Resizing for Web?

[scottbergerphoto]

I need some advice on setings in PSE2 for resizing 15mb images for the web. I'm using a 56kps dial up connection. I want the best quality I can get and still keep the file size reasonable for upload. I was using:
JPEG, Medium, Quality=80, size 3000x2400 at 100%. The resulting images looked very grainy at original size in PBASE.
I changed it to:
JPEG, Large, Quality=80, size 3000x2400 at 50%. The resulting images were smaller at original size and less grainy.
Am I moving in the right direction? Suggestions please.
Scott

[mttmrphy]

Anything "web friendly" should stay under 100kbs

On average I post images at 400x600 sometimes larger only if needed.

[Scottes]

Well, I personally wouldn't post something 3000x2400 for 2 reasons; possibility of theft since you can print that size to 12x10 easily, and it must take a *long* time to upload.

Also, it seems that you are depending on PBase's algoritm for re-sizing (I don't know how PBase works). This algorithm is probably not anywhere near as good as PSE2's. And I'm not really sure by what you mean by "JPEG, Medium, Quality=80, size 3000x2400 at 100%."

Checking your "Faces in the Park" album, it looks like you send up an original and they resize to 800*whatever, 400*whatever, and 160*whatever. Checking another person's album I see the same thing. This makes sense because of the evenness of the algorithm It always makes sense to use a square block of pixels to compute a resulting pixel, preferably a power of 2. So for the 800* to get the 400* picture the algorithm averages a 2x2 block of pixels. To get 160* from the 800* it uses a 5x5 block. When you upload an odd size, like 2614x1867 for your famous 100-400 L girl photo, you are destroying the square block averaging. Make your original either 1600* or 2400* and you'll retain square block averaging. Also if you crop the height to be evenly divisible by 20 you'll get a minutely better resize.


But you upload the original, right? And they don't look so good at all. (Sorry, it's true. They're very noisy it seems, unless you're using ISO 800 on them all.) But even your 50mm tests - which I have to assume where at ISO 100 - look grainy. (And your sensor *looks* like it needs cleaning.) This doesn't seem right at all.


To finally get to the useful advice... Send your "original" up at 800*whatever and let PBase compute the 400* and 160*. You should get a clean image. For the original you just have to figure out what JPEG compression value works best FOR EACH PICTURE. Images like the salt marsh ones - lots of the same color - will only need a JPEG value of 60 probably. A very detailed image - like "Canal Street Peddler" may need 70 or *maybe* 80. I've only had one image - a very detailed Peacock - that needed 80.

Does PSE2's Save As have a Preview Button? If not then that sucks because you have to guess every time. Does it have a Save For Web function? This lets you preview the compression.

Why spend all that time upload a huge image that doesn't look good?

[scottbergerphoto]

Also, it seems that you are depending on PBase's algoritm for re-sizing (I don't know how PBase works). This algorithm is probably not anywhere near as good as PSE2's. And I'm not really sure by what you mean by "JPEG, Medium, Quality=80, size 3000x2400 at 100%."

But you upload the original, right? And they don't look so good at all. (Sorry, it's true. They're very noisy it seems, unless you're using ISO 800 on them all.) But even your 50mm tests - which I have to assume where at ISO 100 - look grainy. (And your sensor *looks* like it needs cleaning.) This doesn't seem right at all.



Scottes:
1. I am not depending on PBASE to resize.
2. I am not uploading originals. That wouldn't say much for my equipment or technique.
3. "JPEG, Medium, Quality= 80,etc are settings in PSE2. The original files are 14-15mb downsized by PSE2 using the settings above, to between 400-500k.
What was the purpose of your respnse? It seems like you don't know PSE 2's conversion to web, but had no problem handing out your critique.

If someone actually knows how to get a good result from PSE2's Save for Web, I'd really appreciate it.
Scott

[PacAce]

I need some advice on setings in PSE2 for resizing 15mb images for the web. I'm using a 56kps dial up connection. I want the best quality I can get and still keep the file size reasonable for upload. I was using:
JPEG, Medium, Quality=80, size 3000x2400 at 100%. The resulting images looked very grainy at original size in PBASE.
I changed it to:
JPEG, Large, Quality=80, size 3000x2400 at 50%. The resulting images were smaller at original size and less grainy.
Am I moving in the right direction? Suggestions please.
Scott

Scott, what size did you want your final picture to be? That, along with the JPEG compression you use, will determine the final size of the file that you're going to upload. In my case, since I want people to be able to view the whole image on the screen without having to scroll, I always keep my image sizes no more than 800 X 640 but usually use 700 x 560 or 600 X 480.

At any rate, to get the smallest file size possible for any given resolution and still keep quality up I would start with JPEG Quality=50. You'll notice that the Large, Medium and Low choices serve the same function as the Quality field althouth Quality allows you to be more precise.

After saving the new file, I'll open it with IE and check out the image to see if the image is OK quality-wise. If it's looks crappy, I'll bump up the quality to 60 but for most images you really can't tell the difference between 50% and 80%. You might even be able to go down to 40% and still have a good image with a resultant reduction in image size.

[Scottes]

What was the purpose of your respnse? It seems like you don't know PSE 2's conversion to web, but had no problem handing out your critique.

If someone actually knows how to get a good result from PSE2's Save for Web, I'd really appreciate it.


Geez, calm down. As I said I don't know how PBase works and made some assumptions.

So you upload all 4 photos in those sizes?

And it sounds you're using Save For Web for resizing along with compressing then. If so, don't. Resize, preferably in small increments, down to the size you wish, then save as JPG. Are you choosing Bicubic resize method? It's slower but better. Does PSE2 have a selection for Optimized? If so, choose it.

[scottbergerphoto]

I need some advice on setings in PSE2 for resizing 15mb images for the web. I'm using a 56kps dial up connection. I want the best quality I can get and still keep the file size reasonable for upload. I was using:
JPEG, Medium, Quality=80, size 3000x2400 at 100%. The resulting images looked very grainy at original size in PBASE.
I changed it to:
JPEG, Large, Quality=80, size 3000x2400 at 50%. The resulting images were smaller at original size and less grainy.
Am I moving in the right direction? Suggestions please.
Scott

Scott, what size did you want your final picture to be? That, along with the JPEG compression you use, will determine the final size of the file that you're going to upload. In my case, since I want people to be able to view the whole image on the screen without having to scroll, I always keep my image sizes no more than 800 X 640 but usually use 700 x 560 or 600 X 480.

At any rate, to get the smallest file size possible for any given resolution and still keep quality up I would start with JPEG Quality=50. You'll notice that the Large, Medium and Low choices serve the same function as the Quality field althouth Quality allows you to be more precise.

After saving the new file, I'll open it with IE and check out the image to see if the image is OK quality-wise. If it's looks crappy, I'll bump up the quality to 60 but for most images you really can't tell the difference between 50% and 80%. You might even be able to go down to 40% and still have a good image with a resultant reduction in image size.

Thanks PacAce. I did a Google search this morning and realized I needed to get my widest dimension to 800. I redid all the 1D Mark II pictures at that size. In PSE2 that's JPEG, High, 60, max width set to 800, which works out to about 27%. Now when my pictures are viewed on PBASE they look good. There is no longer an option to go to a larger size that stretches the available pixels to the point that it looks noisy. Some posters on Rob Galbraith's forum as well as this one, were using the overstretched, noisy appearing images to criticize the camera and my photographic skills.
If you get a chance, take a look Here (http://www.pbase.com/scottbergerphoto/1dmarkii) and let
me know if I need to change my settings.
Thanks,
Scott

[Scottes]

You seem to be implying that I criticized your camera and/or photographic skills. If so, that's not what I did.


Yet in the end you set to 60 quality JPEG, 800 width - just like I suggested.

Perhaps next time you should read the post rather than flying off the handle and whining about perceived criticisms to your gear or skills.

[maderito]

Well guys, this exchange has been a lot more rancorous than necessary.

Ignoring the thrusts and jabs, I found some very good information about how to handle an important, routine task - sharing our work across the web.

Thanks Scott, Scottes, & PacAce. Hopefully some others will take note. We have too many carelessly uploaded, oversized images on the web. :?

[scottbergerphoto]

You seem to be implying that I criticized your camera and/or photographic skills. If so, that's not what I did.


Yet in the end you set to 60 quality JPEG, 800 width - just like I suggested.

Perhaps next time you should read the post rather than flying off the handle and whining about perceived criticisms to your gear or skills.
In your first post, you said:
"But you upload the original, right? And they don't look so good at all. (Sorry, it's true. They're very noisy it seems, unless you're using ISO 800 on them all.) But even your 50mm tests - which I have to assume where at ISO 100 - look grainy. (And your sensor *looks* like it needs cleaning.) This doesn't seem right at all. "
Without knowing what I was uploading, and without me asking for your opinion of those images, that was just gartuitous criticism. It's obvious from my question (grainy looking pictures) that I knew there was a problem with how my pictures looked on the web after resizing.
If you can't take responsibility for the criticim you hand out, maybe you should just hold it.
Scott

[Scottes]

If you can't take responsibility for the criticim you hand out, maybe you should just hold it.

I said nothing about you photographic skills or your gear.

I take full responsibility for criticizing your conversion skills. You *were* asking for help. If you're going to ask a question and cry when someone answers it in a way that you don't like, then don't ask. That way you won't get ignored, either.


I also notice that you nimbly skipped over the fact that I did suggest the solution you decided on.

[scottbergerphoto]

If you can't take responsibility for the criticim you hand out, maybe you should just hold it.

I said nothing about you photographic skills or your gear.

I take full responsibility for criticizing your conversion skills. You *were* asking for help. If you're going to ask a question and cry when someone answers it in a way that you don't like, then don't ask. That way you won't get ignored, either.


I also notice that you nimbly skipped over the fact that I did suggest the solution you decided on.
Actually, the manner in which you relayed the information was so offensive that I ignored it and followed Leo's advice.
What you call whining/crying, I consider calling you on your behavior.
Scott

[Scottes]

Actually, the manner in which you relayed the information was so offensive that I ignored it and followed Leo's advice. And if that's the only way you know how to answer a post, then feel free to ignore my questions.

Why, because I agreed with you and said they were grainy and didn't look very good? (Why else would you be asking for help but to make them look better?) Do you find it offensive when someone agrees with you? Do you find it offensive when someone apologizes when they say it?

[Volatile]

so, was the grainy appearance because pbase was scaling your 3000 pixel image down to something that will fit on screen?

[scottbergerphoto]

so, was the grainy appearance because pbase was scaling your 3000 pixel image down to something that will fit on screen?
No. The problem was that I was reducing a 15MB file to a 500k file in PSE2 and not reducing the maximum viewing size. As a result the remaining information was too little to cover the canvas. That resulted in very grainy looking pictures. It's like trying to paint a wall with a little container of touch up paint you get in an auto parts store. I reduced the maximum size from 3200x2400 to approx. 800x600. PBASE had nothing to do with the problem.
Scott

[Volatile]

Roger that, thanks. That's something to remember to check.

[Chris1le]

This is just my two cents. I use CompuPic (http://www.photodex.com/products/compupic/) it is a great image organizer and viewer. It also alows me to batch resize all my 15mb TIFFS, add my name and apply a touch of sharpening with just a couple of mouse clicks. Try it out. It is free fore 15 days. I've been using it for about 5 years now. Wouldn't want to be without it. :D