JPG or GIF?

Compress or Not Compress?

Software and Hardware

Yes, I know this is rather ancient technology, but I did these photos and this webpage in the Dark Ages of the Web (mid 90s). One of these days I'll pull out the 12 MPixel digital camera and do this again. Personally, I really don't think there's going to be much of a difference other than eliminating the scanner step. The advantage of direct-digital.

When I do that, I'll keep both photos for comparison. Of course there will be problems. I still have the blue/beige sheet, but the dog (Ripley) unfortunately passed away in 2004. She lived a very long and spoiled life, as do most small dogs. The replacement dog, Murphey, is a bit larger (22 pounds instead of 15) but also has white fur. But he doesn't stick his tongue out the way Ripley did.

What to look for

The clarity and consistency of colors and the level of detail in the fur and patterns. The images are close to the physical size of the photo.

image 1 Scanned at 150 dpi, saved as JPG with highest compression, lowest quality. File size 16.2 K.

image 2 Scanned at 75 dpi, saved as JPG with highest compression, lowest quality. File size 15.6 K.

image 3 Scanned at 150 dpi, saved as JPG with lowest compression, highest quality. File size 15.8 K.

image 4 Scanned at 150 dpi, saved as GIF with 256 indexed color. File size 60 K.

Return to Teknikos Home Page.