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
|
|||
|
|||
New mandate needed
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. 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. 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. -- "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know." -Samuel Clemens. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
New mandate needed
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. 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. Regards, Eric Stevens |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
New mandate needed
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
New mandate needed
Eric Stevens writes:
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. Which I looked at, and it's not 1200x800, it's much bigger. And the small example is much smaller. Your problem, based on those examples, is not the compression. 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. I could quote the Bibble Pro jpeg level instead, would that help? :-) More generally -- I'm being specific about exactly what I do with which software. Other people with that software (so not you in that particular case) can try what I said, and either find they get similar results, or not; either result is enlightening. If you would be more specific, the same thing could happen -- we could figure out if other people got the same results you report, or different results. 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. 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. -- David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
New mandate needed
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. Regards, Eric Stevens |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
New mandate needed
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. -- "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know." -Samuel Clemens. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
New mandate needed
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 . -- David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
New mandate needed
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. -- "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know." -Samuel Clemens. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
New mandate needed
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 :-) 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" :-) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
New mandate needed
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[SI] New mandate needed | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 220 | April 2nd 12 12:02 PM |
New mandate needed | David J Taylor[_16_] | Digital Photography | 3 | March 21st 12 01:50 AM |
[SI] Shootin Reminders: Mandate: Tubes & Special Mandate PanoMosaicsDUE 2008.10.26 | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 0 | October 16th 08 09:55 PM |
[SI] Shootin Reminders: Mandate: Tubes & Special Mandate PanoMosaicsDUE 2008.10.26 | Alan Browne | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | October 16th 08 09:55 PM |