Then I guess you should »save as« instead of »save for web«.

Good catch!

A space is a valid character in web filenames.

Valid doesn't equal clean. I would much rather have my code clean and free from a bunch of "%20" in file/link names. Why add more clutter to code?

I don't want PS changing the name and I want the names of my output files (e.g., jpg's) to match the names of my PS files (i.e., psd's).

That's why there is a "save as" command. Unless an image is for web, why would you want to compress it? Even if there was very minimal image degredation using the "save as" compression, I would never subject images to that kind of compression.

I didn't mean to imply (if you interpreted) that I think using "save as" .jpg doesn't have "any" compression. I have always used the "save as" method when exporting for non-website images (no matter the file format). If I'm saving images for the web (like Facebook or something), I still may use "save as" instead of "... for web". I would imagine using "save as" .jpg with the quality at 12 would still have some level of compression - I mean, isn't that the nature of .jpg (in that it's a compressed file format)? I've never really thought too deeply into the technical side of .jpg compression outside of some tests I've done throughout the years.

In one test, I used a solid color background, a gradient background, black/white photo, and a regular color photo. I mainly focused on testing both methods with using the highest export quality setting for each (quality 12 for "save as" and 100 for "... for web". At this level of compression, I don't remember seeing any noticeable differences in quality, but the file size (as expected) was different (more so the larger the image).

When I changed the compression levels between each method, I remember (all this is from memory) I noticed some color banding with the gradient image when I used "... for web". Again, this was considering I was zoomed in quite a bit and I was actually looking for these kinds of artifacts. So, at 100% zoom and considering most people aren't going to be looking pixel-by-pixel, my tests just showed minimal changes in quality between all the kinds of images I used.

The most interesting difference I noticed between the two save methods was when I was saving as .png. In another thread of mine, I talked about noticing some color shifting when using "... for web" versus "save as". Using a solid-colored background, I saved as .png using both methods - the "... for web" method seemed to result in a slightly different color from the original. Once I saved the image, I would open it back up in Photoshop, use the eyedropper and compare to the original. When I "saved as", the colors matched perfectly, but when using ".. for web", there was a shift. Now, I'm sure there are some other variables that might come into play like my working color space when saving files, the color space when opening files, etc... There was such a minimal difference I didn't bother to look into it further.

I sure did jump off topic a little.. haha

R_Kelly & geotso, thanks for the help - but what if I don't want to eliminate the hyphen but want to replace it with a different character, like an underscore ( _ )? I am using CS5 64-bit and I love everything about Save for Web & Devices. One problem that I run in to is that I use a CRM tool that hosts images, but considers a hyphen to be a "special character" and therefore refuses to upload them. I have made it a general practice to save the full file name as something like this_is_the_file_name.psd so that when I do use SfW&D to make a jpg, it comes out as this_is_the_file_name.jpg, but has anyone out there found a way to customize this so that a unique character can be used? Thanks, Cedric.