GIMP Quality .jpg export - what is the best set up? [duplicate]

This question already has an answer here:

What quality to choose when converting to JPG?

6 answers

please could you tell what is the best common quality export value for .jpg image export in the GIMP? For example I set up the 100% for .jpg and for example for image 1,5 MB I will get the 5,2 MB or even more then 7 MB. Is it really better quality than the original photo? Is there any advantages to keep photo in this high quality?

asked Jan 22 at 6:48

Heron

223

marked as duplicate by Philip Kendall, xiota, flolilolilo, Hueco, scottbb Jan 23 at 22:08

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

3

How are you defining "best"? JPEG quality is just about a perfect example of a trade-off you have to make.

– Philip Kendall
Jan 22 at 7:11

"Best" for what end use of the image? The reason we have choices is because different intended usages and different quality versus size priorities benefit from different compression/quality settings.

– Michael C
Jan 22 at 8:06

add a comment |

This question already has an answer here:

What quality to choose when converting to JPG?

6 answers

asked Jan 22 at 6:48

Heron

223

marked as duplicate by Philip Kendall, xiota, flolilolilo, Hueco, scottbb Jan 23 at 22:08

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

3

How are you defining "best"? JPEG quality is just about a perfect example of a trade-off you have to make.

– Philip Kendall
Jan 22 at 7:11

"Best" for what end use of the image? The reason we have choices is because different intended usages and different quality versus size priorities benefit from different compression/quality settings.

– Michael C
Jan 22 at 8:06

add a comment |

This question already has an answer here:

What quality to choose when converting to JPG?

6 answers

asked Jan 22 at 6:48

Heron

223

This question already has an answer here:

What quality to choose when converting to JPG?

6 answers

This question already has an answer here:

What quality to choose when converting to JPG?

6 answers

image-quality gimp

asked Jan 22 at 6:48

Heron

223

asked Jan 22 at 6:48

Heron

223

asked Jan 22 at 6:48

Heron

223

asked Jan 22 at 6:48

Heron

223

asked Jan 22 at 6:48

Heron

223

marked as duplicate by Philip Kendall, xiota, flolilolilo, Hueco, scottbb Jan 23 at 22:08

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

marked as duplicate by Philip Kendall, xiota, flolilolilo, Hueco, scottbb Jan 23 at 22:08

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

3

How are you defining "best"? JPEG quality is just about a perfect example of a trade-off you have to make.

– Philip Kendall
Jan 22 at 7:11

"Best" for what end use of the image? The reason we have choices is because different intended usages and different quality versus size priorities benefit from different compression/quality settings.

– Michael C
Jan 22 at 8:06

add a comment |

3

How are you defining "best"? JPEG quality is just about a perfect example of a trade-off you have to make.

– Philip Kendall
Jan 22 at 7:11

"Best" for what end use of the image? The reason we have choices is because different intended usages and different quality versus size priorities benefit from different compression/quality settings.

– Michael C
Jan 22 at 8:06

How are you defining "best"? JPEG quality is just about a perfect example of a trade-off you have to make.

– Philip Kendall
Jan 22 at 7:11

"Best" for what end use of the image? The reason we have choices is because different intended usages and different quality versus size priorities benefit from different compression/quality settings.

– Michael C
Jan 22 at 8:06

add a comment |

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

Saving at 100% quality will never restore whatever loss has already occurred, and the image from your camera is usually at 95-97 quality. If you save at 100% quality you can as well use a lossless format such as PNG or TIFF (any compression except Jpeg).

In practice, quality depends on intended usage.

If you want to keep the picture as a source for further edits(*), good quality is important, otherwise JPEG compression artifacts are going to get in the way (when doing selections, etc...). So keep the quality at 95 and make sure that the "Subsampling" (see the "advanced options" in the JPEG export dialog) is set to 4:4:4 (best quality).

If it is a final version (for the web, or print), you can easily lower the quality to 80-85 and use a more aggressive subsampling: 4:2:2 or even 4:2:0. Tick the Show preview in image window option to see in real time the influence of the JPG options on the final output (this also gives you an instant evaluation of the resulting file size) and adjust to your liking. "Sharper" pictures (or pictures with text added) will often require a better quality setting.

(*) while you work on a picture with Gimp, save it as XCF of course, to keep all the layers/channels/paths/selection.

answered Jan 22 at 7:28

xenoid

4,0261519

add a comment |

"Best" practices:

Keep a copy of your original files safe and away from edits.

"Use quality settings from original image" – if the original was a JPEG and your edits were localized.

When resaving JPEGs, quality loss is limited when the image is unchanged or the changes are localized. Significant degradation occurs when quality settings are changed or when edits are global. See What factors cause or prevent "generational loss" when JPEGs are recompressed multiple times?

Otherwise, use X% at 4:4:4. (X = Your favorite number between 95 and 100.)

For upload to web, use a JPEG minimizer, such as JPEGmini or jpeg-recompress from jpeg-archive.

Or see What quality to choose when converting to JPG?

Use quality settings from original image

edited Jan 22 at 16:29

answered Jan 22 at 7:55

xiota

11.1k31862

Sure about 2.? I'd expect that to end up in localized edits at the price of globalized quality loss.....

– rackandboneman
Jan 22 at 13:15

@rackandboneman When resaving JPEGs, quality loss is limited when the image is unchanged or the changes are localized. Significant degradation occurs when quality settings are changed or when edits are global. See What factors cause or prevent "generational loss" when JPEGs are recompressed multiple times?

– xiota
Jan 22 at 16:19

add a comment |

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

In practice, quality depends on intended usage.

If you want to keep the picture as a source for further edits(*), good quality is important, otherwise JPEG compression artifacts are going to get in the way (when doing selections, etc...). So keep the quality at 95 and make sure that the "Subsampling" (see the "advanced options" in the JPEG export dialog) is set to 4:4:4 (best quality).

If it is a final version (for the web, or print), you can easily lower the quality to 80-85 and use a more aggressive subsampling: 4:2:2 or even 4:2:0. Tick the Show preview in image window option to see in real time the influence of the JPG options on the final output (this also gives you an instant evaluation of the resulting file size) and adjust to your liking. "Sharper" pictures (or pictures with text added) will often require a better quality setting.

(*) while you work on a picture with Gimp, save it as XCF of course, to keep all the layers/channels/paths/selection.

answered Jan 22 at 7:28

xenoid

4,0261519

add a comment |

In practice, quality depends on intended usage.

If you want to keep the picture as a source for further edits(*), good quality is important, otherwise JPEG compression artifacts are going to get in the way (when doing selections, etc...). So keep the quality at 95 and make sure that the "Subsampling" (see the "advanced options" in the JPEG export dialog) is set to 4:4:4 (best quality).

If it is a final version (for the web, or print), you can easily lower the quality to 80-85 and use a more aggressive subsampling: 4:2:2 or even 4:2:0. Tick the Show preview in image window option to see in real time the influence of the JPG options on the final output (this also gives you an instant evaluation of the resulting file size) and adjust to your liking. "Sharper" pictures (or pictures with text added) will often require a better quality setting.

(*) while you work on a picture with Gimp, save it as XCF of course, to keep all the layers/channels/paths/selection.

answered Jan 22 at 7:28

xenoid

4,0261519

add a comment |

In practice, quality depends on intended usage.

If you want to keep the picture as a source for further edits(*), good quality is important, otherwise JPEG compression artifacts are going to get in the way (when doing selections, etc...). So keep the quality at 95 and make sure that the "Subsampling" (see the "advanced options" in the JPEG export dialog) is set to 4:4:4 (best quality).

If it is a final version (for the web, or print), you can easily lower the quality to 80-85 and use a more aggressive subsampling: 4:2:2 or even 4:2:0. Tick the Show preview in image window option to see in real time the influence of the JPG options on the final output (this also gives you an instant evaluation of the resulting file size) and adjust to your liking. "Sharper" pictures (or pictures with text added) will often require a better quality setting.

(*) while you work on a picture with Gimp, save it as XCF of course, to keep all the layers/channels/paths/selection.

answered Jan 22 at 7:28

xenoid

4,0261519

In practice, quality depends on intended usage.

If you want to keep the picture as a source for further edits(*), good quality is important, otherwise JPEG compression artifacts are going to get in the way (when doing selections, etc...). So keep the quality at 95 and make sure that the "Subsampling" (see the "advanced options" in the JPEG export dialog) is set to 4:4:4 (best quality).

If it is a final version (for the web, or print), you can easily lower the quality to 80-85 and use a more aggressive subsampling: 4:2:2 or even 4:2:0. Tick the Show preview in image window option to see in real time the influence of the JPG options on the final output (this also gives you an instant evaluation of the resulting file size) and adjust to your liking. "Sharper" pictures (or pictures with text added) will often require a better quality setting.

(*) while you work on a picture with Gimp, save it as XCF of course, to keep all the layers/channels/paths/selection.

answered Jan 22 at 7:28

xenoid

4,0261519

answered Jan 22 at 7:28

xenoid

4,0261519

answered Jan 22 at 7:28

xenoid

4,0261519

answered Jan 22 at 7:28

xenoid

4,0261519

add a comment |

"Best" practices:

Keep a copy of your original files safe and away from edits.

"Use quality settings from original image" – if the original was a JPEG and your edits were localized.

When resaving JPEGs, quality loss is limited when the image is unchanged or the changes are localized. Significant degradation occurs when quality settings are changed or when edits are global. See What factors cause or prevent "generational loss" when JPEGs are recompressed multiple times?

Otherwise, use X% at 4:4:4. (X = Your favorite number between 95 and 100.)

For upload to web, use a JPEG minimizer, such as JPEGmini or jpeg-recompress from jpeg-archive.

Or see What quality to choose when converting to JPG?

Use quality settings from original image

edited Jan 22 at 16:29

answered Jan 22 at 7:55

xiota

11.1k31862

Sure about 2.? I'd expect that to end up in localized edits at the price of globalized quality loss.....

– rackandboneman
Jan 22 at 13:15

@rackandboneman When resaving JPEGs, quality loss is limited when the image is unchanged or the changes are localized. Significant degradation occurs when quality settings are changed or when edits are global. See What factors cause or prevent "generational loss" when JPEGs are recompressed multiple times?

– xiota
Jan 22 at 16:19

add a comment |

"Best" practices:

Keep a copy of your original files safe and away from edits.

"Use quality settings from original image" – if the original was a JPEG and your edits were localized.

When resaving JPEGs, quality loss is limited when the image is unchanged or the changes are localized. Significant degradation occurs when quality settings are changed or when edits are global. See What factors cause or prevent "generational loss" when JPEGs are recompressed multiple times?

Otherwise, use X% at 4:4:4. (X = Your favorite number between 95 and 100.)

For upload to web, use a JPEG minimizer, such as JPEGmini or jpeg-recompress from jpeg-archive.

Or see What quality to choose when converting to JPG?

Use quality settings from original image

edited Jan 22 at 16:29

answered Jan 22 at 7:55

xiota

11.1k31862

Sure about 2.? I'd expect that to end up in localized edits at the price of globalized quality loss.....

– rackandboneman
Jan 22 at 13:15

@rackandboneman When resaving JPEGs, quality loss is limited when the image is unchanged or the changes are localized. Significant degradation occurs when quality settings are changed or when edits are global. See What factors cause or prevent "generational loss" when JPEGs are recompressed multiple times?

– xiota
Jan 22 at 16:19

add a comment |

"Best" practices:

Keep a copy of your original files safe and away from edits.

"Use quality settings from original image" – if the original was a JPEG and your edits were localized.

When resaving JPEGs, quality loss is limited when the image is unchanged or the changes are localized. Significant degradation occurs when quality settings are changed or when edits are global. See What factors cause or prevent "generational loss" when JPEGs are recompressed multiple times?

Otherwise, use X% at 4:4:4. (X = Your favorite number between 95 and 100.)

For upload to web, use a JPEG minimizer, such as JPEGmini or jpeg-recompress from jpeg-archive.

Or see What quality to choose when converting to JPG?

Use quality settings from original image

edited Jan 22 at 16:29

answered Jan 22 at 7:55

xiota

11.1k31862

"Best" practices:

Keep a copy of your original files safe and away from edits.

"Use quality settings from original image" – if the original was a JPEG and your edits were localized.

When resaving JPEGs, quality loss is limited when the image is unchanged or the changes are localized. Significant degradation occurs when quality settings are changed or when edits are global. See What factors cause or prevent "generational loss" when JPEGs are recompressed multiple times?

Otherwise, use X% at 4:4:4. (X = Your favorite number between 95 and 100.)

For upload to web, use a JPEG minimizer, such as JPEGmini or jpeg-recompress from jpeg-archive.

Or see What quality to choose when converting to JPG?

Use quality settings from original image

edited Jan 22 at 16:29

answered Jan 22 at 7:55

xiota

11.1k31862

edited Jan 22 at 16:29

answered Jan 22 at 7:55

xiota

11.1k31862

answered Jan 22 at 7:55

xiota

11.1k31862

answered Jan 22 at 7:55

xiota

11.1k31862

Sure about 2.? I'd expect that to end up in localized edits at the price of globalized quality loss.....

– rackandboneman
Jan 22 at 13:15

@rackandboneman When resaving JPEGs, quality loss is limited when the image is unchanged or the changes are localized. Significant degradation occurs when quality settings are changed or when edits are global. See What factors cause or prevent "generational loss" when JPEGs are recompressed multiple times?

– xiota
Jan 22 at 16:19

add a comment |

Sure about 2.? I'd expect that to end up in localized edits at the price of globalized quality loss.....

– rackandboneman
Jan 22 at 13:15

@rackandboneman When resaving JPEGs, quality loss is limited when the image is unchanged or the changes are localized. Significant degradation occurs when quality settings are changed or when edits are global. See What factors cause or prevent "generational loss" when JPEGs are recompressed multiple times?

– xiota
Jan 22 at 16:19

Sure about 2.? I'd expect that to end up in localized edits at the price of globalized quality loss.....

– rackandboneman
Jan 22 at 13:15

@rackandboneman When resaving JPEGs, quality loss is limited when the image is unchanged or the changes are localized. Significant degradation occurs when quality settings are changed or when edits are global. See What factors cause or prevent "generational loss" when JPEGs are recompressed multiple times?

– xiota
Jan 22 at 16:19

add a comment |

This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here

Search This Blog

Ufyukyu