On 2012-03-22 16:08:21 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:35:13 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-03-22 00:21 , Eric Stevens wrote:

This time I wasn't going to be first to make this last point, but I
have said it previously. The maximum image size (what is it, 1200 x
800?) is fine by me but depending on the subject, this can lead to
JPEGs ranging from 200kB to around 2MB. If you don't believe me, try
it. I have a continual battle with file size and image quality and

I don't believe 2 MB.

I've since posted an example.

Even with a high amount of detail in the image I
rarely see anything above 500 kB or so. Reducing the quality level to 8
or 7 (PS CS5 scale) is usually enough. I have submitted some at quality
level 6 with little or no discernible quality loss.

I'm sorry that's meaningless to non-CS users like me.

Then you need to take a closer look at how your software produces
jpegs. Not all of the processes and algorithms are equal. Some are
downright damaging, and the poor results can be seen in the final
product. This might be one of those times you might be able to blame
your tools.

This is almost analogous to the guy who decides to take up fine cabinet
work as a hobby, using only the tools he has at hand, a hammer, a
chainsaw, and screwdriver, when tools which could lead to a more subtle
result might be more appropriate.
Consider finding a copy of PS Elements, or spend a bit more for
Lightroom 4. I believe you will find you will be able to resize and
obtain decent jpegs which maintain more than acceptable quality for
viewing on a computer monitor.


Display it smaller as well as at a lower quality level. 1200x800 is
arbitrary. And quite large compared to how most photos are shown on the
web.

But are the photographs intended only to be adequate on the web?

For the SI, yes. Adequate to good. Those with obvious jpeg artifacts
tend to make one wince.

Perhaps that's my problem? I'm trying to give an impression of what it
might be like in a print.


Who cares what it might look like in a print. 99.9% of those who look
at the image on their computer display are never going to print it.

Anybody who might want to print it can request a full sized file with
minimal compression from you. Even sharing images with friends and
family, they might only want to print one or two images out of a
gallery of 30, 40, or more. You might even offer to print it for them.
Remember once the file is in the recipient's hands and being printed on
their printer, you have no control over the print product.
Edit so the image looks good on a display. If you re going to print it,
adjust to obtain the optimal print there is little point in mixing up
print and display files.


Regards,

Eric Stevens


--
Regards,

Savageduck