I've had a few JPEG images become unviewable after a few years of storage. Was it only my card or camera that was the problem? Or, is this a common occurance?
2006-12-18 06:57:23 · 6 answers · asked by ty 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Photography
jpeg is is a lossy compression mode which means that each time the image is opened and saved some of the information is lost. Jpeg is great for single use on the web, but over time will degrade.
For archival purposes it is best to use PSD or Tiff. Tiff is a lossless compression and nothing is destroyed in the open/close process. It is a larger file and they will take up more space.
I sometimes use PS Pdf as archive files... especially if I may use them in a presentation or for full process printing.
beaux
2006-12-19 01:43:03 · answer #1 · answered by beauxPatrick 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you have upgraded our computer system and some of the old ones are not viewable anymore it can often be because they used an older standard for .jpg. I have had this happen with some old ones as well. They are usually still viewable with a program that has backward compatibility such as the original version of Vueprint. I once had an old Panasonic digital camera and most of them are not readily viewable in Windows XP's built in photo viewer. However if I use Vueprint or many of the other viewers they work just fine. Also if they happened to have been saved in photoshop or some other program they might not be in a format that is readable by anything else either. I have an old version of Vueprint that I could send you if you need it. Back when it was free and works with everything I have found common in use except Mac .pict files. Less than 200k in size so can go in any emails. Also can download older photo viewers from http://www.tucows.com Current versions of Vueprint are either shareware or pay for though. Look for the old ones.
2006-12-18 07:10:42 · answer #2 · answered by mohavedesert 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
In addition to mohavdes's answer, I would say that jpgs stored on CDs sometimes get corrupted by environmental factors such as being labeled with a marker containing acid, electrical or heat sources, and stick-on labels that are not archival. I've also had some of the older CD sleeves stick to the disc in such a way that it was ruined. The newer ones don't seem to do that. If you were able to transfer the file from your camera to your computer when you first took them, the camera and card are not to blame. I've also heard that some CD brands last much longer than others. There are photographers who invest in gold-based CD's for their wedding files for the sake of their longevity.
2006-12-18 07:20:08 · answer #3 · answered by Teddie M 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
effective. it constantly dissapoints me that folk in basic terms say the thank you to restoration corrupted jpegs. off the dazzling of my head, in case you went right into a code editor and deleted any section as properly the section that asserts that it extremely is infact a jpeg photograph, it may not ensue. or you're able to easily deliver a picture of the words "won't be able to load JPEG photograph. photograph is corrupted." which could probably paintings.
2016-12-30 14:50:53 · answer #4 · answered by mandeville 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it was your camara dude... because i've had some pictures that have been jpeg for years and their still fine... it was probably corrupted when you imported them or something... i've never heard anything like that b4... interesting...
2006-12-18 07:05:17 · answer #5 · answered by Paris, je t'aime 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you kept them near an electrical source or magnet, possibly.
2006-12-18 07:02:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋