| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/25/2011 04:21:25 PM · #1 |
In editing and resizing an entry, I find that when I go to save for web, I'm at 875K at 100% - Even though my shot is already resized to 750 X 800ish. I have to go down to 50% to get my entry in.
Is there something to this that I don't know? Using PS.
Thanks ! |
|
|
|
09/25/2011 04:26:59 PM · #2 |
| Square crop + lots of detail = big file. |
|
|
|
09/25/2011 04:29:40 PM · #3 |
| I bet you did lots of sharpening - that's always a killer for compression. |
|
|
|
09/25/2011 04:34:21 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Square crop + lots of detail+sharpening = even bigger file. |
|
|
|
|
09/25/2011 04:51:13 PM · #5 |
| Ahhhh.....thanks. I can fix. |
|
|
|
09/26/2011 04:03:16 AM · #6 |
I'm having the same problem, but I'll work my way around it.
What's the reasoning behind the 300k limit? I can't imagine it's because of server space...? Just curious. |
|
|
|
09/26/2011 07:23:53 AM · #7 |
I've used that mini jpeg thing a couple of times for minifying large images. Works relatively well and appears to maintain good enough sharpness.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2011 07:28:46 AM · #8 |
Yes, as Paul and Shannon already mentioned. When a photo has a lot of detail, and in addition is sharpened even more the photo has more pixel data to record and store making it a larger image. That's why photos with large areas of solid color can be compressed to smaller sizes as can B&W. In the case of B&W there is no color data to compress and map so the file can be dramatically smaller.
Dave |
|
|
|
09/26/2011 08:11:29 AM · #9 |
|
|
|
09/26/2011 01:21:09 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by pederlol:
What's the reasoning behind the 300k limit? I can't imagine it's because of server space...? Just curious. |
It's not really so much about server space as it is about the download time. A 300kB image takes an absolute minimum of 2.4 seconds to download on a 1Mb/s connection. That seems really short, unless you're the one waiting for it to download so you can vote on it, LOL. Granted, most folks have a faster connection, but they aren't always achieving maximum speeds either.
Only a *very* few images are really problematic, namely those with lots of fine detail across a large part of the image. Even those images can be successfully compressed to 300k without degradation that would be easily apparent to the voter (as opposed to apparent to the submitter, who will obviously scrutinize it in much greater detail).
|
|
|
|
09/26/2011 03:53:37 PM · #11 |
| The other bandwidth issue is that some people are necessarily on a pay-per-byte type plan ... an extra 200K/picture when voting on several challenges/week could start to add up. |
|
|
|
09/26/2011 06:11:29 PM · #12 |
I thought those types of internet access was discontinued in 1934.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The other bandwidth issue is that some people are necessarily on a pay-per-byte type plan ... an extra 200K/picture when voting on several challenges/week could start to add up. |
|
|
|
|
09/27/2011 08:00:23 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
I thought those types of internet access was discontinued in 1934.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The other bandwidth issue is that some people are necessarily on a pay-per-byte type plan ... an extra 200K/picture when voting on several challenges/week could start to add up. |
|
I've got a mobile Internet plan like that. It's €X for Y-GB per month. And beyond that limit you pay-per-byte, which is as archaic as paying per grain of rice when you think about it.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2011 09:27:59 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by NiallOTuama:
... as archaic as paying per grain of rice ... |
Since you mention it ... Free Rice.com ... |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 07:21:01 AM EDT.
