Zolxys said:
mattiasc02 said:
It's better if you press "use quality settings from original image"
No. If you're cropping or rotating, that's not true. That is unless you're just cropping a multiple of the block size (usually 16 pixels).

Otherwise you'll just lower the quality even further.
Not true. I have an example:

Let's take this image for example.

The original quality of this image tooken directly from Twitter is at 85 (as most images compressed by twitter). I check the jpeg number using IMGonline. Now, I got that image, cropped and rotated, and have both versions:

cropped:
exporting it at 85 and exporting it at 100

rotated:
exporting it at 85 and exporting it at 100

There is no difference in quality within the image itself. However, there IS a difference in file size and the jpeg number. But that don't mean jack shit, is my point.

Don't get me wrong, however. I also do understand that sometimes, the artist/handler of the image can be a fucking trickster (like with this. Number is at 100 but it got a shit ton of artifacts anyways).

This is why it's best to just export at original settings, since it keeps the file size the same as the original, and also exporting it at a higher jpeg does nothing but up the file size and that's problematic.

Sorry for late response. I've been thinking about responding, but not executing cuz my life is SOOOO emotional and stressful right now </3 I feel like an abandoned princess peach