New mandate needed

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:16:08 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

Eric Stevens writes:

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:02:04 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

For nearly all photos (not for SI specifically, but preparing my photos
for web display in general) I try for the point where extra size doesn't
bring extra goodness.

I understand that. Unfortunately I seem to prefer larger photographs,
often with lots of detail, and trying to preserve the visual impact in
an image of small size becomes very difficult. I may have to force my
brain to appreciate a different syle of image.

Yes, if you're doing stuff that really needs to be a few feet across,
often it doesn't look it's best at 1200 pixels, I do agree .

I guess that's why I bought a 19" printer. :-)

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:13:43 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-03-22 19:08 , Eric Stevens wrote:
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.

Fair enough. I've since posted the same photo at 1200x800 and 300 kB.
(Actually a little larger).

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.

See below.


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

I've demonstrated that your photo can easily be edited to 1200x800, 300
kB and be quite presentable (it should be noted that there is nothing
particularly great about the image whether at full quality or lesser. It
is "large" in JPG terms because of the patterns in the image.

If you don't use PS you can use any other editor. The JPG quality
scales (depending on the particular app) is typically 1 ... 10, 1...12,
1...100 all with the same relative meaning/effect.

In the end they all have the same basic result: a smaller file and
usually (in the upper range) little or no discernible photo degradation.

That's where we disagree.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:36:27 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-03-23 17:13 , Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012-03-22 19:08 , Eric Stevens wrote:
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.

Fair enough. I've since posted the same photo at 1200x800 and 300 kB.
(Actually a little larger).

Sorry, I take that back. The 2 MB image was in fact 2560x1712 pixels.

When reduced to 1200 x 803 and saved at "max quality" comes out to 700
kB. A slight reduction in quality gets it to 300 kB.

Yet you have just written "In the end they all have the same basic
result: a smaller file and usually (in the upper range) little or no
discernible photo degradation." In my experience, that slight
reduction in quality can often take the edge off an image and turn it
from 'Gee Whiz' to 'Ho Hum'.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2012-03-23 15:50:46 -0700, Pete A said:

On 2012-03-23 20:39:40 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:02:04 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

For nearly all photos (not for SI specifically, but preparing my photos
for web display in general) I try for the point where extra size doesn't
bring extra goodness.

I understand that. Unfortunately I seem to prefer larger photographs,
often with lots of detail, and trying to preserve the visual impact in
an image of small size becomes very difficult. I may have to force my
brain to appreciate a different syle of image.

I'm the same: some of my photos simply do not deliver their designed
impact when reproduced on anything less than a huge print. I absolutely
refuse to compromise on any of my images where this aspect is important
to me. I have one image entitled "Every Pixel Counts" and it has blown
the socks off everyone who's viewed the print :-)


Yup!
There are times when BIG is appropriate.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechut...me_0954BWc.jpg

....and for real pixel peeping you can still take a 9.9MB 4378 x 2938 image:
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC3977Af.jpg

and resize it (this time using Apple's Preview resize tool, along with
a reduction in jpeg quality "save as") in about 20 seconds to a 293 KB
1280 x 859 image which is still quite viewable on a computer display,
without any discernible quality loss.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC3977Afw.jpg


Recently, however, I'm having great fun by exploring a processing style
that relies heavily on selective blurring. When/if I perfect it to my
liking, I'm tempted to create an antithesis to the above along the
lines of "Each Pixel Is Meaningless" :-)

....and so we move to the abstract. ;-)


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-03-23 16:12:39 -0700, Pete A said:

On 2012-03-23 21:13:43 +0000, Alan Browne said:

On 2012-03-22 19:08 , Eric Stevens wrote:
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.

Fair enough. I've since posted the same photo at 1200x800 and 300 kB.
(Actually a little larger).

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.

See below.


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

I've demonstrated that your photo can easily be edited to 1200x800, 300
kB and be quite presentable (it should be noted that there is nothing
particularly great about the image whether at full quality or lesser.
It is "large" in JPG terms because of the patterns in the image.

If you don't use PS you can use any other editor. The JPG quality
scales (depending on the particular app) is typically 1 ... 10, 1...12,
1...100 all with the same relative meaning/effect.

In the end they all have the same basic result: a smaller file and
usually (in the upper range) little or no discernible photo degradation.

Not wishing to be argumentative, just reiterating what has been
explained in great technical detail previously on Usenet photography
groups: there are exceedingly few JPEG encoders and decoders that do an
excellent job. Since late Dec. 2011, Nikon Capture NX2 now has JPEG
functionality that is totally unusable for serious photography - this
product by no means stands alone.

Pete, you as a Mac user have one of the very best jpeg resizing tools
available in "Preview".

Try this experiment:
Process one of your NEFs with your NX2 and save the full size image at
the highest quality NX2 jpeg. I would imagine that depending on content
you should have a file size of 3-12 MB.
Open that file in Preview. Select the "Resize Tool" and make the
dimensional adjustments.
Save as, with a a file name change and adjust the jpeg quality to a
level you might be uncomfortable going to with what was once a huge
file, and see what you get.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 18:55:03 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-03-23 15:50:46 -0700, Pete A said:

On 2012-03-23 20:39:40 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:02:04 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

For nearly all photos (not for SI specifically, but preparing my photos
for web display in general) I try for the point where extra size doesn't
bring extra goodness.

I understand that. Unfortunately I seem to prefer larger photographs,
often with lots of detail, and trying to preserve the visual impact in
an image of small size becomes very difficult. I may have to force my
brain to appreciate a different syle of image.

I'm the same: some of my photos simply do not deliver their designed
impact when reproduced on anything less than a huge print. I absolutely
refuse to compromise on any of my images where this aspect is important
to me. I have one image entitled "Every Pixel Counts" and it has blown
the socks off everyone who's viewed the print :-)


Yup!
There are times when BIG is appropriate.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechut...me_0954BWc.jpg

...and for real pixel peeping you can still take a 9.9MB 4378 x 2938 image:
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC3977Af.jpg

and resize it (this time using Apple's Preview resize tool, along with
a reduction in jpeg quality "save as") in about 20 seconds to a 293 KB
1280 x 859 image which is still quite viewable on a computer display,
without any discernible quality loss.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC3977Afw.jpg

Let's see what you can do to the HalfDome. :-)


Recently, however, I'm having great fun by exploring a processing style
that relies heavily on selective blurring. When/if I perfect it to my
liking, I'm tempted to create an antithesis to the above along the
lines of "Each Pixel Is Meaningless" :-)

...and so we move to the abstract. ;-)

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2012-03-23 20:28:45 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 18:55:03 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-03-23 15:50:46 -0700, Pete A said:

On 2012-03-23 20:39:40 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:02:04 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

For nearly all photos (not for SI specifically, but preparing my photos
for web display in general) I try for the point where extra size doesn't
bring extra goodness.

I understand that. Unfortunately I seem to prefer larger photographs,
often with lots of detail, and trying to preserve the visual impact in
an image of small size becomes very difficult. I may have to force my
brain to appreciate a different syle of image.

I'm the same: some of my photos simply do not deliver their designed
impact when reproduced on anything less than a huge print. I absolutely
refuse to compromise on any of my images where this aspect is important
to me. I have one image entitled "Every Pixel Counts" and it has blown
the socks off everyone who's viewed the print :-)


Yup!
There are times when BIG is appropriate.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechut...me_0954BWc.jpg

...and for real pixel peeping you can still take a 9.9MB 4378 x 2938 image:
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC3977Af.jpg

and resize it (this time using Apple's Preview resize tool, along with
a reduction in jpeg quality "save as") in about 20 seconds to a 293 KB
1280 x 859 image which is still quite viewable on a computer display,
without any discernible quality loss.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC3977Afw.jpg

Let's see what you can do to the HalfDome. :-)

Oh! You mean resizing it to 300 KB (...er 293KB) & 1280 x 853.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechut...e_0954BWcw.jpg


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 20:48:12 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-03-23 20:28:45 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 18:55:03 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-03-23 15:50:46 -0700, Pete A said:

On 2012-03-23 20:39:40 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:02:04 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

For nearly all photos (not for SI specifically, but preparing my photos
for web display in general) I try for the point where extra size doesn't
bring extra goodness.

I understand that. Unfortunately I seem to prefer larger photographs,
often with lots of detail, and trying to preserve the visual impact in
an image of small size becomes very difficult. I may have to force my
brain to appreciate a different syle of image.

I'm the same: some of my photos simply do not deliver their designed
impact when reproduced on anything less than a huge print. I absolutely
refuse to compromise on any of my images where this aspect is important
to me. I have one image entitled "Every Pixel Counts" and it has blown
the socks off everyone who's viewed the print :-)


Yup!
There are times when BIG is appropriate.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechut...me_0954BWc.jpg

...and for real pixel peeping you can still take a 9.9MB 4378 x 2938 image:
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC3977Af.jpg

and resize it (this time using Apple's Preview resize tool, along with
a reduction in jpeg quality "save as") in about 20 seconds to a 293 KB
1280 x 859 image which is still quite viewable on a computer display,
without any discernible quality loss.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC3977Afw.jpg

Let's see what you can do to the HalfDome. :-)

Oh! You mean resizing it to 300 KB (...er 293KB) & 1280 x 853.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechut...e_0954BWcw.jpg

I have to say it came through better than I expected but after loading
up both and flicking back and forwards between the two, its like
comparing Popular Mechanics with National Geographic. There is no
doubt at all which one is the better image.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2012-03-24 02:04:54 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2012-03-23 16:12:39 -0700, Pete A said:

On 2012-03-23 21:13:43 +0000, Alan Browne said:

On 2012-03-22 19:08 , Eric Stevens wrote:
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.

Fair enough. I've since posted the same photo at 1200x800 and 300 kB.
(Actually a little larger).

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.

See below.


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

I've demonstrated that your photo can easily be edited to 1200x800, 300
kB and be quite presentable (it should be noted that there is nothing
particularly great about the image whether at full quality or lesser.
It is "large" in JPG terms because of the patterns in the image.

If you don't use PS you can use any other editor. The JPG quality
scales (depending on the particular app) is typically 1 ... 10, 1...12,
1...100 all with the same relative meaning/effect.

In the end they all have the same basic result: a smaller file and
usually (in the upper range) little or no discernible photo degradation.

Not wishing to be argumentative, just reiterating what has been
explained in great technical detail previously on Usenet photography
groups: there are exceedingly few JPEG encoders and decoders that do an
excellent job. Since late Dec. 2011, Nikon Capture NX2 now has JPEG
functionality that is totally unusable for serious photography - this
product by no means stands alone.

Pete, you as a Mac user have one of the very best jpeg resizing tools
available in "Preview".

Actually, Preview is a crap image scaler. Up to and including OS-X 10.5
(Leopard), image scaling in Preview, Safari, Finder thumbnail view, and
other applications is not gamma corrected. I don't yet know if this
error has been fixed in later versions of OS-X.

http://www.4p8.com/eric.brasseur/gamma.html

The two links you posted of the car picture clearly show the problem in
Safari. I opened each link in a separate tab and just let Safari scale
each image to fit the browser window. The intricate grille is much
brighter in DNC3977Afw (the smaller image) than the larger image. To a
lesser extent, the same occurs on the wheel spokes. The URL (above)
demonstrates this effect in the example of the eyes of the golden fly.

Unfortunately, the image scaler in NX2 is not gamma corrected either,
therefore I have no means of downsizing an image without losing
quality, irrespective of the JPEG compression level.

Try this experiment:
Process one of your NEFs with your NX2 and save the full size image at
the highest quality NX2 jpeg. I would imagine that depending on content
you should have a file size of 3-12 MB.
Open that file in Preview. Select the "Resize Tool" and make the
dimensional adjustments.
Save as, with a a file name change and adjust the jpeg quality to a
level you might be uncomfortable going to with what was once a huge
file, and see what you get.

The nature of the JPEG encoder error in NX2 means that images need to
be saved as TIFF then converted to JPEG in Preview. That's no hardship,
of course, because Preview is the only application I have that
indicates the JPEG file size as the compression level slider is moved,
which is very useful.

Rather than faffing around trying to find proper image scaling software
I'll experiment with OS-X Lion - if its version of Preview has an
accurate image scaler I shall be very pleased indeed.

On 2012-03-24 05:08:17 -0700, Pete A said:

On 2012-03-24 02:04:54 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2012-03-23 16:12:39 -0700, Pete A said:

On 2012-03-23 21:13:43 +0000, Alan Browne said:

On 2012-03-22 19:08 , Eric Stevens wrote:
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.

Fair enough. I've since posted the same photo at 1200x800 and 300 kB.
(Actually a little larger).

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.

See below.


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

I've demonstrated that your photo can easily be edited to 1200x800, 300
kB and be quite presentable (it should be noted that there is nothing
particularly great about the image whether at full quality or lesser.
It is "large" in JPG terms because of the patterns in the image.

If you don't use PS you can use any other editor. The JPG quality
scales (depending on the particular app) is typically 1 ... 10, 1...12,
1...100 all with the same relative meaning/effect.

In the end they all have the same basic result: a smaller file and
usually (in the upper range) little or no discernible photo degradation.

Not wishing to be argumentative, just reiterating what has been
explained in great technical detail previously on Usenet photography
groups: there are exceedingly few JPEG encoders and decoders that do an
excellent job. Since late Dec. 2011, Nikon Capture NX2 now has JPEG
functionality that is totally unusable for serious photography - this
product by no means stands alone.

Pete, you as a Mac user have one of the very best jpeg resizing tools
available in "Preview".

Actually, Preview is a crap image scaler. Up to and including OS-X 10.5
(Leopard), image scaling in Preview, Safari, Finder thumbnail view, and
other applications is not gamma corrected. I don't yet know if this
error has been fixed in later versions of OS-X.

http://www.4p8.com/eric.brasseur/gamma.html

The two links you posted of the car picture clearly show the problem in
Safari. I opened each link in a separate tab and just let Safari scale
each image to fit the browser window. The intricate grille is much
brighter in DNC3977Afw (the smaller image) than the larger image. To a
lesser extent, the same occurs on the wheel spokes. The URL (above)
demonstrates this effect in the example of the eyes of the golden fly.

I must be leading a less obsessive life than you. All I am doing is
resizing an image to dimensions suitable for the SI.
Why should I care if there is a Gamma issue with the eye of a golden
fly after resizing?

This is not rocket science, or analysis of macro images, for crying out
loud. This is meant to be a piece of entertaining fun. What you are
describing is pixel peeping to an extreme and has very strong OCD
elements.

There might well be times when this Gamma issue is a real problem, but
resizing for the SI is not one of them. So what if there is a minor
change in the brightness of the intricate grill on the resized image
which is intended for display viewing only. This is not going to be an
image file intended for printing, or critical pixel level comparison to
an original. The SI is not a comparison gallery for resized vs original
images.
You are over complicating this issue. I thought you were trying to
simplify some of the things in your life because of your condition.
Just resized the damn image file, and submit it! Nobody is going to
have the original to make the comparison. This is not a proposition of
Wittgensteinian proportions for you to wrap your brain around. Let it
go and have some fun.


Unfortunately, the image scaler in NX2 is not gamma corrected either,
therefore I have no means of downsizing an image without losing
quality, irrespective of the JPEG compression level.

Then locking into NX2 as your primary editor is not particularly
useful. Since you are able to afford the camera equipment you use, I
would suggest that you step up and get yourself a copy of Photoshop
Elements 10. That should make life a bit easier for you.


Try this experiment:
Process one of your NEFs with your NX2 and save the full size image at
the highest quality NX2 jpeg. I would imagine that depending on content
you should have a file size of 3-12 MB.
Open that file in Preview. Select the "Resize Tool" and make the
dimensional adjustments.
Save as, with a a file name change and adjust the jpeg quality to a
level you might be uncomfortable going to with what was once a huge
file, and see what you get.

The nature of the JPEG encoder error in NX2 means that images need to
be saved as TIFF then converted to JPEG in Preview. That's no hardship,
of course, because Preview is the only application I have that
indicates the JPEG file size as the compression level slider is moved,
which is very useful.

Rather than faffing around trying to find proper image scaling software
I'll experiment with OS-X Lion - if its version of Preview has an
accurate image scaler I shall be very pleased indeed.

Just buy PS Elements 10 already!
....or LR4, or step up to the big one, CS5 (or soon to be released CS6).

Stop mind ****ing!!


--
Regards,

Savageduck