Thread: thumbnail sizes
View Single Post
  #18  
Old January 8th 18, 03:56 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default thumbnail sizes

On Jan 7, 2018, Carlos E.R. wrote
(in article ):

On 2018-01-08 03:14, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 7, 2018, Carlos E.R. wrote
(in ):


I wonder why you don't just extract the thumbnails
when possible. Don't your cameras create them in
the JPGs? It should be quicker and yield better
quality images.

To customize the size and quality, for instance.

Quality for thumbnails?
To what purpose?
It seems to be a waste of time, and a futile, unnecessary exercise.

No. I said "to customize the size and quality" which is different than
doing a quality thumbnail. ie, to have thumbnails of the exact quality
(small quality) that one wishes.


I am still baffled as why these thumbnails have to be produced in the first
place. A proof/contact sheet, some sort of project, what?


Does it matter?

If there is some odd reason to produce them, which has yet to be explained,
why would the concept of “quality” be attached to thumbnails of all
things?

I have been doing this digital photography thing for some time, and I have
yet to have the need to produce a thumbnail of any quality.


Yes, you do. Any JPG generation has a "quality". It can be "one", so
very bad, or it can be "a hundred", so as best as can be, or any number
in between. Any jpg generated or changed has a quality number. You
choose the number, or you let the software decide.

Having a quality does not mean having high quality.


....er, OK. It seems we are talking at cross purposes. While I have produced
many JPEGs, I have not gone out of my way to deliberately produce thumbnails.

--

Regards,
Savageduck