Help with resizing images

jthomas

How do these folks who post such fantastic shots to the DGrin forum get by under the 117k limit ? when I decrease resolution to 72 pixels/inch and then downsize, my pictures don't look so good. What's the trick?

I'll appreciate any tips (I don't mean $$ !).:):

jwear

jthomas wrote:

How do these folks who post such fantastic shots to the DGrin forum get by under the 117k limit ? when I decrease resolution to 72 pixels/inch and then downsize, my pictures don't look so good. What's the trick?

I'll appreciate any tips (I don't mean $$ !).:):

what are you using if its elements use save for email ---size 800---ect that will on it's own put in a file and there you go thanks to Dee jeff

jthomas

jwear wrote:

what are you using if its elements use save for email ---size 800---ect that will on it's own put in a file and there you go thanks to Dee jeff

I'm using PS 7.01.

Shay Stephens

Typically, when you resize a photo smaller for web usage, you also have to sharpen it up some. I usually wind up using unsharp mask at 75%-100%, .5 radius, 0 threshold.

Do you have an example photo to share that illustrates the problems you are having?

jthomas wrote:

I'm using PS 7.01.

jthomas

Shay Stephens wrote:

Typically, when you resize a photo smaller for web usage, you also have to sharpen it up some. I usually wind up using unsharp mask at 75%-100%, .5 radius, 0 threshold.

Do you have an example photo to share that illustrates the problems you are having?

Please look at this one. It's 520x390 pixels at 72 pixels/inch. I have already applied unsharp mask.

Shay Stephens

Ok, so now, can you explain what it is you don't like about the photo quality? Be specific :-)

jthomas wrote:

Please look at this one. It's 520x390 pixels at 72 pixels/inch. I have already applied unsharp mask.

adrian_k

I use the 'Save For Web' option.

This brings up the new box where you can resize and compress the imagine. At the same time it'll give you the output filesize.

I've never messed with USM to post on the web.

jthomas wrote:

Please look at this one. It's 520x390 pixels at 72 pixels/inch. I have already applied unsharp mask.

jthomas

Shay Stephens wrote:

Ok, so now, can you explain what it is you don't like about the photo quality? Be specific :-)

Many of the pictures I see posted are much larger than this, and show much sharper detail. Now admittedly they are made with better cameras by better photographers, but I have a hard time seeing how to get that large an image under the filesize limitation.

My procedure: using PS7, I start by adjusting the saturation, brightness, and contrast, then apply unsharp mask, and reduce to 72 pixels/inch (from 300). At this point, I generally have to decrease the overall dimensions of the image to get under the limit.

Are there any other tricks I'm missing?

I do appreciate the help.

p.s. I have a D70 now, so the camera limitation will be removed for future posts.

digismile

JT,

I would also bet that the majority of the pictures you see here on dgrin are "linked" instead of "attached", i.e. a full size image is actually saved at a photo hosting site such as smugmug, and the post simply has a link to the large file.

When done this way, you wouldn't have to worry about the size limit.

I am simply one of many people here that think smugmug is THE place to share your photos. It is a company like no other for value and service. If you haven't already looked, go here.

Regards,
Brad

DJ-S1

Most folks link to the image instead of attaching the image. That way there is no real size limit.

If you don't have a hosting site for your photos, check out smugmug by clicking the "powered by Smugmug" at the top right of the page.

{edit} Dang, you beat me to it!

jthomas

Look at the picture posted by Snappy at:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=87980#post87980

It's HUGE, and only 65kb. How did she do that?

My picture posted above is only half that size and it's still 116kb.

Shay Stephens

The way jpg compression works is probably the answer. Large areas of defocused or blurry detail can be more tightly compressed than a photo that has a lot of sharp detail. The more detailed the photo, the larger it will be.

jthomas wrote:

Look at the picture posted by Snappy at:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=87980#post87980

It's HUGE, and only 65kb. How did she do that?

My picture posted above is only half that size and it's still 116kb.

jthomas

DJ-S1 wrote:

Most folks link to the image instead of attaching the image. That way there is no real size limit.

If you don't have a hosting site for your photos, check out smugmug by clicking the "powered by Smugmug" at the top right of the page.

{edit} Dang, you beat me to it!

I do have a smugmug gallery - that's how I discovered this forum. O.K. how do you link to a picture in a gallery?

DJ-S1

jthomas wrote:

I do have a smugmug gallery - that's how I discovered this forum. O.K. how do you link to a picture in a gallery?

Oh, well then it's easy as pie. Here's the Waxy Way, check out the second post for linking help. It's over here.

jthomas

DJ-S1 wrote:

Oh, well then it's easy as pie. Here's the Waxy Way, check out the second post for linking help. It's over here.

Why hadn't I noticed that! Let's see if this works...

Whoops...when I click on the "insert links" button, I get an error message "Mozilla requires that you select some text for this function" (???)

I had already selected and copied the URL for an image in my Smugmug gallery from another Firefox window.

What gives?

jthomas

jthomas wrote:

Why hadn't I noticed that! Let's see if this works...

Whoops...when I click on the "insert links" button, I get an error message "Mozilla requires that you select some text for this function" (???)

I had already selected and copied the URL for an image in my Smugmug gallery from another Firefox window.

What gives?

Trying again...

jthomas

Truly big grins now...

jthomas wrote:

Trying again...

Got it

DJ-S1

There you go, nice and big just like we like 'em!