New mandate needed

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 05:55:18 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-03-22 02:20:53 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 23:47:58 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-03-21 22:47:48 -0700, "Trevor" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2012032122350077923-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2012-03-21 19:37:43 -0700, Robert Coe said:
That said, what I've found most frustrating when I have participated is
the
time it takes to get my pictures down to the maximum accepted size while
maintaining a level of quality sufficient to make the effort worthwhile.

I don't understand why you are having such a hard time with resizing.
With Photoshop (CS5 in my case) using the crop tool I make the appropriate
crop to establish edge ratio.
Retaining proportionality adjust image size to 1200 pixels along the long
edge.
Then a simple "save as" reducing quality to about "9" you should have a
file size somewhere between 255-330 MB.

I sure hope you mean 255-330kB!

...er yup!
That was a phinfgr phawlt, brain fart. 255-3330 KB


I would imagine you would go through a similar process with most other
editing software.
For those folks with Macs it is even simpler using Preview and the "adjust
size" tool.

It seems you missed the key words "maximum accepted size while maintaining a
level of quality sufficient to make the effort worthwhile". I imagine he
knows how to resample, but would prefer larger files/better quality pictures
to compare.

Trevor.

Following the work flow I described above quality is more than OK for
the display viewing required for the SI.

For example here is a 7.8 MB 2520 x 3720 image:
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Bugatti-3979.jpg
and the same image reduced to 298 KB 867 x 1280:
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechut...tti-3979w2.jpg

My complaint relates to the way the same compression algorithm (in
this case JPG) can result in vastly different sizes of JPG files.

...and that is a characteristic of JPEG compression with varying
content detail and contrast.

Exactly.

Here are two I have plucked from my (dirty word) archives.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC02101-FACE.jpg is 135 kB and
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC02102.JPG is 2.27 MB. If you have
a preference for taking the second category of phototographs you are
faced with an enormous struggle to get within the size limits.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

My propensity is to work with full size & full detail images. Resizing
of your large image to 294 KB & 1280 x 856, took me all of 30 seconds.
I believe it retains the detail & character of your image without the
introduction of JPEG artifacts at that size and compression. Obviously
it is meant to be viewed at that size without pixel peeping.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/EricS-C1.jpg

Regards,

Eric Stevens