| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/16/2007 11:58:02 AM · #26 |
It sounds like your photo has a lot of fine detail. One way to deal with it is to throw a mask on inessential areas and burn/dodge and blur to reduce the amount of detail in those areas.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2007 12:06:04 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Puckzzz:
I just had to save my entry for multiple lightsources. But to bring it down to 150 k completely ruins it. it looks like crap now :( |
On the other hand 640 pixels at 150K allows you to hide a lot of defects in most pictures that otherwise would show up. :)
|
|
|
|
03/16/2007 12:20:28 PM · #28 |
| Glad subject raised: took me awhile to figure this out on my own. Sharpening GREATLY increases file size. Didn't quite get PurpleFire's suggestion, though. Do you mean to reduce the dimensions below the final limit, and then compress, and then...? |
|
|
|
03/16/2007 01:02:17 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by anotherday:
but I don't see the point of this "exercise" :/ |
The point is to show that, while there is a difference between the absurdly small file (64K) and the other two, the difference is not that great, and as Kirbic points out, the law of diminishing returns kicks in pretty quickly. While some photos may suffer a little bit in areas of high detail, I've yet to be shown an example of a photo saved at 640pix and 150K that was so bad that it was visually 'ruined.' |
|
|
|
03/16/2007 01:13:57 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Puckzzz:
I just had to save my entry for multiple lightsources. But to bring it down to 150 k completely ruins it. it looks like crap now :(
not that it's a ribboner or anything, but I would like it to show up as normal quality photo. |
This is something I've wondered about myself. I can understand the dimension restrictions we have but unless it's a server load problem I can't see the problem with going up to 360k filesize. I hang out at another site that has *NO* limits and they don't seem to have a problem. Personally on the dog shots I can't see much difference but it looks like several in this thread can easily see it. Course I'm getting old and my eyes are probably going.... LOL.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2007 02:01:25 PM · #31 |
I will often size my images -- especially those in square or portrait format -- to slightly smaller than the maximum dimension, maybe 620 or 630 pixels. I've often found that trimming 4-6 pixels from each side of an image will take it from (say) 155kb to 149kb at a given JPEG quality (I don't have SaveForWeb, so I have to guess the JPEG setting on a 1-10 scale).
An alternative to cropping is applying a solid stroke as a border, covering up some pixels (especially useful if they contain detail) at the edge. Sometimes just 2-4 pixels of solid black is enough to shrink the file the necessary amount, without overly offending the anti-border crowd.
Sharpening/USM will also make a big difference -- I often start over and apply slightly less sharpening to save about 10kb when I've gone slightly over the limit.
If it's an Advanced Editing challenge, cloning out some stray spots or dodging/burning an unimportant area to even out the tones and maybe lose detail (without blurring) can save 10-40kb or so as well. |
|
|
|
03/17/2007 04:12:01 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by Puckzzz:
well I would like the point to be that the allowed image size could be a little bit higher. Something like 200 or 180 K, would be an improvement. |
No need, you just need to learn how to properly resize your images. |
|
|
|
03/17/2007 04:23:22 AM · #33 |
A smoother image will reduce the file size so if the image lends itself to a good deal of neatimage that is one route to take. Another one is to convert the image to b/w which also reduces the file size.
|
|
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: 08/04/2025 03:24:34 PM EDT.
