Question on Resizing.

docbell

Another forum I belong to has a size limitation of 750 px on images posted. When I upload my images through SmugMug, my 'large' size images are a little too large at 800 px. What is the best way to get these images to 750 px (on the longest side). I use Lightroom as the raw converter, and PSE 5. When using the 'resizing' option in PSE5, the image quality really seems to suffer. Sooo, what is the best option of resizing to 750 px, while maintaining the best image quality.
Thanx for any/all help. Kevin.

jfriend

docbell wrote:

Another forum I belong to has a size limitation of 750 px on images posted. When I upload my images through SmugMug, my 'large' size images are a little too large at 800 px. What is the best way to get these images to 750 px (on the longest side). I use Lightroom as the raw converter, and PSE 5. When using the 'resizing' option in PSE5, the image quality really seems to suffer. Sooo, what is the best option of resizing to 750 px, while maintaining the best image quality.
Thanx for any/all help. Kevin.

For images I've already uploaded to Smugmug, I find it easiest not to attach the images to dgrin messages, but to just link to them on my Smugmug site. When you link to an image, you can have any size you want so the 800px size at Smugmug works fine. When you link images, you also are not limited to only one image per posting like you are with attaching.

PhotoHound

Whenever you reduce image size, you will need to apply some sharpening (unless using CS3). I found that applying unsharp mask at or around amount 70, radius 0.5, threshold 1, to an image reduced to 600pix on the long side does a pretty good job.

digismile

I have a specific gallery that I use just for posts on forums/blogs, etc. and have had this issue before.

If you have a limitation of 750px, why not upload the original already at the size you need? Then just link to the original size ...

dogwood

PhotoHound wrote:

Whenever you reduce image size, you will need to apply some sharpening (unless using CS3). I found that applying unsharp mask at or around amount 70, radius 0.5, threshold 1, to an image reduced to 600pix on the long side does a pretty good job.

Why "unless using CS3"?

dmmattix

BiCubic Sharper

dogwood wrote:

Why "unless using CS3"?

Probably because CS3 has added two new re-sizing algorithms: BiCubic Sharper (for reducing image size) and BiCubic Smoother (for enlargement of image size). These either reduce or increase the sharpening as you enlarge or reduce the image size.

Regards,

Mike

jfriend

dmmattix wrote:

Probably because CS3 has added two new re-sizing algorithms: BiCubic Sharper (for reducing image size) and BiCubic Smoother (for enlargement of image size). These either reduce or increase the sharpening as you enlarge or reduce the image size.

Regards,

Mike

Those resizing algorithms have been in CS for awhile. They weren't just added in CS3. I know, for example, that they were in CS2. BiCubic Sharper does do a really nice job when reducing image size.

PhotoHound

...in CS3 they are actually labled...but I guess the same options are available in other versions...my bad. I've just been very happy with the results from the bicubic sharpener option, which (at least to me) seems to work better than before, no additional sharpening necessary... If that makes sense...

Anyway, sorry for the confusion.

BinaryFx

Standard, legacy Bicubic interpolation has a moderate sharpening component built in.

Bicubic Sharper has a stronger sharpen than Bicubic (and may also use different math for all that I know). This can indeed be the only sharpening required when resizing images down for TFT/LCD monitor display (CRT may require more).

Bicubic Smoother appears to have a very minimal sharpening component and perhaps uses different math in other ways than the other bicubic methods in Photoshop. I use this as my default setting and sharpen by hand as required, even when reducing size (it is only a suggestion after all that one reduce size with sharper).


Stephen Marsh.
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/

dmmattix

PhotoHound wrote:

...in CS3 they are actually labled...but I guess the same options are available in other versions...my bad. I've just been very happy with the results from the bicubic sharpener option, which (at least to me) seems to work better than before, no additional sharpening necessary... If that makes sense...

Anyway, sorry for the confusion.

Probably because I went from CS to CS3 and I don't remember them in CS. That and Michael Ninness of Adobe indicated they were new at Web Design World in Seattle...

Mike