"Optimal quality" JPEG Compression: Worthwhile?

Started Oct 24, 2008 | Discussions thread
Sylvain C.
OP Sylvain C. Contributing Member • Posts: 771
Re: There are six JPEG compression options

Marianne Oelund wrote:

(...)

Assessing JPEG image quality isn't very straightforward, as there are
many aspects and you need to know about the various types of JPEG
compression/decompression artifacts. The compression level that you
need in order to avoid noticeable problems will depend on the nature
of your subject, as well as your final output medium.
JPEG compression works very well for natural subjects, but is
challenged by artificial ones such as text and graphics,
architecture, etc. For my subjects, I find no need at all to use
Fine JPEG, and Normal/Size Priority usually does very well.
Common types of JPEG artifacts are mosquito noise, staircase noise,
posterizing and checkerboarding; you can Google these in relation to
JPEG to learn more.

Thanks for the detailed answer Marianne. I don't think I would use anything other than Large/Fine as I want to ensure I capture the best that the camera can do (while realizing that RAW/NEF is actually the best). My question was more about the worthiness of the "optimal quality" compression setting.

 Sylvain C.'s gear list:Sylvain C.'s gear list
Sony a7R II Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II +2 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow