Lossless

What is the best lossless image format? And is there any software to batch process it from JPG?

I dont care about image size size but I would like it to be supported by GIMP and paint.NET

 

png. but if you have the image allready in jpeg, there is no gain. en contraire, jpeg will be then the best lossless format you already have.

 

I thought png was more for text and networks than for photos.

 

there is no good lossless format for photos. png is simply one of the best, no matter what.

but as said, if you have the photos first of all in jpeg, don't touch them anymore. they are at the best way to get stored, then.


btw, for "networks"?? what do you think is a network-picture?

the great thing about png (and the reason for "network") is, that it's standartised and has no licence, so it's free to use for anyone.

 

By networks I meant text and internet optimized, not for images or photos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Network_Graphics

 

RAW is a good one: Image file formats

 

jup, and all that means is, it's encoded in a format that, even when you just get the first part of the image, you already have a small "full picture". not like just the top part.

as said, use the source format. if it's from a digicam, use the RAW format. then png. and in the end, jpg.

if it's jpg from the beginning, just use that.

 

I like raw images but is there a way to batch process 1,000s of JPGs?

 

The .PNG format suffers from at least two flaws that make it less than desireable. First, it has problems with getting the correct gamma adjustments, meaning that it can result in image colours not blending with the rest of a webpage, for example, as discussed in more detail here.

Second, it has serious flaws with its metadata; to wit: there are few if any standards or pseudo-standards for how metadata is embedded in a .PNG file, with the practical consequence that metadata can be irretrievably lost if a non-PNG is converted to a PNG image, as described in more detail here.

The first reason in particular is why adoption of PNG for internet graphics has been something less than comprehensive.

As far as RAW files go - once you've got a JPEG, there's no going back to a RAW file. Also, RAW files will always be bigger than a JPEG file of the same image because RAW is not compressed, JPEG almost always is to some degree.

If you're starting with JPEGs, then that's where you should stay. First, because JPEG will generally be the most lossless (and you cannot put back what's already been lost - there's no unscrambling the eggs - so if you edit a JPEG file further, make sure you resave it back at the highest level of accuracy you can).

Finally, GIMP has absolutely no problem with JPEGs and, in fact, has a very customizable save/export feature for saving JPEGs that will allow you to retain as much resolution as possible in your existing JPEGS. I know because I usually use GIMP (in preference to Corel Paintshop Pro Photo X2). Paint.NET also handles JPEGs easily, so if your files are already all JPEGs, I don't really understand why you need to redo all of them.

 

I REPEAT:

IF YOU ALLREADY HAVE JPGs, DON'T CONVERT! THEY ARE IN THEIR BEST QUALITY RIGHT NOW, LOSSLESS WILL NOT GAIN YOU ANYTHING. IT WILL JUST COST YOU USELESS DISK SPACE.

or why/for what do you want to process 1000s of jpgs?

 

You can batch process them with photoshop if you want.

 

1000% correct - once the egg's been scrambled (converted from whatever, RAW or straight from the camera's image processor), you can't unscramble it. Your JPEGs are as good as they're going to get, and they can only go downhill from where they are now.

 

IrfanView is good at batch processing, although as others have mentioned there would be no quality gain in converting. Although if you plan to edit them later I'd convert the one(s) you edit to lossless to prevent further degrading them by re-encoding JPEG.

 

I am not looking for a gain but want to stop any further deterioration.

 

Deterioration during what?

 

Bit rot?

 

editing, I guess it is not really a bit deal, maybe I am paranoid...

 

Use Photoshop to edit the file, and save it as a Photoshop file. You can edit to your heart's content and not worry about losing any more quality. However, when you save it as a JPG, the quality won't be as good as the original (but you probably wouldn't even notice).

 

Raw>tiff/psd>jpg

 

Yep, that's how I would do it. Unfortunately, the OP only has JPGs to work with.

 

True, but if you want to avoid deterioration in the original image, you always keep an archived copy on CD/DVD so you can always go back to the best resolution image you have whenever you want to.