| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/31/2004 12:53:10 AM · #1 |
For some of the past few challenges, I've received some comments to the effect that the voter wished my image was bigger. However, they aren't small. The maximum size here for an edge is 640 pixels, but in order to save a photo at that size as a .jpg, I need to lower the quality to well below 75%, which I refuse to do.
Am I up in the night, confused, or is there some secret way of saving an image at 640 pixels, under 150 Kb, and still retain good quality?
|
|
|
|
05/31/2004 12:56:27 AM · #2 |
What program are you using?
Try //www.irfanview.com/ |
|
|
|
05/31/2004 01:02:43 AM · #3 |
David,
I often have that issue with hihg-detail shots. Occasionally, I have to save as low as 60% to make the 150k limit, retaining the maximum size. Especially as I often use the square format.
Although I would not compress an image intended for print output this much, I do think that compressing a bit more is preferrable to downsizing. I think it presents better, and any artifacts are nearly invisible.
I also will run noise reduction (NeatImage 4.0) very gently to reduce file size at times.
|
|
|
|
05/31/2004 01:04:09 AM · #4 |
Tough call. Now I need to rethink that comment I left a little while ago... :) (FWIW, if it was yours, I didn't deduct for the size. It was just such a nice looking shot, I was wishing to see more of it.)
Don't know if I have a good answer for your question, but I have noticed that somethimes how much I sharpen affects the size of the final file - more sharpness = more contrasts = more bytes - but there you've got another trade off - sharpness vs. pixels. Not a great choice.
One other thought - I haven't found myself tied to a specific limit in the quality setting. I find how much "quality" is acceptable varies by picture. I'll pick the highest quality that gets me under the 150K limit, then click the preview on and off. If I can see pixels changing (i.e. the "pixelated" look starting to show), then I'll make the choice your facing - smaller dimensions. Usually you're right, 75% is as low as I can go before that happens, but sometimes I can push it a little lower without any noticable degradation. |
|
|
|
05/31/2004 01:04:17 AM · #5 |
If the file is too big, for my portfolio or challenge, I always go to 590 or 600 pixels on the longest side and compress from there.
|
|
|
|
05/31/2004 01:07:01 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I also will run noise reduction (NeatImage 4.0) very gently to reduce file size at times. |
Good call. NI does have a huge impact on file size, so it does make sense that running it at even mild settings could help the file size. |
|
|
|
05/31/2004 01:14:07 AM · #7 |
I have noticed that the further I get away from 100%, the less rich my tones are. I may be hypersensitive to this, since I'm colorblind (slightly anyway), and tones mean to me as much as colors, in many ways. I notice HUGE differences in photos I've uploaded, and often have to add either contrast or just move the middle slider over (in Photoshop) to the right to darken the tones a bit so it looks decent on the web.
I like the idea of running a grain-removal application, even at a lower level. I'll give that a try.
Also, when I save a .jpg image, I get three options: 'Baseline Standardized', 'Baseline Optimized' and 'Progressive.' What difference do these make in terms of file size, if any?
|
|
|
|
05/31/2004 01:21:50 AM · #8 |
in Photoshop, if you choose "Save for Web" you can get a lot closer to the 150k than just using the "Save As". most of the time you can get it as close as 149k.
|
|
|
|
05/31/2004 01:22:38 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by dsidwell:
...Also, when I save a .jpg image, I get three options: 'Baseline Standardized', 'Baseline Optimized' and 'Progressive.' What difference do these make in terms of file size, if any? |
Interesting question...
I saved an ISO 800 image from the 10d in JPG at level "12" quality (Photoshop CS). I saved with each of the three choices:
Standard = 3.08MB
Optimized = 2.86MB
Progressive = 2.80MB
So about 10% for this file, nothing dramatic.
|
|
|
|
05/31/2004 01:29:31 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by sher9204:
in Photoshop, if you choose "Save for Web" you can get a lot closer to the 150k than just using the "Save As". most of the time you can get it as close as 149k. |
This is true, and I fiddle with the settings here until I have a file that is as close to 147k as I can get without going over. Somehow, 2k are added when the file is finally saved.
Using Save for Web..., I go back and forth from the percent quality to the size until I'm as high as I can be and as large as I can be, but still under 147k. Again, my images are not small, but they are sometimes around 500 pixels (longest edge) or so. Most are larger, and I don't like going under 540--but I will if the image will be saved at less than 75%.
So is this a common problem? Am I wrestling with things to which there is an easy solution? I do notice that a lot of shots on DPC are about the same size as mine.
|
|
|
|
05/31/2004 01:30:56 AM · #11 |
oh man, never thought of this! Never noticed too much of a change i=either but if others are seeing it & I ahve ignored this well, this is just another dursed variable I got to deal with now (read: another thing to obsees about when fine tuning images for challenges) b4 uploading.
this sucks!
|
|
|
|
05/31/2004 04:49:16 AM · #12 |
I use a variety of tricks when I get to this point. I'm using PS 5, so I don't have the "Save For Web" feature, but I generally use "Save A Copy" at varying levels until I get under 150k.
I will sometimes size an image down to 600 pixels, expecially if it's a square. If the file size is just a couple of kb off, I might crop off a couple more pixels, or apply a 2-to-5 pixel black stroke (compresses better than the image). I'll also sometimes go back to my "original" TIFF file and apply a "lighter" amount of sharpening, as a slight difference there can easily make a difference of 20-30kb or more at any given JPEG quality setting.
The more lines/edges and the more colors in the image, the larger the JPEG. |
|
|
|
05/31/2004 04:57:03 AM · #13 |
I don't see enough difference, on a screen, between jpeg at a 12 and say a 8 or 9 to make much difference.
People spend what, 10 seconds maybe looking at a typical photo?
I think the first impression often sticks, and that is unlikely to be the jpg quality when compared to other elements of a photo.
Looking at it purely from a vote point of view I would far rather sacrifice "quality" and keep the size up at 600 at least. Not idea I agree, but I think you are far more likely to be marked down for size than a few jpg artifacts.
|
|
|
|
05/31/2004 05:45:56 AM · #14 |
I try for 600 to 640 on the long side, and then use 8 or better compression on teh PS slider in the 'Save As' window. Never had any comments to indicate i have made a mistake...so i will stay the course. I usually end up with a 134-140k final 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: 09/19/2025 04:41:05 AM EDT.
