HOLY Big Photo Sizes!?!?! - DPChallenge Forums

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

02/02/2003 04:24:46 AM · #1

Jeez for the last month my photo sizes have been a lot bigger than they usually used to be. I size my photo's down to 640X480 and then do an unsharpen mask on them and they end up around 570K for the max and when I take them down to 150K I can see some compression and it sucks. Then I tried it without sharpening I'm getting a max size of 400K. I know people have talked about this in the past, but can we do 200k to 250k sizes, that might help some keep less compression.

ok I'm all better now. Just had to get that out. :)

Antithesis

Canon EOS-10D

02/02/2003 04:35:13 AM · #2

Originally posted by Jubei Kibagami:

Yeah, I really don't get the 150K size limit. It really limits the quality. Does anyone know the reasoning on this?

jimmyn4

Canon EOS-7D

02/02/2003 04:42:30 AM · #3

.

Message edited by author 2003-02-02 04:43:42.

Manic

DJI Mini 3 Pro

Kamlan 28mm F1.4 MF for APS-C

02/02/2003 05:17:21 AM · #4

I think the intention was so that users with cameras that can only do 640x480 at a fixed compression level arent disadvantaged, since everyone has to size their photos down to this (effectively lowest common denominator) level.

wingy

02/02/2003 05:27:15 AM · #5

I'm sure there are reasons beyond evening the playing field for users with lower end cameras. Primarily, I'm sure storage and bandwidth are significant issues for the cost of running this site. In addition, bandwidth is very significant for modem users. Waiting a full 60 seconds for each entry to finish loading would really put a damper on the enjoyment of the contest. Us cable modem users might be perfectly willing to wait the extra 2 seconds it would take to download the extra 100K per photo, but it's a little harder for a modem user to write off an extra 30 seconds for each shot.

stephan

Casio QV-4000

02/02/2003 06:27:55 AM · #6

In my experience 150kB mostly is good enough. Many people don't even max that out.
Jubei, can you post some examples? Maybe your image editor behaves weird.

KarenB

Canon EOS-70D

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

02/02/2003 09:25:53 AM · #7

Well, you need to also think about server space, and that some people are working on dial-up, and that some are still using 15" monitors.
;)

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

02/02/2003 10:27:44 AM · #8

Originally posted by Antithesis:

Yeah, I really don't get the 150K size limit. It really limits the quality. Does anyone know the reasoning on this?

The 150k file size limit is to take into account the needs of people with dialup Internet connections. If the file sizes get much larger it becomes impractical for dialup users to vote.

-Terry

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

02/02/2003 01:25:58 PM · #9

Originally posted by stephan:

In my experience 150kB mostly is good enough. Many people don't even max that out.
Jubei, can you post some examples? Maybe your image editor behaves weird.

No my PS7.0 is probly not behaving weird. I'm the one being wierd. I just can see the little flaws around a couple of the edges. It isn't nothing too bad. I was just complaining last night.

SharQ

Canon EOS-30D

02/02/2003 02:58:06 PM · #10

Originally posted by Jubei Kibagami:

I take them down to 150K

If you "save for web" in photoshop, there is a function called "Optimize to File Size". If you enter 149 in that field (or even 150, depending slightly on how DPChallenges' servers are configured, and what OS you are using), you get the biggest possible pictures.

150 KB should give you MORE than plenty to work with, to be honest.

Anachronite

Sony DSC-S85

02/02/2003 03:08:31 PM · #11

Originally posted by SharQ:

Originally posted by Jubei Kibagami:
I take them down to 150K

If you "save for web" in photoshop, there is a function called "Optimize to File Size". If you enter 149 in that field (or even 150, depending slightly on how DPChallenges' servers are configured, and what OS you are using), you get the biggest possible pictures.

150 KB should give you MORE than plenty to work with, to be honest.

acctaully several of my pics that have had to be saved at a lower quality have suffered in the votes... when I am required to save at 90% quality to get to 150k, voters tend to make comments about things being out of focus or grainy... it definately affects things

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

02/02/2003 03:45:35 PM · #12

When saving the jpeg in PS, have you tried fiddling with the three format options (Baseline Standard, Optimized and Progressive)?

If someone has a sample image they can't get below 150K I wouldn't mind giving it a go. All mine seem to look fine between 100K and 150K.

David Ey

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

02/02/2003 04:42:14 PM · #13

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

When saving the jpeg in PS, have you tried fiddling with the three format options (Baseline Standard, Optimized and Progressive)?
.

Oh man Paul, guess I should read the docs. PS is just too flexable to learn the finer points over night.

cq107

02/02/2003 05:31:28 PM · #14

If you have photoshop 7, which I guess you do (PS) go to file-> save for web... there you ALWAYS want to save it as a .JPG... and just move the slider untill you hit 150kb... if your saving it any other way from photoshop it will look VERY bad...

02/02/2003 05:58:35 PM · #15

Originally posted by SharQ:

150 KB should give you MORE than plenty to work with, to be honest.

not if my original max save size is 570K, when I save it at 150K, which I've done it is only saved at about 50 percent, it is severely cut done.

a1leyez0nm3

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

02/02/2003 11:33:59 PM · #16

from uncompressed 5mp tiff files that are 12mb, i can save 100-150kb files that look fine. i use optimized/ progressive (5 scan)in ps7. we should have higher resolution photos, but limited to the same size (800X600). that would help. my monitor is set at 1600X1200, and the 640X480 pics require me to look very closely. if your pic is really grainy, i suggest Neat Image (www.neatimage.com)

also, i have dial up and the pics take forever to dl even at 150. i am hopefully upgrading to dsl soon though.

Message edited by author 2003-02-02 23:35:07.