Amazon Music Unlimited Offer: 1-Month For FREE!

Emailing Images


phillips 15 69 2 Scotland
6 Feb 2008 7:35AM
The Secretary at our Camera Club is adament that competition Jpeg images sent to him by Email at the 1024 X 768 resolution demanded by the Club projector are of an inferior quality to images of the smame size submitted to him on CD or memory stick.
Be pleased to hear your thoughts.

Guy
snurse 16 8 England
6 Feb 2008 7:43AM
What absolute rubbish. A JPEG file deteriorates each time it is opened and saved but if the file is just copied as an attachment then the quality will be exactly the same no matter what medium is used to transport it to its destination.
Martin54 Plus
15 546 United Kingdom
6 Feb 2008 7:56AM
Of course the jpeg file should be the same quality, unless he is doing something silly like saving a thumbnail version rather than the full file. Our comp. secretary did something simillar last night and turned up with a CD of html links to images that wouldn't display. Of course they dispalyed correctly on his PC at home as that had the original files to link to....
Martin
Photogene 15 176 Wales
6 Feb 2008 11:52AM

Quote:Jpeg images sent to him by Email at the 1024 X 768 resolution demanded by the Club projector are of an inferior quality to images of the smame size submitted to him on CD or memory stick.



Are you using hotmail to send the images? If so are you using the attach photo tool, or the attach file tool? If you're using the attach photo option, hotmail will down-size any large images to half their original size. That's why I always post image files using the attach file tool, as it retains the image size no matter how big it is.
phillips 15 69 2 Scotland
6 Feb 2008 12:41PM

Quote:Quote:Jpeg images sent to him by Email at the 1024 X 768 resolution demanded by the Club projector are of an inferior quality to images of the smame size submitted to him on CD or memory stick.
Are you using hotmail to send the images? If so are you using the attach photo tool, or the attach file tool? If you're using the attach photo option, hotmail will down-size any large images to half their original size. That's why I always post image files using the attach file tool, as it retains the image size no matter how big it is.


Neither Kim or I are using Hotmail.

I've organised 3 digital competitions within the club in the last year, with most of the entries being Emailed to me....I hadn't noticed any problems in quality although, in fairness, I didn't have the original files to compare them with.

So far the replies to this thread are confirming what I thought....that using Email to submit pictures doesn't impact quality. I'd be pleased to see more replys to be conclusive.

Guy
JohnHorne 16 1.0k
6 Feb 2008 1:54PM
A bit of a long shot but does your friend use OnSpeed or a similar service in an attempt to improve the performance of his internet connection ? If so, this works by compressing everything in order to reduce the volume of data sent. It even compresses JPEGs, which would, of course, have an adverse effect on quality.

Also, don't forget that when sending emails with images attached Outlook offers the opportunity of resizing the image. If the sender selects this then, again, image quality will suffer.

But, if nothing is compressing the images then quality won't suffer.
jken 14 1.7k 1 United Kingdom
6 Feb 2008 4:13PM
Sounds like your ISP uses compression software for attachments.

Do a test with an image and ZIP it first before you attach it to an email, then send it to yourself.

Do the same again with the same file and don't zip it before you send it to yourself. If the files compare and look the same then its nothing to do with your ISP just his end.

jk
jstock 13 2 Scotland
7 Feb 2008 11:30AM
Guy,

Given that the person in question also told me that zipping a jpeg can also degrade quality, I think the problem is just techno-fear. Just to set the record straight on that one, zipping a jpeg is pointless in the first place, because you won't get any more compression (it's already huffman encoded). Plus, zipping is by definition lossless, so you *always* get the exact same file out when you unzip (unless the archive got corrupted, in which case you get nothing).

Sending in competition entries on a disk would make sense if we were submitting 4M full resolution images, but for the puny 1024x768 ones that take only 300k or so, it's utter madness!
Cheers, Jon
stolzy 15 3.8k 7
7 Feb 2008 11:46AM

Quote:Sounds like your ISP uses compression software for attachments.

But surely such compression must be lossless - otherwise, word documents and the like would be corrupted.
uggyy 15 2.1k 9 Scotland
7 Feb 2008 12:07PM
If you zip a Jpeg that was saved at 100%, it will shrink the size of the image but when unzipped it will put it back to 100% of the size it was to start.

Zipping at Jpeg that was saved at a high compression wont save you much space though and again it will uncompress to the size it was originally.

The guys talking rubbish... Unless there is something going on or some aspect we are not seeing.
kaybee Plus
16 7.6k 26 Scotland
7 Feb 2008 12:32PM
I hope he isn't judging because he doesn't know what he is talking about
stolzy 15 3.8k 7
7 Feb 2008 1:03PM

Quote:If you zip a Jpeg that was saved at 100%

But a jpeg saved at 100% if effectively a tiff n'est pas? if you zipped a compressed jpeg, you'd likely not reduce its size by much, if at all.
Martin54 Plus
15 546 United Kingdom
7 Feb 2008 1:19PM

Quote:I hope he isn't judging because he doesn't know what he is talking about


That doesn't seem to stop some of the judges we have at our club!
mikeweeks 16 978 3 England
7 Feb 2008 2:35PM

Quote:But a jpeg saved at 100% if effectively a tiff n'est pas? if you zipped a compressed jpeg, you'd likely not reduce its size by much, if at all.


create a new document say 1000 by 1000 pixels of a single colour, save as TIFF and JPEG and you will see a vast size difference. The 100% setting in a JPEG compression algorithm still carries out compression such as Huffman encoding which will nearly always result in savings regardless on the image.

Mike
lobsterboy Plus
17 14.9k 13 United Kingdom
7 Feb 2008 3:04PM

Quote:if you zipped a compressed jpeg, you'd likely not reduce its size by much, if at all.


I had a play with this once and found that the first time you zip it you get a very small reduction in size (97K goes down to 93K) ..not really worth it.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.