I use photoshop "save for web" at at 85-87 to convert my .psd file to .jpg

is this better than tha default saver with the 1-12 quality option?

also is there any other plug in saver for .jpg that works better?

For textures I would have thought you would want to use .png or .tif - something less messy - but hey, I'm no expert, maybe jpeg 10 or 12 is just as good ?

Then again I don't like to lose any quality anywhere, now that drive space is cheap and computers are fast. The only reason I would use jpeg would be for a web image on a site or page where you MUST limit your file size. Last time I checked JPEG was "lossy" - that means if you keep opening and saving a jpeg, it degrades, to simplify.

Quote - I use photoshop "save for web" at at 85-87 to convert my .psd file to .jpg

is this better than tha default saver with the 1-12 quality option?

also is there any other plug in saver for .jpg that works better?

I read somewhere on the web that 'save for web' gives better results than the standard PS 'save as jpg' because it uses a completely different (and more sophisticated) compression process. I don't know how true it is, and I don't think I've ever been able to see a difference, but I use 'save for web' anyway.

I find Irfanview (the free image viewer) seems to have pretty amazing jpg compression, it'll open a PSD file and save it as a JPG (at, say, 95% quality) smaller than photoshop save for web (at 85% quality) can do but with no visible compression artifacts.

Are you referring to texture maps for models?  IIRC, saving for the web only conditions the files for computer viewing, it does not take into account any printing a user may undertake after rendering a scene.  Saving as a straight jpeg directly from PS should suffice.  You really would not want to sacrifice pixel deletion to compress your file further.  Also, PSD or PNG format are rather large files.  They are better because of their lossless nature but add quite of overhead to storage.

I am refering to texture maps for poser figures or props

I am wondering what method gives the best quality for the smallest file size

Go with the straight, hi res save from Photoshop for the best quality.  Yes, it is compressed but hi res will still generate a large file.  But not higher than PSD & PNG.  And from what I understand, merely opening and closing JPEG's in Photoshop will not degrade the image as Prof_Null stated.  If you manipulate the image, increase or decrease resolution for example, then the image will suffer degradation.  You can safeguard this from happening by creating a smart layer for your image before actual manipulation.

So you believe the default saver is better than tha save for web option?

I am talking about original psd files and not for jpeg files that have been reworked

That would be my recommendation.

IMVHO there's no point in saving psd texfiles as jpeg if you're not sending or distributing the files to users with ....  dang, I forgot what they called those modems they used back in the 90s.  the ones where they plugged their telephone into the computer somehow.  2kbps.  but it might be useful if online storage is used and they limit one to less than 5 GB.

It is for textures I plan to distribute but even for personal renders I prefer to use jpeg as this uses the less memory possible

I have found this Better JPEG Lossless Resave plug-in for Adobe Photoshop

but it mostly reffers to resaving jpegs lossless and does not claim it saves them better

Also I wonder why poser can not handle jpg 2000 file format since this looks much improved

Generally I can't understand why this format didn't got much use

I believe Poser, just like Studio, converts the textures to mip maps that use a lossless format similar to TIFF.  If that is the case the actual resolution of the image will determine the memory used in, not the image's file size.  Because of the mip mapping conversion I often reduce large res images.  In order to get good result the images need to be high quality to begin with.  Never go below 85%(and 90% is preferred) quality with jpgs, the quality drops off faster than the file size.

Quote - It is for textures I plan to distribute but even for personal renders I prefer to use jpeg as this uses the less memory possible

The file format has no effect on memory usage, at all.

Quote - Generally I can't understand why this format didn't got much use

Mainly because everyone is happy with plain vanilla JPEG.

JPEG 2000 (J2K) is a really good schema though; the one place where it gets a decent amount of use is in Adobe Acrobat, from version 7 up (I think). 

J2K uses Discrete Wavelet Transform to compress image data (either lossless or lossy) - tons better than 'JPEG', which is horribly primitive in comparison.

If anyone has a lot of high resolution images they need to archive, I'd recommend J2K compressed PDFs: they're accessible by anyone with Adobe Reader and you can cut the data footprint in half compared to LZW Tiffs.

Quote - > Quote - It is for textures I plan to distribute but even for personal renders I prefer to use jpeg as this uses the less memory possible

The file format has no effect on memory usage, at all.

So it is the same thing if we use psd, jpg or tiff? whatever size differences those have?

Yes.

PNG files are lossless, which means that they do not lose quality during editing. This is unlike jpgs, where they lose quality. PNG files tend to be larger than jpgs, because they contain more information.