, LR can export large amounts of images to a folder all at once, where in PS you have to do one at a time, hence saving you lots of time. Editing in Raw does not take away from the original file but simply changes the values (numbers as in digits) of the data. JPEG on the other hand you lose pixels each time you make additional corrections. LR edits the data,( RAW is a set of instructions about the image, not a picture) JPEG converts to pixels which compresses and throws away pixels creating a picture. Never edit in JPEG if it can be avoided. You also can migrate from LR to PS to make other edits, then you can go back to LR, all with one key selection. LR edits 90% of what I need, but once in a while I do need to go back to PS. I hope this has been helpful. Feel free to ask our other knowledgable photographers here for more info. They will be most helpful.