If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Image re-sizing
Sorry for what might be an obvious question to most but I would
appreciate a little advice on re-sizing an image. I currently have an image which is appreox 3.4 mb which I have been asked to send via e-mail at 100k. Using photoshop I go to Image size and adjust the pixel dimension to 340 x 252 and save the JPEG at highest quality (12) and 72 pixels/inch. However although the image is very good when I send the image it appears quite small. Saving the image at a lesser image quality for a smaller file increases the size dispalyed but the image is noticeably poorer when dispalyed. I am a little confused however in that I have an e-mail which has been sent to me which has various pictures attached. These are reasonable quality (on monitor),display a larger image when opened, yet are only 30-40k in size ! I would appreciate therefore any (easy) advice as to the best method to produce a 100k image which is going to give the best quality but yet be dispalyed at a reasonable size when sent. ( I understand quality v size is probably a trade off ) but your help is appreciated as to date I havn't really had to bother in reducing files for this purpose. Rob. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 05:02:39 -0800, Eos wrote:
snip I would appreciate therefore any (easy) advice as to the best method to produce a 100k image which is going to give the best quality but yet be dispalyed at a reasonable size when sent. ( I understand quality v size is probably a trade off ) but your help is appreciated as to date I havn't really had to bother in reducing files for this purpose. Rob. Size versus quality is an inevitable tradeoff. There is no easy way to tell how much quality you have to sacrifice to get to a certain file size since the complexity of the image plays a major role in the amount of compression you can achieve while retaining acceptable visible quality. Of course reduction in pixel size will always help while maintaining visible quality so that's a good start. What's the minimum required pixel size for your recipient? Once you have that, save the picture at that size and start increasing compression (=reducing quality) until you get a file that fits inside 100KB. My personal experience is that images don't suffer a whole lot when using Photoshop's JPG compression setting 8 but still compress quite well. Usually you can even go a few steps further down, but editing the resulting JPG will be out of the question because of very noticable compression artifacts. So do your editing on the orignal and compress that. Hope this helps Bas |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 05:02:39 -0800, Eos wrote:
snip I would appreciate therefore any (easy) advice as to the best method to produce a 100k image which is going to give the best quality but yet be dispalyed at a reasonable size when sent. ( I understand quality v size is probably a trade off ) but your help is appreciated as to date I havn't really had to bother in reducing files for this purpose. Rob. Size versus quality is an inevitable tradeoff. There is no easy way to tell how much quality you have to sacrifice to get to a certain file size since the complexity of the image plays a major role in the amount of compression you can achieve while retaining acceptable visible quality. Of course reduction in pixel size will always help while maintaining visible quality so that's a good start. What's the minimum required pixel size for your recipient? Once you have that, save the picture at that size and start increasing compression (=reducing quality) until you get a file that fits inside 100KB. My personal experience is that images don't suffer a whole lot when using Photoshop's JPG compression setting 8 but still compress quite well. Usually you can even go a few steps further down, but editing the resulting JPG will be out of the question because of very noticable compression artifacts. So do your editing on the orignal and compress that. Hope this helps Bas |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
How well an photo will compress depends on the content of the image,
lots of sky or an photo with the background out of focus will compress more then a photo that is sharp and has lots of detail, like grass, sand, trees. Normally 100K would be good for about an 640 x 480 image but might be able to go up to something like 800 x 600, this depends on how much detail is in the photo. The best thing to do is to try saving it at different sizes and see how they look. Do "Save For Web" this strips off the EXIF data which will save some room and it allows find control on the quality used to save the photo. Scott |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
how to put the border around a headshot? | Millenium | Photographing People | 38 | December 22nd 18 12:26 PM |
(pixle per inch) ppi is only 72 HELP | Ian Hurst (Troyka) | Digital Photography | 12 | December 22nd 04 01:27 AM |
I started a 35mm B&W darkroom forum | me | In The Darkroom | 153 | December 20th 04 04:37 AM |
8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant | Matt | 35mm Photo Equipment | 932 | December 17th 04 09:48 PM |
IMAGE MANAGEMENT AND CREATIVITY HAS NEVER BEEN EASIER so get it for just £2 | Amethyst | Other Photographic Equipment | 0 | December 14th 03 02:28 PM |