<font color=blue>Don't convert your images into jpeg until you are all done </font color=blue>
Good advice for the professional, Spence, but I would argue that, like so many things, there are trade-offs.
Although it's true that JPEG uses a "lossy" compression scheme, I'll bet there are darn few of us who can actually
see the difference between an uncompressed and a moderately compressed image. The result
is accumulative, however, so your warning about repeated savings of the same image is a good one. /w3tcompact/icons/clever.gif
When I was doing professional work, I always saved my original scans as TIFF or Photoshop files, so I always had a good starting point when I went back to the archives. With my digital camera, on the other hand, I only use the TIFF format when shooting portraits or something that contains subtle detail and may wind up in an 8 x 10 or larger print. The "trade-off" for me is being able to get 16 high quality JPEG's or just
4 super high quality TIFF's on a single 32MB SmartMedia card. /w3tcompact/icons/tongue.gif
Many of my tractor-oriented shots, which are mainly for screen viewing or posting on TBN, are shot in
medium high quality JPEG format. This gives me 55 shots per card at 1280 x 1024 pixels with "good enough" quality to crop and/or resize.
I carry 2 SmartMedia cards, so that's usually enough to get me through a weekend of tractorin'. /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif
In all cases, I save the original files to hard disk and then periodically archive them to CD-ROM. At an average of 2MB per file, that's over 300 pictures on a 69-cent disk. /w3tcompact/icons/cool.gif
So I ain't disagreeing with anything you said, just putting my own spin on it.