Forum Index > Photography Talk > Image Quality
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Spotly
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Jan 2004
Posts: 3723 | TRs | Pics
Location: Spokane Valley
Spotly
Member
PostWed Jul 07, 2004 8:00 pm 
I'm not real happy with the results I'm getting since I started "optimizing" my images for posting on the web. I see plenty of shots posted that look really nice and are 100k or smaller but mine seem to come out real crappy when I dummy them down using the jpg optimizer in Paint Shop Pro. I've been shrinking the images down to 640*480 then optimizing them to get the file size down to below 100k. Does anybody have any tricks for this that they'd like to share? Is there a method out there that eludes me?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MCaver
Founder



Joined: 14 Dec 2001
Posts: 5124 | TRs | Pics
MCaver
Founder
PostWed Jul 07, 2004 8:05 pm 
I've been very happy with the "Save For Web..." feature in Photoshop Elements. I don't know what algorithm they're using, but it creates very small files without sacrificing image quality, even at lower settings like 70%.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Newt
Short Timer



Joined: 21 Dec 2001
Posts: 3176 | TRs | Pics
Location: Down the road and around the corner
Newt
Short Timer
PostWed Jul 07, 2004 8:48 pm 
What's crappy about them? Noise? Artifacts? I've used PSP a fair amount. Newt Edit, Sorry for saying crappy. It should have been what don't you like about them. I'm in a crappy mood.

It's pretty safe to say that if we take all of man kinds accumulated knowledge, we still don't know everything. So, I hope you understand why I don't believe you know everything. But then again, maybe you do.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostWed Jul 07, 2004 9:31 pm 
The "save for web" option in photoshop rules. JPEG quality setting 70 in photoshop is overkill for the web. The more detail there is in a picture the higher the filesize will be. I usually save with quality 60 ("High") unless the file size is too big, in which case I go down to quality 50.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Spotly
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Jan 2004
Posts: 3723 | TRs | Pics
Location: Spokane Valley
Spotly
Member
PostWed Jul 07, 2004 10:15 pm 
Newt, Crappy works. When I run them through the jpg optimizer in PSP they just lose alot of detail in order to get below 100k. Seems like too much when I compare the quality to some of the other images I see posted of the same file size. I think I'll download the demo (assuming there is one) of PhotoShop and see if it's any better.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostWed Jul 07, 2004 10:34 pm 
For 640x480 you should be happy with anywhere between 75-150K depending on the amount of detail and sharpening. If you're trying to push it all below 100K you're probably being too aggressive. I would stick with a jpeg quality setting just above where you normally start seeing visible degradation. Some higher end cameras embed a thumbnail which can bloat the filesize if your software isn't smart enough to remove it along with any other embedded but non-critical information like EXIF headers.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Newt
Short Timer



Joined: 21 Dec 2001
Posts: 3176 | TRs | Pics
Location: Down the road and around the corner
Newt
Short Timer
PostThu Jul 08, 2004 4:55 am 
Are the photos crisp to start with? Always look at them full size. I resize and then make minor adjustments on brightness/contrast, then use the unsharp or sharp filter. Then EXPORT to JPEG and usually to a size I like. Keep the original open. Open the saved file and look at it. If you don't like it, go back to the original you have open and undo a few back and try again. Then resave. Usually the compression seems to screw the photos up. Newt

It's pretty safe to say that if we take all of man kinds accumulated knowledge, we still don't know everything. So, I hope you understand why I don't believe you know everything. But then again, maybe you do.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Spotly
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Jan 2004
Posts: 3723 | TRs | Pics
Location: Spokane Valley
Spotly
Member
PostThu Jul 08, 2004 6:38 am 
Newt, I usually sharpen up the large image first then shrink it down prior to using the jpg optimizer. Maybe I should change the order to resize first? Here's an example of a "crappy" image (not just because of the subject): Crappy Image The original looked pretty good (mainly because of the subject biggrin.gif )

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
sooperfly
Member
Member


Joined: 04 May 2003
Posts: 1232 | TRs | Pics
Location: North Central Wa.
sooperfly
Member
PostThu Jul 08, 2004 7:04 am 
Email me the original and let me try to resize, etc? smile.gif angus@televar.com

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Spotly
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Jan 2004
Posts: 3723 | TRs | Pics
Location: Spokane Valley
Spotly
Member
PostThu Jul 08, 2004 7:54 am 
Thanks for all the help evryone. Sooperfly, I sent you an original and modified copy of a picture. Thanks again.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
-lol-
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 767 | TRs | Pics
-lol-
Member
PostThu Jul 08, 2004 10:46 am 

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Spotly
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Jan 2004
Posts: 3723 | TRs | Pics
Location: Spokane Valley
Spotly
Member
PostThu Jul 08, 2004 11:46 am 
Sounds like lots of great advice. I'll play around with it after work. Can you remove the extraneous stuff some how? Thanks much for all of the suggestions.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
sooperfly
Member
Member


Joined: 04 May 2003
Posts: 1232 | TRs | Pics
Location: North Central Wa.
sooperfly
Member
PostThu Jul 08, 2004 12:20 pm 
Got the file, spotfly, thanks. Will try and fool with it during lunch. The one you sent me def. looks oversharpened.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Spotly
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Jan 2004
Posts: 3723 | TRs | Pics
Location: Spokane Valley
Spotly
Member
PostThu Jul 08, 2004 6:25 pm 
I redid the image as you suggested and it made a huge difference. Looks like it was a combination of workflow and using too much of the sharpening as everyone said. I also ran the original through both PPS and Photoshop 7 (using unsharp mask and save for web) to compare the output. Here's what I got: Three Images Thanks for all of the great help on this.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Newt
Short Timer



Joined: 21 Dec 2001
Posts: 3176 | TRs | Pics
Location: Down the road and around the corner
Newt
Short Timer
PostThu Jul 08, 2004 7:49 pm 
I randomly picked a photo and used PSP to resize, sharpen & unsharpen and then export as JPG. Can you tell which is which?

It's pretty safe to say that if we take all of man kinds accumulated knowledge, we still don't know everything. So, I hope you understand why I don't believe you know everything. But then again, maybe you do.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Photography Talk > Image Quality
  Happy Birthday noahk!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum