Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 187748" data-attributes="member: 12496">Save For Web really only does one thing..&nbsp; It strips out all the bytes of Exif data, to make the file a tiny bit smaller, without it.&nbsp;&nbsp; It is sort of a historical option, back to use of dial up modems when a byte was a byte.&nbsp; Today with broadband, it doesn't make much difference.&nbsp;&nbsp; One thing in the Exif data is the dpi declaration, but the web and monitors have no use for that.&nbsp;&nbsp; Whereas Save As JPG retains the Exif data.There are a few more options. Both ways let you specify convert to sRGB, but your image should already be sRGB.&nbsp;&nbsp; You said once though that you saw a difference here, approaching your original problem.&nbsp; My guess is that sRGB is all that could do that?And the JPG Quality scales are weighted differently.&nbsp; &nbsp; Save For Web numbers are better quality&nbsp; than same Save As JPG numbers. But JPG Quality is something different than your original problem.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 187748, member: 12496"] Save For Web really only does one thing.. It strips out all the bytes of Exif data, to make the file a tiny bit smaller, without it. It is sort of a historical option, back to use of dial up modems when a byte was a byte. Today with broadband, it doesn't make much difference. One thing in the Exif data is the dpi declaration, but the web and monitors have no use for that. Whereas Save As JPG retains the Exif data. There are a few more options. Both ways let you specify convert to sRGB, but your image should already be sRGB. You said once though that you saw a difference here, approaching your original problem. My guess is that sRGB is all that could do that? And the JPG Quality scales are weighted differently. Save For Web numbers are better quality than same Save As JPG numbers. But JPG Quality is something different than your original problem. [/QUOTE]

Verification