Image sizes for [SI]

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:56:24 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-09-10 02:59:40 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

I've cross-posted this as I don't really know what is the
home-newsgroup for Shoot In [SI].

The RULZ have for some time specified an image file size of 300KB and
I am wondering if this is still an appropriate size limit.

Most JPG files translate to an image size of 4 to 5 times the
compressed file size. 300KB translates to a 1.2MB ~ 1.5MB image. On a
3:2 frame ratio this translates to less than a 866 x 577 image. These
days you are hard placed to buy a laptop of less than 1280 x 800 and
desk tops come with screens about 1920 x 1200.

Filling a 1280 x 800 screen requires about a 750KB JPG, while filling
a 1920 x 1200 takes a JPG of about 1.7MB. The 1.2Mb ~ 1.5MB size of a
JPG file corresponding to a 300 KB file is that of an a basic digital
camera of 10 years ago. In fact, it's smaller than the size of many of
the camera phones now on the market. Why are we still specifying such
a small size?

We can't be specifying this size to keep out the wealthy photographer
who can afford to out-buy the rest of us. Nor can it be to minimise
disk storage in these days of GBs and TBs. It can't even be for sake
of data transmission rate in these days when dial-up is now comprises
10% of Internet traffic. Maybe we are staying with 300KB for
historical reasons?

Does it matter?

Yes, I think it does. I tend to print large format images for the
simple reason that I think they look better. My personal feeling is
that too many of my images suffer from trying to cram them into the
size of a postage stamp. For this reason I struggle hard to squeeze
them into 298MB ~ 299MB ~ 300MB but even then I don't think the
shriveled image does justice to the original.

Have a go.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

For my SI submissions and other time I post links to my images, I
usually size dimensions to 1280 x XXX and keep file size down to
around 300KB without seriously noticeable degradation as viewed on on a
display. Since these are intended for display viewing and not printing
I don't see too much of an issue regarding reducing file size to around
300KB with dimensions of 1280 x XXX. That is not exactly "shriveled" or
"postage stamp" sized.
Also, consider that most folks post to show the image to others so they
can view the image as intended, not to pixel peep. Scrolling around a
massive oversized image (which admittedly can be scaled to fit a
display most satisfyingly) at 100% can be as irritating as viewing a
pixelated "postage stamp".

Sizes vary but I find my images generally come out at about 800 x 600
or less when reduced to 300KB. At level I find I find have often lost
texture and detail to an extent that the image is degraded in my eyes.
But then, I know the original.


So here is a 3585 x 2394 at 4MB
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEc2.jpg

Cropped to 1920 x 1080 and reduced to 1.3MB
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEWc.jpg

Cropping is changing the image.

and finally reduced to 1280 x 720 @ 246KB for Usenet.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEWcw.jpg

You have picked an example which is ideal for JPG compression: large
plain surfaces of almost constant colour. You should try something
more complex in which detail and texture is important.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:56:24 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-09-10 02:59:40 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

I've cross-posted this as I don't really know what is the
home-newsgroup for Shoot In [SI].

The RULZ have for some time specified an image file size of 300KB and
I am wondering if this is still an appropriate size limit.

Most JPG files translate to an image size of 4 to 5 times the
compressed file size. 300KB translates to a 1.2MB ~ 1.5MB image. On a
3:2 frame ratio this translates to less than a 866 x 577 image. These
days you are hard placed to buy a laptop of less than 1280 x 800 and
desk tops come with screens about 1920 x 1200.

Filling a 1280 x 800 screen requires about a 750KB JPG, while filling
a 1920 x 1200 takes a JPG of about 1.7MB. The 1.2Mb ~ 1.5MB size of a
JPG file corresponding to a 300 KB file is that of an a basic digital
camera of 10 years ago. In fact, it's smaller than the size of many of
the camera phones now on the market. Why are we still specifying such
a small size?

We can't be specifying this size to keep out the wealthy photographer
who can afford to out-buy the rest of us. Nor can it be to minimise
disk storage in these days of GBs and TBs. It can't even be for sake
of data transmission rate in these days when dial-up is now comprises
10% of Internet traffic. Maybe we are staying with 300KB for
historical reasons?

Does it matter?

Yes, I think it does. I tend to print large format images for the
simple reason that I think they look better. My personal feeling is
that too many of my images suffer from trying to cram them into the
size of a postage stamp. For this reason I struggle hard to squeeze
them into 298MB ~ 299MB ~ 300MB but even then I don't think the
shriveled image does justice to the original.

Have a go.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

For my SI submissions and other time I post links to my images, I
usually size dimensions to 1280 x XXX and keep file size down to
around 300KB without seriously noticeable degradation as viewed on on a
display. Since these are intended for display viewing and not printing
I don't see too much of an issue regarding reducing file size to around
300KB with dimensions of 1280 x XXX. That is not exactly "shriveled" or
"postage stamp" sized.
Also, consider that most folks post to show the image to others so they
can view the image as intended, not to pixel peep. Scrolling around a
massive oversized image (which admittedly can be scaled to fit a
display most satisfyingly) at 100% can be as irritating as viewing a
pixelated "postage stamp".

Sizes vary but I find my images generally come out at about 800 x 600
or less when reduced to 300KB. At level I find I find have often lost
texture and detail to an extent that the image is degraded in my eyes.
But then, I know the original.


So here is a 3585 x 2394 at 4MB
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEc2.jpg

Cropped to 1920 x 1080 and reduced to 1.3MB
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEWc.jpg

Cropping is changing the image.

and finally reduced to 1280 x 720 @ 246KB for Usenet.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEWcw.jpg

You have picked an example which is ideal for JPG compression: large
plain surfaces of almost constant colour. You should try something
more complex in which detail and texture is important.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:13:19 +0100, Pete A
wrote:

On 2011-09-10 10:59:40 +0100, Eric Stevens said:

I've cross-posted this as I don't really know what is the
home-newsgroup for Shoot In [SI].

rec.photo.equipment.35mm

The RULZ have for some time specified an image file size of 300KB and
I am wondering if this is still an appropriate size limit.

Most JPG files translate to an image size of 4 to 5 times the
compressed file size. 300KB translates to a 1.2MB ~ 1.5MB image.

I think you mean MP not MB. For a given image size in MP, the JPEG file
size depends mainly on image content. Noise and/or sharpening will
increase the file size required for an acceptable JPEG, often
considerably.

Doesn't JPEG use three bytes per pixel (24 bit colour)? In which case
the uncomressed image in bytes will be three times the image size in
pixels. One Mega-pixel = three Mega-bytes. I generally find that the
compressed file in bytes is about one quarter of the expanded file
size.

On a
3:2 frame ratio this translates to less than a 866 x 577 image. These
days you are hard placed to buy a laptop of less than 1280 x 800 and
desk tops come with screens about 1920 x 1200.

Filling a 1280 x 800 screen requires about a 750KB JPG, while filling
a 1920 x 1200 takes a JPG of about 1.7MB. The 1.2Mb ~ 1.5MB size of a
JPG file corresponding to a 300 KB file is that of an a basic digital
camera of 10 years ago. In fact, it's smaller than the size of many of
the camera phones now on the market. Why are we still specifying such
a small size?

I don't agree. I stick to circa 300 KB file size and manage to submit
images sized from 1280x800 to 1920x1200 pixels, depending on content.

.... and there is the rub. "depending on content". Different people
have different styles of images.

That's without introducing any noticeable JPEG compression artefacts.

In fact, I've found this process most instructive. More than once has
it shown me that I needed to re-edit my original image to reduce noise
and think more carefully about sharpening. Applying USM to an image is
an easy last step, but is often either unnecessary or should be
performed selectively. Some images even benefit from selective
softening and this further reduces the JPEG file size.

We can't be specifying this size to keep out the wealthy photographer
who can afford to out-buy the rest of us. Nor can it be to minimise
disk storage in these days of GBs and TBs. It can't even be for sake
of data transmission rate in these days when dial-up is now comprises
10% of Internet traffic. Maybe we are staying with 300KB for
historical reasons?

Does it matter?

Yes, I think it does. I tend to print large format images for the
simple reason that I think they look better. My personal feeling is
that too many of my images suffer from trying to cram them into the
size of a postage stamp. For this reason I struggle hard to squeeze
them into 298MB ~ 299MB ~ 300MB but even then I don't think the
shriveled image does justice to the original.

I hope you meant KB and not MB I feel that many [SI] submissions
suffer as a result of being too small.

The main reason I like the 300 KB limit (apart from the challenge I
mentioned above) is that nobody can produce a good quality large print
and claim it to be their own work - the images are not sellable.

That's a good point.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:25:30 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:59:40 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:
: I've cross-posted this as I don't really know what is the
: home-newsgroup for Shoot In [SI].

rec.photo.equipment.35mm

: The RULZ have for some time specified an image file size of 300KB and
: I am wondering if this is still an appropriate size limit.
:
: Most JPG files translate to an image size of 4 to 5 times the
: compressed file size. 300KB translates to a 1.2MB ~ 1.5MB image. On a
: 3:2 frame ratio this translates to less than a 866 x 577 image. These
: days you are hard placed to buy a laptop of less than 1280 x 800 and
: desk tops come with screens about 1920 x 1200.

Yeah, but an SI picture doesn't have to be big enough to fill the screen.

The appearance of a picture is size dependent. Some pictures look
better at a larger size while with others it doesn't much matter.

: Filling a 1280 x 800 screen requires about a 750KB JPG, while filling
: a 1920 x 1200 takes a JPG of about 1.7MB. The 1.2Mb ~ 1.5MB size of a
: JPG file corresponding to a 300 KB file is that of an a basic digital
: camera of 10 years ago. In fact, it's smaller than the size of many of
: the camera phones now on the market. Why are we still specifying such
: a small size?
:
: We can't be specifying this size to keep out the wealthy photographer
: who can afford to out-buy the rest of us. Nor can it be to minimise
: disk storage in these days of GBs and TBs. It can't even be for sake
: of data transmission rate in these days when dial-up is now comprises
: 10% of Internet traffic. Maybe we are staying with 300KB for
: historical reasons?

Probably, but note that since we never get dunned for money, we must be
sponging off of somebody's Pbase account. The bigger the picture files, the
more it costs our benefactor. At some point it could be necessary to prune the
extensive archive of past Shoot-Ins, and that would be too bad.

An argument for keeping the resolution low (a consequence of the size limit)
is that it discourages greedy capitalist freeloaders from stealing our
pictures. I don't suppose that most of the pictures have much commercial
value, but conceivably some might.

: Does it matter?
:
: Yes, I think it does. I tend to print large format images for the
: simple reason that I think they look better. My personal feeling is
: that too many of my images suffer from trying to cram them into the
: size of a postage stamp. For this reason I struggle hard to squeeze
: them into 298MB ~ 299MB ~ 300MB but even then I don't think the
: shriveled image does justice to the original.
:
: Have a go.

OK, I'll start the ball ...

Notwithstanding what I said above, I also find the limit annoying. A lot of my
pictures don't take well to being dumbed down, and I can really see the
difference in quality. Also, it's just plain hard to zero in on 300KB. Photo
editors (the ones I use anyway) don't let you specify the target file size and
automatically adjust the other parameters to match. So a lot of trial and
error is involved.

One thing I've noticed is that my pictures vary a lot in the file size needed
to make them look good. So here's a practical suggestion: Instead of limiting
each picture to 300KB, set a 900KB limit on the total size of the three
pictures. If you want one picture to be larger, another has to be smaller. If
you could persuade the Maximum Leader to agree to that, I'd applaud your
effort.

Bob

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:25:30 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:59:40 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:
: I've cross-posted this as I don't really know what is the
: home-newsgroup for Shoot In [SI].

rec.photo.equipment.35mm

: The RULZ have for some time specified an image file size of 300KB and
: I am wondering if this is still an appropriate size limit.
:
: Most JPG files translate to an image size of 4 to 5 times the
: compressed file size. 300KB translates to a 1.2MB ~ 1.5MB image. On a
: 3:2 frame ratio this translates to less than a 866 x 577 image. These
: days you are hard placed to buy a laptop of less than 1280 x 800 and
: desk tops come with screens about 1920 x 1200.

Yeah, but an SI picture doesn't have to be big enough to fill the screen.

The appearance of a picture is size dependent. Some pictures look
better at a larger size while with others it doesn't much matter.

: Filling a 1280 x 800 screen requires about a 750KB JPG, while filling
: a 1920 x 1200 takes a JPG of about 1.7MB. The 1.2Mb ~ 1.5MB size of a
: JPG file corresponding to a 300 KB file is that of an a basic digital
: camera of 10 years ago. In fact, it's smaller than the size of many of
: the camera phones now on the market. Why are we still specifying such
: a small size?
:
: We can't be specifying this size to keep out the wealthy photographer
: who can afford to out-buy the rest of us. Nor can it be to minimise
: disk storage in these days of GBs and TBs. It can't even be for sake
: of data transmission rate in these days when dial-up is now comprises
: 10% of Internet traffic. Maybe we are staying with 300KB for
: historical reasons?

Probably, but note that since we never get dunned for money, we must be
sponging off of somebody's Pbase account. The bigger the picture files, the
more it costs our benefactor. At some point it could be necessary to prune the
extensive archive of past Shoot-Ins, and that would be too bad.

An argument for keeping the resolution low (a consequence of the size limit)
is that it discourages greedy capitalist freeloaders from stealing our
pictures. I don't suppose that most of the pictures have much commercial
value, but conceivably some might.

: Does it matter?
:
: Yes, I think it does. I tend to print large format images for the
: simple reason that I think they look better. My personal feeling is
: that too many of my images suffer from trying to cram them into the
: size of a postage stamp. For this reason I struggle hard to squeeze
: them into 298MB ~ 299MB ~ 300MB but even then I don't think the
: shriveled image does justice to the original.
:
: Have a go.

OK, I'll start the ball ...

Notwithstanding what I said above, I also find the limit annoying. A lot of my
pictures don't take well to being dumbed down, and I can really see the
difference in quality. Also, it's just plain hard to zero in on 300KB. Photo
editors (the ones I use anyway) don't let you specify the target file size and
automatically adjust the other parameters to match. So a lot of trial and
error is involved.

One thing I've noticed is that my pictures vary a lot in the file size needed
to make them look good. So here's a practical suggestion: Instead of limiting
each picture to 300KB, set a 900KB limit on the total size of the three
pictures. If you want one picture to be larger, another has to be smaller. If
you could persuade the Maximum Leader to agree to that, I'd applaud your
effort.

Bob

Regards,

Eric Stevens

rOn Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:32:43 -0400, Bowser
wrote:

The limit helps because I pay the bill on Pbase and if I go over the
limit, I pay more. They've upped the limits, I believe, so I'll check
and maybe we can make an adjustment in the file size limitations.

That's a detail I wasn't aware of. Undoubtedly this is a factor.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

rOn Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:32:43 -0400, Bowser
wrote:

The limit helps because I pay the bill on Pbase and if I go over the
limit, I pay more. They've upped the limits, I believe, so I'll check
and maybe we can make an adjustment in the file size limitations.

That's a detail I wasn't aware of. Undoubtedly this is a factor.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2011-09-10 14:53:05 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:56:24 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-09-10 02:59:40 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

I've cross-posted this as I don't really know what is the
home-newsgroup for Shoot In [SI].

The RULZ have for some time specified an image file size of 300KB and
I am wondering if this is still an appropriate size limit.

Le Snip

Does it matter?

Yes, I think it does. I tend to print large format images for the
simple reason that I think they look better. My personal feeling is
that too many of my images suffer from trying to cram them into the
size of a postage stamp. For this reason I struggle hard to squeeze
them into 298MB ~ 299MB ~ 300MB but even then I don't think the
shriveled image does justice to the original.

Have a go.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

For my SI submissions and other time I post links to my images, I
usually size dimensions to 1280 x XXX and keep file size down to
around 300KB without seriously noticeable degradation as viewed on on a
display. Since these are intended for display viewing and not printing
I don't see too much of an issue regarding reducing file size to around
300KB with dimensions of 1280 x XXX. That is not exactly "shriveled" or
"postage stamp" sized.
Also, consider that most folks post to show the image to others so they
can view the image as intended, not to pixel peep. Scrolling around a
massive oversized image (which admittedly can be scaled to fit a
display most satisfyingly) at 100% can be as irritating as viewing a
pixelated "postage stamp".

Sizes vary but I find my images generally come out at about 800 x 600
or less when reduced to 300KB. At level I find I find have often lost
texture and detail to an extent that the image is degraded in my eyes.
But then, I know the original.


So here is a 3585 x 2394 at 4MB
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEc2.jpg

Cropped to 1920 x 1080 and reduced to 1.3MB
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEWc.jpg

Cropping is changing the image.

and finally reduced to 1280 x 720 @ 246KB for Usenet.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEWcw.jpg

You have picked an example which is ideal for JPG compression: large
plain surfaces of almost constant colour. You should try something
more complex in which detail and texture is important.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

OK!
Try this for size.

This is 8.4 MB 3720 x 2520
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC_7804A.jpg

Resized to 1280 x 867 & 296 KB.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC_7804Aw.jpg


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2011-09-10 14:53:05 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:56:24 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-09-10 02:59:40 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

I've cross-posted this as I don't really know what is the
home-newsgroup for Shoot In [SI].

The RULZ have for some time specified an image file size of 300KB and
I am wondering if this is still an appropriate size limit.

Le Snip

Does it matter?

Yes, I think it does. I tend to print large format images for the
simple reason that I think they look better. My personal feeling is
that too many of my images suffer from trying to cram them into the
size of a postage stamp. For this reason I struggle hard to squeeze
them into 298MB ~ 299MB ~ 300MB but even then I don't think the
shriveled image does justice to the original.

Have a go.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

For my SI submissions and other time I post links to my images, I
usually size dimensions to 1280 x XXX and keep file size down to
around 300KB without seriously noticeable degradation as viewed on on a
display. Since these are intended for display viewing and not printing
I don't see too much of an issue regarding reducing file size to around
300KB with dimensions of 1280 x XXX. That is not exactly "shriveled" or
"postage stamp" sized.
Also, consider that most folks post to show the image to others so they
can view the image as intended, not to pixel peep. Scrolling around a
massive oversized image (which admittedly can be scaled to fit a
display most satisfyingly) at 100% can be as irritating as viewing a
pixelated "postage stamp".

Sizes vary but I find my images generally come out at about 800 x 600
or less when reduced to 300KB. At level I find I find have often lost
texture and detail to an extent that the image is degraded in my eyes.
But then, I know the original.


So here is a 3585 x 2394 at 4MB
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEc2.jpg

Cropped to 1920 x 1080 and reduced to 1.3MB
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEWc.jpg

Cropping is changing the image.

and finally reduced to 1280 x 720 @ 246KB for Usenet.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEWcw.jpg

You have picked an example which is ideal for JPG compression: large
plain surfaces of almost constant colour. You should try something
more complex in which detail and texture is important.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

OK!
Try this for size.

This is 8.4 MB 3720 x 2520
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC_7804A.jpg

Resized to 1280 x 867 & 296 KB.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC_7804Aw.jpg


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2011-09-10 22:59:22 +0100, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:13:19 +0100, Pete A
[...]
I stick to circa 300 KB file size and manage to submit
images sized from 1280x800 to 1920x1200 pixels, depending on content.

... and there is the rub. "depending on content". Different people
have different styles of images.

Yes, but... I've just reduced Savageduck's 3595x2394 pixel image from
3.8 MB to 632 KB without reducing the pixel count or introducing any
visible artefact that I can see on my 1280x1024 17 inch monitor.

Of course I can see artefacts in my heavily compressed version when I
pixel peep it, but I would need a 60 inch monitor instead of a 17 inch,
viewed at the same distance, to see the artefacts, which is ridiculous.

Suppose I have a monitor of the future, ten times bigger than mine: 170
inches diagonal, 12,800x10,240 pixels. I also have an Internet download
bandwidth of gigabytes per second. Pray tell me, how are you going to
supply me with a high quality image that appears bigger than a postage
stamp unless you have a camera with 131 MP and an ISO far too low to be
usable hand-held?

Most of my photographic past was producing 6x4 and 7x5 inch prints,
with the occasional set of 10x8s for wedding albums. A 17 inch monitor
is huge in comparison.

The problem with digital images is that the originator has no control
over the viewing conditions/environment. Digital images are only an
intermediate step between photographer and finished work. For instance,
I cannot force you to print one of my images 10x8 inches, card mount it
as I wish, then put it in a picture frame of my choosing. The choice of
mount colour and size plus frame colour and style will either make or
break what my image was intended to portray.