| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/17/2008 12:21:16 PM · #1 |
My job is to supply product photos to our website (Windows XP, Photoshop CS3).
Usually I take them myself, and have no problem producing the necessary specifications.
However, currently I am working through a CD supplied by a manufacturer.
Their files are huge, and I still need to end up with 300 x 300 pixels, at less then 50kb.
My work flow is to change them from CMYK to RGB, clean up as needed, resolution to 72ppi, size 300 x 300 pixels, sharpen, save.
Normally saving them at quality 8 works out really well, but with these huge files, I often end up with more than 100 KB.
âSave for webâ works fine, I optimize the file size to 50KB and they still look good.
My problem is that I don't want to do this manually for every image. When I write an action (so that I can either run it one by one, or perhaps even batch a few from bridge), I can't get the âoptimize file size to 50kbâ to stick and run.
Do I really have to manually go through all those clicks every time, or is there a way to make that darn check mark stay on optimize to file size?
I will appreciate your input as always. Thanks. |
|
|
|
04/17/2008 12:22:33 PM · #2 |
| Perhaps downloading Infranview and running a batch resizing? |
|
|
|
04/17/2008 12:30:44 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by tpbremer:
Perhaps downloading Infranview and running a batch resizing? |
That would work better than photoshop? (and I shudder to imagine the reaction of our IT guy... the computer nazi) |
|
|
|
04/17/2008 01:10:06 PM · #4 |
not sure, but maybe worth trying.
Just do it on your own computer--its free. It doesn't have an optimize to file siza (I don't think) but it does a batch resize in just a minute or so depending on how many files |
|
|
|
04/17/2008 01:17:04 PM · #5 |
I too have wondered why you can't make that setting stick. Sure seems like a thing you should be able to do.
I'm going to recommend a brute-force work-around. Achieving <50k on a 300x300 image is somewhat easier than achieving 150k on a 640x640 image, which we're all familiar with :-)
Therefore, if you batch resize all with, say, 80% quality, the vast majority should be below 50k. Looking at a list of the files, the ones above 50k can be selected and re-saved at slightly lower quality. As long as your images are not bitingly sharp and don't contain very large areas of very fine detail, you'll probably be surprised at how few you have to tweak. |
|
|
|
04/17/2008 01:22:27 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I too have wondered why you can't make that setting stick. Sure seems like a thing you should be able to do. |
Ugh.... I had hoped NOT to hear that LOL. I was clinging to the hope that my ineptitude was to blame, and there was a fix just around the corner.
Back to doing it the slow way.
Thanks for the input, gentlemen :-) |
|
|
|
04/17/2008 01:25:56 PM · #7 |
| Well, don't for a minute believe that if I don't know how to make it stick it isn't possible. It may well be, but like you I've not discovered the trick. Do see my proposed solution above, since I think you may be able to avoid a large portion of the manual work. |
|
|
|
04/17/2008 02:10:55 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Therefore, if you batch resize all with, say, 80% quality, the vast majority should be below 50k. Looking at a list of the files, the ones above 50k can be selected and re-saved at slightly lower quality. |
You can look at the list of existing files and manually process the two or three largest, and/or those images known to contain the most detail. Once you know what setting gets the biggest file small enough, you can batch-process the rest with that setting, with some confidence that they'll end up that small or smaller. |
|
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: 12/28/2025 01:10:56 PM EST.
