Vexed by Save for Web - DPChallenge Forums

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

08/26/2006 07:16:20 PM · #1

I have an image I want to submit, and it's been resized to 640 on the longest side, but I cannot get the dumb thing to save at 150KB while maintaining High image quality. It picks 50%, and it doesn't matter if I take a tighter crop, shave a few pixels off the image size, drop color saturation, eliminate sharpening, add sharpening - it just insists on 50% quality. Does anyone have any tricks for getting around this problem?

klstover

Panasonic DMC-FZ8

08/26/2006 07:18:34 PM · #2

I click the triangle that I have and choose the "optimize to file size" option. There I can put 150 in the box and it will get as close as it can.

saintaugust

Canon EOS-550D Rebel T2i

08/26/2006 07:20:23 PM · #3

i feel your pain... i just fiddled with paint shop pro 8 for like an hour to save at 150... i changed the setting on my cam to minimum compression, it's like 2 mb a file for a 4 mp... and i tried 10 times to get it under 150k... i got 151.. 153... ect ect... no 'save for web' i can find on this program.

strangeghost

Canon EOS-7D

08/26/2006 07:20:32 PM · #4

Images that are highly complex will require more jpg compression to fit in under the 150K limit. Kistover is right though, make use of the dialog's ability to target a size for you by using that little triangle to select the target size.

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

08/26/2006 07:24:17 PM · #5

Originally posted by klstover:

I click the triangle that I have and choose the "optimize to file size" option. There I can put 150 in the box and it will get as close as it can.

Yeah, this is what I've been doing as well. It picks 50%. This is unacceptable. This is what I'm trying to get around :P

klstover

Panasonic DMC-FZ8

08/26/2006 07:25:30 PM · #6

Ahhhh. Sorry, makes sense now.

I don't know what would help that.

fotomann_forever

08/26/2006 07:35:28 PM · #7

Sounds like the image has a lot of detail. You might get under the 150k limit by resizing down to 600 on the longest side.

I highly doubt just cropping a bit will change a lot, because most detail is probably near the center of the image. Try a slightly smaller image.

scarbrd

Leica M10

08/26/2006 07:36:37 PM · #8

Are you using Photoshop? Is it a picture with a lot of intracate detail? Those will need more compression.

My entry for Image without Subject saved at 63, but that the lowest I've seen in saving for DPC.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

08/26/2006 07:37:42 PM · #9

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

It does have a lot of detail. I tried 600, and it bumped it to 53% - not much better. But I put a 100% version next to the 50% version for comparison and I think no one will know the difference, so I'm scrapping the attempt and just submitting. I don't have high hopes for this one anyway, taking it for the team so to speak since a 4.x averages better than a 0 for WPL. :P

strangeghost

Canon EOS-7D

08/26/2006 07:42:43 PM · #10

Originally posted by karmabreeze:

Are you saying that jpg 50% is not acceptable because it's 50% or because you look at the actual image and you're dissatisfied with the appearance after SFW? In my experience, SFW has never let me down on image quality when I let it trim my submission photos to 150K. If you image looks good to you, why worry about what the percentage is?

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/26/2006 07:51:26 PM · #11

Originally posted by strangeghost:

Originally posted by karmabreeze:
It does have a lot of detail. I tried 600, and it bumped it to 53% - not much better. But I put a 100% version next to the 50% version for comparison and I think no one will know the difference, so I'm scrapping the attempt and just submitting. I don't have high hopes for this one anyway, taking it for the team so to speak since a 4.x averages better than a 0 for WPL. :P

Are you saying that jpg 50% is not acceptable because it's 50% or because you look at the actual image and you're dissatisfied with the appearance after SFW? In my experience, SFW has never let me down on image quality when I let it trim my submission photos to 150K. If you image looks good to you, why worry about what the percentage is?

I strongly dislike saving at anything outside the High range, and 50% is Medium. But after comparing them side by side - after starting this topic - I've decided to toss in anyway.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

08/26/2006 08:11:27 PM · #12

Do you still have an unsharpened version of the photo? Usually sharpening should be your last step, so hopefully I'm not asking for much. If you do, go back to the step just before sharpening. Then increase the bottom number on the USM dialog. (The higher that number is, the more contrast is needed between elements in order for PhotoShop to consider adding contrast/sharpening it)

The above works for basic and advanced. The next is for advanced editing only:

Next, right after you do your USM, look at your history and click on the history box just to the left of the line above where USM was applied. This sets your history state.

Now click on the History brush. Set to opacity to 50% and a good sized brush and then paint over all of the areas of your image that don't need to be sharpened. This diminishes (but does not completely remove) the sharpening in those areas. Since you're at 50%, if you paint over the same area twice, you effectively get rid of the sharpening in that area.

Now that all of the unessential "complex detail" is no longer sharpened, go back and do your Save for Web step again. This time your quality should be able to be set much higher and still stay under 150K.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/26/2006 08:28:17 PM · #13

Originally posted by dwterry:

Well, this got it up to 57%... better, but not much. *sigh*

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

08/26/2006 08:34:03 PM · #14

How about applying a bit of gaussian blur to reduce the complex detail? Again, if advanced editing, use the history brush to reduce the blur in the areas where the detail is important.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/26/2006 08:37:44 PM · #15

Originally posted by dwterry:

How about applying a bit of gaussian blur to reduce the complex detail? Again, if advanced editing, use the history brush to reduce the blur in the areas where the detail is important.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what a "history brush" is. I ended up accomplishing your technique by making a dup layer, setting that opacity to about 60%, and running a strong and large blur blush over the areas where I wanted to reduce detail. A Gaussian blur is going to kill the detail I do want to keep. It needs to be that intricate.

Edit: Keep in mind that if this is something exclusive to CS or better, then I don't have it. I'm using PS 5.5.

Message edited by author 2006-08-26 20:39:15.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

08/26/2006 08:52:01 PM · #16

Okay, a similar idea would be to do this:

Apply your sharpening and/or blurring on a duplicate layer. Then create a layer mask on that layer and paint black whereever you want to reduce the effect of that layer.

banmorn

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

08/26/2006 09:01:04 PM · #17

Originally posted by saintaugust:

File: Export: JPEG Optimizer, three tabs, file size of downsized image is on Download Times, to change to under <=150KB click on the Quality tab and change compression value until you get the file size to 150KB or less. Using Standard format my original 266KB 639x480 needed to go to "6" to get a 138KB size and with progressive, "5" to get a 141KB size. There is, however, nothing like the save for web where you can set the 150 and save it at that size that I can see.