Path: ...!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Tony Cooper Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english Subject: Re: Photos (Jpg, Png-viewer) --- i don't like it because it launches sluggishly... Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2024 14:44:50 -0400 Lines: 101 Message-ID: References: <2nt5ajdvnhbveu80sc59tu31d0ja622cu9@4ax.com> <66a61099$3$18441$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <3gmcajdsn3atjeq1p9uhfn9u462ojlf6hs@4ax.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net ezxqyACRUBWoiEmjOA4+xQEFUT8zf9lE5H8InAm0neJ95i0kTA Cancel-Lock: sha1:S/HkwjQMG/ZPnfvoXrmmPaUi3Ws= sha256:Pf+nsLrFf6EEQG8sTV3x2LJI/n6HTcfJlLmR6yXolRs= User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.20.32.1218 X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 240728-6, 7/28/2024), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Bytes: 5368 On Sun, 28 Jul 2024 18:05:42 -0000 (UTC), Antonio Marques wrote: >Tony Cooper wrote: >> On Sun, 28 Jul 2024 13:17:01 -0000 (UTC), Antonio Marques >> wrote: >> >>> J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> Antonio Marques wrote: >>>> >>>>> Rich Ulrich wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 21:47:38 -0600, Tilde >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Tony Cooper wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 15:19:17 -0700, HenHanna >>>>>>>>> There is a (Windows) tool called Photos (Jpg, Png-viewer) --- i don't >>>>>>>>> like it >>>>>>>>> because it launches sluggishly.... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Esp. in the last 5 days or so, i'm noticing that almost every day >>>>>>>>> i have to go to Properties to change it back to >>>>>>>>> my fav. Jpg, Png-viewer tool >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> because the Windows update (?) is pushing Photos on me. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> is there a Fix for this??? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have thousands of images from .jpgs to .pngs on my computer. I use >>>>>>>> the (free) FastStone Photo Viewer. It's not only a great image >>>>>>>> viewer, but offers many other options from selecting by tagged images >>>>>>>> to bulk re-naming. It's set as my default viewer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.faststone.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.irfanview.com/ >>>>>> >>>>>> I have both Faststone and Irfanview, and I like Faststone better. >>>>>> >>>>>> What I remember last using Irfanview for was when I wanted >>>>>> to change the default orientation of some pictures that were >>>>>> usually wrong (downloaded from my off-brand phone). >>>>>> >>>>>> IIRC, Faststone would rotate them okay for PC display by Faststone, >>>>>> but they would be wrong when uploaded to Face Book. >>>>> >>>>> Opening and saving a lossy format like jpg will usually result in... loss >>>>> of quality. >>>> >>>> That's ancient folklore, from the times when 640x480 was a big image. >>>> It may get noticable, but only when you order a huge reduction >>>> in file size, >>> >>> ....no, it's the logical and unavoidable result of applying a lossy >>> encoding, all the more since the jpeg algorithm won't be the exact same >>> every time, and will throw out slightly different parts of the signal. It >>> will obviously be worse the lower the resolution is to begin with, but >>> that's a different issue. >>> >> The real point, though, is whether or not any degradation is visible >> to the naked eye. A .jpg has to be manipulated several times before a >> change is visible even by zooming in on the pixels. >> >> The degradation is there in theory, but not in practice for the most >> part. >> > >The problem is that it is cumulative and insidious and, to the point, there >is no need for it. If you know offhand that your source material won't >suffer more than a couple of iterations, then fine. Otherwise, what would >be the point of repeatedly reencoding a picture, or a video, or an audio >file? I don't think that those who use just .jpgs *do* repeatedly open and modify their images. There are those (and I am one of that group) who do this to images, but I do it in Adobe Lightroom or Photoshop using a .psd or raw file where the alterations are non-destructive. A "couple" is generally understood to mean "about two". Two modifications to a .jpg would not cause visible degradation. I know it's a generality, but the type of person who would be inclined to repeatedly modify an image would be someone who is using a program that allows a latitude of modification tools in a program that allows non-destructive editing. Again, a generality, but I think most images taken today are taken on a mobile phone, never printed, and distributed - if at all - from their phone to someone else's and viewed on a screen no larger than an index card. Photos that are edited are mostly taken with actual cameras by people who use third-party editing systems that are capable of non-destructive editing. Exceptions...sure.