Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 12 Apr 2013 (Friday) 05:47
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

High quality JPEG batches in PS CS6

 
Tom ­ Camilleri
Senior Member
817 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
     
Apr 12, 2013 05:47 |  #1

I'm new to CS6 and trying to figure out how to make a batch of high quality JPEGs for the web. Unfortunately CS6 "save for web", which does excellent quality JPEGs and compression, can't be used in a batch. There is an image processor script which is nowhere near as good. Does not compress as well and creates big artifacts.

Am I missing something in CS6 (plus bridge, lightroom)? Thanks for any help.


40D, Digital Rebel 300D; EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, EF 28-135 IS, EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro, 85mm f/1.8, 28mm f/1.8, Speedlite 380 EX, Sekonic L758DR w/target, Manfrotto 3021 w/3030 pan-tilt head & quick release plate, POTN Strap

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
5,873 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 660
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
     
Apr 12, 2013 08:27 |  #2

If you are making JPEGs, what is it about Image Processor that is any different than Save For Web? JPEG compression is no different between the two, is it? Maybe you can post an example of the differences in output between the two strategies, with the settings you used in each instance.

You may simply need to increase the quality of the compression in the Image Processor to match that of the Save for Web interface. That is, the "Quality" scale in Save for Web ranges from 0 to 100 whereas the Quality scale in Save As..., or Image Processor, ranges from 0 to 12. So, a quality of "80" in Save for Web is not a Quality of "8" in Save As or Image Processor, but a quality of 80% of 12, or 9.6, or about 10.

If you match the quality settings and then compare the results from Save for Web and Image Processor, the differences are negligible - put one result on top of another in layers and use the Difference blend mode on the top layer - you will get an almost all black result. If you drop a curves layer on top of the stack and bring the White Point all the way to the left, you can see the slight differences in the JPEG compression blocks.

So, use Image Processor with quality settings that give you the best file size versus quality and save yourself time and effort.

Hope this helps.


kirk


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Camilleri
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
817 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
     
Apr 12, 2013 09:19 |  #3

kirkt wrote in post #15819323 (external link)
If you are making JPEGs, what is it about Image Processor that is any different than Save For Web? JPEG compression is no different between the two, is it? Maybe you can post an example of the differences in output between the two strategies, with the settings you used in each instance.

You may simply need to increase the quality of the compression in the Image Processor to match that of the Save for Web interface. That is, the "Quality" scale in Save for Web ranges from 0 to 100 whereas the Quality scale in Save As..., or Image Processor, ranges from 0 to 12. So, a quality of "80" in Save for Web is not a Quality of "8" in Save As or Image Processor, but a quality of 80% of 12, or 9.6, or about 10.

If you match the quality settings and then compare the results from Save for Web and Image Processor, the differences are negligible - put one result on top of another in layers and use the Difference blend mode on the top layer - you will get an almost all black result. If you drop a curves layer on top of the stack and bring the White Point all the way to the left, you can see the slight differences in the JPEG compression blocks.

So, use Image Processor with quality settings that give you the best file size versus quality and save yourself time and effort.

Hope this helps.


kirk

Thanks Kirk. It helps a lot. Cool use of layers! My lower quality JPEGs were the result of my settings and knowing that the different scales were all the same under the hood encouraged a departure from the familiar. I tried my new copy of Lightroom a few minutes ago and will use it's export function, which is similar to PS image processor. It has the extra advantage of allowing you to cap the file size, useful to me and makes things even easier. I tested that feature and if you cap file size at 250KB and run a few images, some will be 250KB and some will be well under. This indicates that it does what it claims, which is make the best file possible under your size limit.


40D, Digital Rebel 300D; EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, EF 28-135 IS, EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro, 85mm f/1.8, 28mm f/1.8, Speedlite 380 EX, Sekonic L758DR w/target, Manfrotto 3021 w/3030 pan-tilt head & quick release plate, POTN Strap

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
René ­ Damkot
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
39,856 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Feb 2005
Location: enschede, netherlands
     
Apr 12, 2013 09:28 |  #4

Shouldn't be much difference in file size using "Save for Web" or "Save as jpg" at the same quality. Only difference might be the exif being stripped.

Are you by any chance letting SfW resize the image? That could explain a difference…


"I think the idea of art kills creativity" - Douglas Adams
Why Color Management.
Color Problems? Click here.
MySpace (external link)
Get Colormanaged (external link)
Twitter (external link)
PERSONAL MESSAGING REGARDING SELLING OR BUYING ITEMS WITH MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO POSTS IN FORUMS AND/OR WHO YOU DO NOT KNOW FROM FORUMS IS HEREBY DECLARED STRICTLY STUPID AND YOU WILL GET BURNED.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Camilleri
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
817 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
     
Apr 12, 2013 10:14 |  #5

René Damkot wrote in post #15819552 (external link)
Shouldn't be much difference in file size using "Save for Web" or "Save as jpg" at the same quality. Only difference might be the exif being stripped.

Are you by any chance letting SfW resize the image? That could explain a difference…

Thanks for reply. No, but good thought. I had corrected and resized all of them prior to making the JPEGs. I had the quality settings too low because I was guess-timating what an equivalent setting, to my save for web setting, would be in image processor. The greater control available in save for web interface led me to assume image processor was somehow inferior and the results of my batch (wrongly) confirmed the feeling.


40D, Digital Rebel 300D; EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, EF 28-135 IS, EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro, 85mm f/1.8, 28mm f/1.8, Speedlite 380 EX, Sekonic L758DR w/target, Manfrotto 3021 w/3030 pan-tilt head & quick release plate, POTN Strap

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Paul ­ MR
Member
63 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2010
     
Apr 12, 2013 11:14 as a reply to  @ Tom Camilleri's post |  #6

Image Processor does not support Save For Web.
Both the following do...

Image Processor Pro
http://russellbrown.co​m/scripts.html (external link)

Picture Processor
http://www.scriptsrus.​talktalk.net/PP.htm (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
René ­ Damkot
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
39,856 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Feb 2005
Location: enschede, netherlands
     
Apr 12, 2013 11:26 |  #7

Good point, I should have thought of that ;)


"I think the idea of art kills creativity" - Douglas Adams
Why Color Management.
Color Problems? Click here.
MySpace (external link)
Get Colormanaged (external link)
Twitter (external link)
PERSONAL MESSAGING REGARDING SELLING OR BUYING ITEMS WITH MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO POSTS IN FORUMS AND/OR WHO YOU DO NOT KNOW FROM FORUMS IS HEREBY DECLARED STRICTLY STUPID AND YOU WILL GET BURNED.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Camilleri
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
817 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
     
Apr 12, 2013 11:27 |  #8

Paul MR wrote in post #15819946 (external link)
Image Processor does not support Save For Web.
Both the following do...

Image Processor Pro
http://russellbrown.co​m/scripts.html (external link)

Picture Processor
http://www.scriptsrus.​talktalk.net/PP.htm (external link)

Thanks! Do you use either of these and do you have a recommendation?


40D, Digital Rebel 300D; EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, EF 28-135 IS, EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro, 85mm f/1.8, 28mm f/1.8, Speedlite 380 EX, Sekonic L758DR w/target, Manfrotto 3021 w/3030 pan-tilt head & quick release plate, POTN Strap

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Paul ­ MR
Member
63 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2010
     
Apr 12, 2013 11:32 as a reply to  @ Tom Camilleri's post |  #9

I'am biased, I wrote Picture Processor :)

Both have thier stengths and it's best to have both.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Camilleri
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
817 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
     
Apr 12, 2013 16:28 |  #10

Paul MR wrote in post #15820003 (external link)
I'am biased, I wrote Picture Processor :)

Both have thier stengths and it's best to have both.

I downloaded both and m looking forward to using them. Thanks again.


40D, Digital Rebel 300D; EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, EF 28-135 IS, EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro, 85mm f/1.8, 28mm f/1.8, Speedlite 380 EX, Sekonic L758DR w/target, Manfrotto 3021 w/3030 pan-tilt head & quick release plate, POTN Strap

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
*Jayrou
Goldmember
Avatar
1,121 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 8
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Jersey UK
     
Apr 12, 2013 17:16 as a reply to  @ Tom Camilleri's post |  #11

OK... Am I missing something here?

If I "save to web" generating 900x600 file or I use image processor resizing to 900x600 at Quality 12.. is one better that the other?

I generally use Image processor as its quicker... why have save for web?, is it for exif stripping?


James
Flickr  (external link)
Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,013 posts
Gallery: 543 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1626
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Apr 12, 2013 18:00 |  #12

*Jayrou wrote in post #15821302 (external link)
OK... Am I missing something here?

If I "save to web" generating 900x600 file or I use image processor resizing to 900x600 at Quality 12.. is one better that the other?

I generally use Image processor as its quicker... why have save for web?, is it for exif stripping?

One is for batches of files, one is for single files. SfW being designed for single files, it has quite a lot more options now than it used to have, so you can now pick different levels of EXIF data, instead of stripping all of it for example. You also get the limit file size option too, which is great if you need to attach a 1024 px long edge, 150Kb image file here.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
*Jayrou
Goldmember
Avatar
1,121 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 8
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Jersey UK
     
Apr 13, 2013 04:54 |  #13

BigAl007 wrote in post #15821404 (external link)
One is for batches of files, one is for single files. SfW being designed for single files, it has quite a lot more options now than it used to have, so you can now pick different levels of EXIF data, instead of stripping all of it for example. You also get the limit file size option too, which is great if you need to attach a 1024 px long edge, 150Kb image file here.

Alan

Thanks Alan, I was aware Image processor was for batching , I was referring to quality differences, but I suppose at web size there isn't much anyway


James
Flickr  (external link)
Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
armis
Senior Member
899 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 19
Joined Jan 2012
     
Apr 15, 2013 07:27 |  #14

Have you tried creating an action? You could just start recording, go into File->Save for Web, put in whatever settings you prefer, save, close the picture (or not) and then stop the recording. The action then becomes available for batch processing - but you'll need to have all the files already open in PS.


Fuji X-E2, 18-55 and 55-200 zooms, Samyang 12
www.wtbphoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
5,873 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 660
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
     
Apr 15, 2013 07:50 |  #15

*Jayrou wrote in post #15821302 (external link)
OK... Am I missing something here?

If I "save to web" generating 900x600 file or I use image processor resizing to 900x600 at Quality 12.. is one better that the other?

I generally use Image processor as its quicker... why have save for web?, is it for exif stripping?

Save for Web also permits you to export an image that has been sliced for web pages, so that each slice is automatically saved with a naming convention. As the name implies, it is really for saving images destined for web uses, including building images for web pages - you can choose GIF, PNG, etc. and the color palette in indexed images, optimization, etc., that may be of interest in image loading over various internet connection speeds.

I still do not understand why Save for Web as a JPEG would give you "better" results than Save As... or Image Processor. I don't think there is any magical JPEG compression going on in SFW.

kirk


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,043 views & 0 likes for this thread
High quality JPEG batches in PS CS6
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Willday
991 guests, 305 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.