Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2016 · Downsampling

  
 
MikeyV
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Downsampling


When reducing the size of your images for posting on FM, what sizes are you using? FM suggests a max of 800 pixels. Do you just plug in that number in your post processing resampler and let the algorithm do the rest, or what? I'm getting ready to post my first pics here and when I did it initially, the images were huge. Thanks.


Mar 28, 2016 at 05:47 PM
Bernie
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Downsampling


When posting to the web, the browsers pay attention to the number of pixels, not physical dimensions. So, yes 800 pixels should work. Panos could be larger (1000-1500) since they're usually narrow in the other dimension.

Once you downsample, you may want to do a final sharpening for the web.

Try posting here and check the results.



Mar 29, 2016 at 11:38 AM
MikeyV
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Downsampling


Thanks, Bernie. Thats exactly what I did and it works just fine. Thanks for the tip about a bit of final sharpening.


Apr 02, 2016 at 11:00 PM
surfnron
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Downsampling


Hey Mikey - 800p is the suggested limit, but if you go to N&W, (and I know you do... ), you will see that many post much larger images. The key is reducing the quality so the anyone can download the images in a reasonable amount of time. In photoshop you can choose the quality with a slider before you save. I can't comment on other programs though ~ Ron


Apr 04, 2016 at 07:11 AM
MikeyV
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Downsampling


Thanks, Surfnron. But, based on the clarity of the larger images I have seen, how much quality reduction are they doing? Based on my "ability," any reduction in quality is likely to result in a horrible image. I guess the key is to just play with that function and try it out. Which I will do.

I did not know that stuff. Thanks very much.



Apr 04, 2016 at 10:32 AM
surfnron
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Downsampling


MikeyV wrote:
Thanks, Surfnron. But, based on the clarity of the larger images I have seen, how much quality reduction are they doing? Based on my "ability," any reduction in quality is likely to result in a horrible image. I guess the key is to just play with that function and try it out. Which I will do.

I did not know that stuff. Thanks very much.


Just to add to what I said earlier...
The PS slider associated with the "save" command goes up to 12, and 12 saves the file at the highest quality, and the largest file size. I normally try to save at 9 or 10. This is for two reasons. First, it makes the file size smaller for faster loading, and second, that makes it less likely that someone will steal your shot.
I have occasionally gone down to 8 to reduce file size, but that's getting close to where image degradation is noticeable when viewed online.
Ron



Apr 04, 2016 at 11:47 AM
mzbe
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Downsampling


I'm always using a (commercial) tool called JPEGmini to reduce the size (in KB) of forum images without visible quality loss. This is irrespective of image dimensions, it seems that in most forums 1200px width is becoming the norm.


Apr 04, 2016 at 12:53 PM
Ho1972
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Downsampling


surfnron wrote:
I normally try to save at 9 or 10. This is for two reasons. First, it makes the file size smaller for faster loading, and second, that makes it less likely that someone will steal your shot.
I have occasionally gone down to 8 to reduce file size, but that's getting close to where image degradation is noticeable when viewed online.
Ron


I never use anything above 10 because Adobe does some fast and loose stuff with their jpeg quality settings. At one time, anything above 10 was considered voodoo/non-standard. Resaving a file saved at level 12 will cause degradation more quickly than one saved at 10, for example. And quality level 6 (I think) was actually seen as superior to level 7 (for reasons I don't recall).

I haven't read up on this for years, maybe it's different now.



Apr 04, 2016 at 01:22 PM





FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.