How do I resize after cropping?

digital paradise wrote in post #19024839
I video on upsizing if you are interested but I would not do that to upsize something that was downsized.

.
Let's make sure the OP doensn't confuse cropping with downsizing ..... they have nothing to do with one another and it will make it easier for the OP to understand things if he realizes they are entirely different functions that are not linked or connected in any way.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19024846
.
Let's make sure the OP doensn't confuse cropping with downsizing ..... they have nothing to do with one another and it will make it easier for the OP to understand things if he realizes they are entirely different functions that are not linked or connected in any way.

.

Good point. Thanks

I shouldn't admit this but I often just crop images and post to POTN rather than downsize after cropping to meet the max size for POTN, I have mostly been focused on the mb size of the image although in looking at the "Upload images" it automatically downsizes to post on POTN

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19024854
.
I shouldn't admit this but I often just crop images and post to POTN rather than downsize after cropping to meet the max size for POTN, I have mostly been focused on the mb size of the image although in looking at the "Upload images" it automatically downsizes to post on POTN
.

.
I think it's fine to do it that way.

In my experience, for me, my photos look better here if I upload files that are bigger than 1600 pixels and let the forum software downsize them for me. . I suppose everyone's experience is different, but that's how things work for me.


.

I should mention that PS's Web (Legacy) has an option tp sharpen your files for output. If you used a filter to sharpen for export then set this to Bicubic. If you just sharpened using ACR (capture sharpening) then you can apply export sharpening at this phase to get images more crisp. The one to select is Bicubic Sharper if you exporting for web purposes.

Franky I just find LR easier to use and the export pages options are excellent. Even if I use another developer like DXO PL I send files to LR to export.

Archibald wrote in post #19024797
So why did you comment about PS's non-destructive properties with regards to raw files? No regular editing program can overwrite raw files.

Because if Photoshop was editing a JPG, I would assume it to be destructive, and lose some pixels to make a different aspect ratio JPG. But that post from medd63 made it sound as if Photoshop had found some means to NOT do it in a destructive way, so I was asking to learn more details about that capability.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19024866
.
I think it's fine to do it that way.

In my experience, for me, my photos look better here if I upload files that are bigger than 1600 pixels and let the forum software downsize them for me. . I suppose everyone's experience is different, but that's how things work for me.

.

I have never done so. I prefer to crop and then resize for POTN or Fred Miranda, etc. Even if I use a 3rd party host. Based on your approach the forum software does a good job? I'm not sure I would trust any forum software to do that - no disrespect to POTN. I imagine they all use different algorithms. I just feel better controlling all the steps myself and it only takes seconds with my LR export presets.

digital paradise wrote in post #19024884
.
Based on your approach the forum software does a good job?
.

.
Yes, absolutely.

If I make a photo 1600 pixels myself, and upload it to the forum, and then I upload the same photo at, say, 2000 pixels, and let the forum software downsize it for me, the one that the forum software downsized looks sharper and clearer than the one that I downsized myself.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19024992
.
Yes, absolutely.

If I make a photo 1600 pixels myself, and upload it to the forum, and then I upload the same photo at, say, 2000 pixels, and let the forum software downsize it for me, the one that the forum software downsized looks sharper and clearer than the one that I downsized myself.

.

Do you know the new limits in POTN for picture size?
I still post 1500 x 1000, because one of the recent times in which I tried higher res, it barfed.

Wilt wrote in post #19024994
Do you know the new limits in POTN for picture size?

.
I'm not sure. . Sometimes the POTN uploader will reject an image because it is too big. . But that, I believe, is based on file size, not file dimensions. . For most images, I can upload at 2000 or 2200 pixels on the long side and it works just fine, and downsizes them for me.

I don't need to know the actual limits, and I have no interest in getting precise quantities of things. . "Doing the math" and getting definite quantities on things is rarely useful at all in photography, and I don't want to be bogged down with useless info.

.

It would be nice to know what limit causes POTN software to barf...so that you do not need to try and exceed that, so it barfs on you! Waste of your time, easier and more efficient if you simply knew what limit to adhere to! Sometimes one just doesn't have the available time for trial and error.

anything less than 10 MB is fine, 10.1 mb and it spits it out. not sure about 10 on the money

Info on the last set of image upload changes...
https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18448482

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19025009
anything less than 10 MB is fine, 10.1 mb and it spits it out. not sure about 10 on the money

Thx for that info, Jeff, but it seems to be perhaps urban legend according to the link to Pekka message about photo sizesl

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19025117
Info on the last set of image upload changes...
https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18448482

Ah... 1600 x 1600 pixels, per Pekka, and no stated file size limits per se. Clear enough.

So I will simply stick to 1500, 1000 as easier to remember than 1600, 1066 that corresponds to 1.5:1 of the native dSLR frame!


I guess it would be worthwhile verifying by

1. trying with a 1700 x 200 image, to exceed one dimensional limit
   
2. then try with a >10MB file which has 1600 x 1600 pixels stored in high Quality JPG.
   

"OUR IMAGE RULES are simple:
CURRENT IMAGE LIMITS

We currently allow 8 images to be embedded in a post. Embedded images must fit into 1600 x 1600 box, and be less than 2.5 MB in file size.

I think 1600px wide is more of a suggestion. In web design, you can have any sized image, that you can stretch or shrink in a parent container. The maximum window size for a browser is 1920px...then subtract the number of pixels on the scroll bar, the wrapper, and the left hand margin showing poster info--the actual width of the post is going to be under 1600px.

The file size is the main limit. I still resize jpegs to the rough maximum container width to check sharpness. If you read more of TS's link, it mentions that the uploader's resize function applies sharpness as well.