| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/02/2005 01:23:17 AM · #1 |
This was going to be my entry for moods as 'Strength and Radiance' but I could not get the sizing right to download and it also looked very pixelated and then I ran out of time
The trees around here are beautiful at the moment and I feel it gives me a wonderful boost and puts me in a good mood. |
|
|
|
05/02/2005 01:34:37 AM · #2 |
You have it downsized at 200 pixels per inch. The amount of compression requirted to get a 200ppi image uynder 150K is fairly substantial. Thus, a low-quality jpg file. The monitor typically can only resolve 72 lines per inch, I think some of the LCDs may be around 100 lpi, so any file saved at that high a resolution is wasting size. When you resize, set the resolution to 72 and then do the pixel dimensions you want. Then you often want to do a touch of USM on the resized image to pop it again.
Robt.
Another thing I notice; you had it saved in a generic colorspace, and the pics usually look better in here when optimized to the web pallette, with sRGB colorspace. I futzed aroudn with it some, below. I can't get back the detail you've lost through file shrinkage, but I suspect this is closer to the effect you were seeking?
Message edited by author 2005-05-02 01:43:27.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 01:48:42 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by train:
You have it downsized at 200 pixels per inch. |
Resolution is meaningless for displayed images. It is only used when the image is printed. Monitors display 1 image pixel per screen pixel and don't care how many inches across the screen it takes.
Originally posted by train:
This was going to be my entry for moods as 'Strength and Radiance' but I could not get the sizing right to download and it also looked very pixelated and then I ran out of time
The trees around here are beautiful at the moment and I feel it gives me a wonderful boost and puts me in a good mood. |
How are you resizing; what program? what steps?
David
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 01:49:06 AM · #4 |
The DPI has nothing to do with it, but the total number of pixels does. You've had to size this down to about 570x470, so you have a smaller area over which to express the enourmous amount of (edge) detail. You probably had to apply a large amount of JPEG compression to get the file under 150k, and that is largely the source of any image degredation.
To make the situation worse, the more you sharpened the image trying to make it look good before saving as JPEG, the more compression it would need, along with an increased likelihood of artifacts.
The amount of detail in an image makes a huge difference in what quality of JPEG compression you can use within a specific size limit. I've had shots with leaves somewhat like your's which required level 4 or 5 (out of 10) to fit under 150k, and some sunsets and other "smooth" images which would fit at JPEG quality 9 or 10. |
|
|
|
05/02/2005 03:00:06 AM · #5 |
The image that comes straight from my camera a Fujifilm Finepix S3000
(The one I always use.) size is width 2048 pixels x 1536 pixels height
I take it into Arcsoft and rotate downsized to 640 in edit image size
The original is quite sharp although not as good as I would wish
I do these steps with all my images and I just had trouble taking this particular image down to get it under 150k and hence the pixilation |
|
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: 09/05/2025 11:57:17 PM EDT.
