i find it impossible to submit a quality photo....

04/13/2005 01:23:03 AM · #1

Because i loose all my quality when i resize my photos to 150k. the photo in its original state looks totally different than the ones i submit to the contests.

totaldis

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/13/2005 01:25:52 AM · #2

check out the resizing tutorial than.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

04/13/2005 01:27:12 AM · #3

didn't really help.

awpollard

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/13/2005 01:28:30 AM · #4

What graphix program are you using?

04/13/2005 01:29:50 AM · #5

photoshop 7.0

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

04/13/2005 01:34:49 AM · #6

I just looked at your previous submissions and the image loss don't look bad at all on my computer. I do have my computer calibrated by adobe. I also took a look at some of your portfolio files. To me they all have good quality @ 150k and saved as jpg. So I believe you are just suffering from the votes you received based on what people thought of your image not the compression. You have a good average score. However I do know what you mean, and it can be distracting when you view the non compressed file to the 150k-jpg compressed file. Hang in there, you have some good shots in your portfolio and I like your entries. Keep up the good work, it will pay off.

Message edited by author 2005-04-13 01:35:43.

04/13/2005 01:37:19 AM · #7

i don't care about the votes, i do this for fun. I just would like to make the image quality better. Right now i'm having trouble doing it with only 150k 640 to work with.

Message edited by author 2005-04-13 01:37:31.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

04/13/2005 01:40:26 AM · #8

Originally posted by arsharif:

i don't care about the votes, i do this for fun. I just would like to make the image quality better. Right now i'm having trouble doing it with only 150k 640 to work with.

I see you use PS but what is your process to get to the final 150k-jpg?

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

04/13/2005 01:50:09 AM · #9

i get the image in photoshop, save for web at 150k and then upload it.

md8speed

Nikon D200

04/13/2005 01:50:28 AM · #10

Use the 'Save for Web' option to save your image, this will allow you to fine-tune the compression to get right up to the 150k limit. Also, save for web does a better job of color compression so you get more bang for your buck so to speak (or at least that has been my experience)

EDIT- looks like to type too slowly!

Message edited by author 2005-04-13 01:51:04.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

04/13/2005 01:57:09 AM · #11

Originally posted by arsharif:

i get the image in photoshop, save for web at 150k and then upload it.

So you open image in PS as JPG or RAW then do all your editing then resize to 640X? and then use the 'save for web' feature? Do you have you save as web feature set to 150 optimized or do you use the slider?

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

04/13/2005 01:58:53 AM · #12

I don't use raw alot, just jpg, and i optimize just like the tutorial says. So i should use RAW?

Dr.Confuser

Nikon D800

04/13/2005 02:00:06 AM · #13

Photoshop has a way to selectively compress different areas of your photo at different compression settings. So for example, if you had a photo of a pretty girl's face and your wanted the sparkle in her eye to be especially sharp, you can paint a mask over her eye and select that alpha channel for NO COMPRESSION. Then the rest, which you care a bit less about, can be compressed more without loosing the quality of your main element. You control all this from the Save for Web dialog box (the world's largest dialog box, by the way, but I digress.) I know this works in PS CS, not sure about 7.

I have also found sharpening with a High Pass filter and a layer mask blended in Overlay mode leads to better detail in some cases than USM. (Not sure whether this is legal so you may want to get a Site Council opinion.)

Good luck.

04/13/2005 02:00:52 AM · #14

Every image I resize improves dramatically when I run a final USM sharpening pass on it at the 640-pixel size (before adding border, if using one, that's very important). Run USM so you oversharpen it noticeably then then use edit/fade USM to fade it down to the correct level.

There are other, more sophisticated ways to sharpen (luminance channel in lab color and high pass are two) but IMO these should be applied to the full size image.

Robt.

04/13/2005 02:01:58 AM · #15

Originally posted by Digital Quixote:

Legal in advanced, not in basic (both techniques).

Robt.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

04/13/2005 02:05:35 AM · #16

I also see that you are saving some of your portfolio files as high a 447k.

Roberts advice about USM is spot on. Sometimes the steps you do in editing and when you do them will effect the photograph.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/13/2005 02:15:02 AM · #17

I've taken your Ansel Adams entry, below:

and worked with it for 2 minutes; first I used cntrl-alt-tilde and cntrl-j to make a highlight mask level and set that to multiply, then went back to the base image, repeated with an inverted selection, and set to screen the shadows. Then I adjusted opacity of the 2 layers until it looked right and flattened the image. Next I added substantial USM and faded the effect. Finally I saved for web optimized to atregt 150K. This was done in PS7. The vertical striations are embedded in your original, not an artefact of what I did:

So substantial gain is there to be realized if you work on it. Arguably, mine is TOO sharp, sometimes I exaggerate these effects to show what's possible.

Robt.

So

Message edited by author 2005-04-13 02:17:04.

dsidwell

Canon EOS-5D

04/13/2005 02:23:16 AM · #18

This is always a troublesome thing for me, too. Here are a few things to check:

Even if you sharpened when the photo was a large file, you'll need to sharpen it again after resizing for the web. This was mentioned above.

When using the 'Save for web...' feature, I never save at less than 75%, and depending on the photo, I try not to save at less than 85% quality. I'll make the image smaller, if I have to.

I like to view the proofs so I can see it as a Mac would see it, a PC, and how it will appear in print. Then I know how others will ultimately see it.

Good luck!

puzzled

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

04/13/2005 07:06:47 AM · #19

Originally posted by bear_music:

... worked with it for 2 minutes; first I used cntrl-alt-tilde and cntrl-j to make a highlight mask level and set that to multiply, then went back to the base image, repeated with an inverted selection, and set to screen the shadows. Then I adjusted opacity of the 2 layers until it looked right and flattened the image. Next I added substantial USM and faded the effect.
...

Robt.

Bear, this has the makings of a very good lesson. What you've done with asharif's shot is exactly the kind of thing I'm trying to learn. Unfortunately, I don't understand the shortcut keys for what you call "highlight mask level". Doesn't help that I'm using a Swedish keyboard on a Mac. It took half an hour to find the stupid tilde key, but that's under control now :-) I also searched for "highlight mask level" in PS help, but didn't have a lot of luck.

Would you mind going over it once more, this time really s-l-o-w-l-y for us semi-newbies? Thanks! Feel free to touch on the inverted selection part with how to screen the shadows, too. Appreciate the help!

Puzzled Amy

internerd2k

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II

04/13/2005 07:26:29 AM · #20

Any thoughts on this? When I edit my picture in PS, I resize it to the maximum allowed by DPC and save it. The size is still more then allowed by DPC so I open it in MS Photo Editor and click Save As something.jpeg. This reduces the size down to 1/3 of the maximum size that DPC allows. My question is, am I losing alot by doing this?

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

04/13/2005 07:34:52 AM · #21

Originally posted by puzzled:

Originally posted by bear_music:
... worked with it for 2 minutes; first I used cntrl-alt-tilde and cntrl-j to make a highlight mask level and set that to multiply, then went back to the base image, repeated with an inverted selection, and set to screen the shadows. Then I adjusted opacity of the 2 layers until it looked right and flattened the image. Next I added substantial USM and faded the effect.
...

Robt.

Bear, this has the makings of a very good lesson. What you've done with asharif's shot is exactly the kind of thing I'm trying to learn. Unfortunately, I don't understand the shortcut keys for what you call "highlight mask level". Doesn't help that I'm using a Swedish keyboard on a Mac. It took half an hour to find the stupid tilde key, but that's under control now :-) I also searched for "highlight mask level" in PS help, but didn't have a lot of luck.

Would you mind going over it once more, this time really s-l-o-w-l-y for us semi-newbies? Thanks! Feel free to touch on the inverted selection part with how to screen the shadows, too. Appreciate the help!

Puzzled Amy

There's a good tutorial on this in the Learn section of this Webiste.

Beagleboy

Canon EOS-30D

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

04/13/2005 09:04:35 AM · #22

Originally posted by bear_music:

I've taken your Ansel Adams entry, below:

and worked with it for 2 minutes; first I used cntrl-alt-tilde and cntrl-j to make a highlight mask level and set that to multiply, then went back to the base image, repeated with an inverted selection, and set to screen the shadows. Then I adjusted opacity of the 2 layers until it looked right and flattened the image. Next I added substantial USM and faded the effect. Finally I saved for web optimized to atregt 150K. This was done in PS7. The vertical striations are embedded in your original, not an artefact of what I did:

So substantial gain is there to be realized if you work on it. Arguably, mine is TOO sharp, sometimes I exaggerate these effects to show what's possible.

Robt.

So

Good job on the tones Robert, but there seems to be some kind of pattern in the sky that was enhanced by your treatment. Almost looks like newsprint. Any idea what causes stuff like that?