The Pier Restaurant

rudgej wrote in post #2393104
I quite often see that too when a photo that I've uploaded looks dull and colourless by comparison the the original. I used to use the "save for web" option, but now just use "save as" and adjust the quality myself to bring the size down.

Hi John,


The previous poster is using a sweeping statement about the save for web function. The image detail and increments of colour are obviously reduced the more you slide that little bar down to get the kB to where you need it. But it doesn't completely discard the colour profile. That is a misleading suggestion.

Simple tricks like pushing the saturation up a tiny notch will more than compensate. The save for web feature is a lot safer than save as. The only exception I can think of is an image with a high concentration of bare tree branches. The algorithym has a hard time reducing the kB without making the close knit branches look like broken spaghetti.

The ability to dial in the kB factor right down to the wire is a great feature and a brilliant piece of code written by Adobe.

http://www.scotlandone​.com/galleries/medium-1853

Check the above link and I will prove my point. If you think that image is dull and colourless then I will eat my hat. Every one of my shots on the Scotland site was finished off by using the save for web feature, and they started life as a jpeg... not this RAW nonsense.

Cheers.


Cousin CS2.

CousinMadness wrote in post #2396757
Hi John,


The previous poster is using a sweeping statement about the save for web function. The image detail and increments of colour are obviously reduced the more you slide that little bar down to get the kB to where you need it. But it doesn't completely discard the colour profile. That is a misleading suggestion.

Simple tricks like pushing the saturation up a tiny notch will more than compensate. The save for web feature is a lot safer than save as. The only exception I can think of is an image with a high concentration of bare tree branches. The algorithym has a hard time reducing the kB without making the close knit branches look like broken spaghetti.

The ability to dial in the kB factor right down to the wire is a great feature and a brilliant piece of code written by Adobe.

http://www.scotlandone​.com/galleries/medium-1853

Check the above link and I will prove my point. If you think that image is dull and colourless then I will eat my hat. Every one of my shots on the Scotland site was finished off by using the save for web feature, and they started life as a jpeg... not this RAW nonsense.

Cheers.


Cousin CS2.

Thanks Martin, and you're right that your photo is full of colour. Have you, by experience, a recommended saturation percentage boost that you do before saving for the web?

Great shot Elizabel.

BTW, Save for web works fine in my opinion as long as you have a tick by 'USE DOCUMENT COLOUR PROFILE' see picture, I had this trouble when I first joined the forum.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Another handy tip John. Thanks.

I always use 'Save for web' and have never had anyone say my images lack colour. Use it carefully

Elisabeth-Ann wrote in post #2395673
Thanks guys - I couldn't find a way of cropping it withough losing either the Bahamian flag, or the right hand end of the pier Since I am using it for notecards for the tourists staying at Sandals, those things are important elements. Especially the flag.

I dont understand about the croping problem, many programs allow you to crop any part that you want, like the bottom only or just the right side. Maybe find a different croping program.

I am just getting started in this hobby but I think its a great picture and hope to see more like this

rudgej wrote in post #2398172
Thanks Martin, and you're right that your photo is full of colour. Have you, by experience, a recommended saturation percentage boost that you do before saving for the web?

Hi John,


At first I was just going to say that when you have been doing it for as long as we have... you just adjust it to what your eye feels pleasing. Then I remembered the thread about newbies and how we should integrate our postings with them in mind too.

I find 7% - 15% saturation about the two extremes. Below 7% there is no decernable difference, even looking away from the screen for a few seconds to get rid of picture familiarity. Beyond 15% colour tearing and jpeg artifacts start making themselves visible. Chromatic abberration in old money.

If you wanted to get really fancy you could always mask off an area with the capture tool in Adobe and boost areas of the image at different levels. Reds and blues of course will suffer first and blocks of squares will start appearing in that previously lovely (but not lovely enough) blue sky.

I used to use the burn tool on my skies, but that proved to be the worst perpetrator of causing artifacts.

There's another method to saturating skies separately, that being layer masking in Adobe. This is basically where you would darken the original image beyond sensibility, copy it, and paste it on top of the original. By rubbing out the "foreground" of this darker version, it would then leave the darker more saturated sky visible. This of course takes a lot of practice and you have to make sure you use the right brush and "spray" to eliminate an obvious line.

I've rambled... but with newbies in mind I hope at least my reply provides thought for more questions for those that wish it.

Cheers.


Cousin.

andydajo wrote in post #2398215
Great shot Elizabel.

BTW, Save for web works fine in my opinion as long as you have a tick by 'USE DOCUMENT COLOUR PROFILE' see picture, I had this trouble when I first joined the forum.

Good point Andy, I had forgotten that the default setting could be over ridden (accidentally or not).

Cousin.

Thanks again Martin, and sorry to have hijacked your thread EA.

rudgej wrote in post #2398805
Thanks again Martin, and sorry to have hijacked your thread EA.

My thanks to Martin too, and John, I'm glad the thread got hijacked, I learned something new and useful!! thanks a lot! Now the colours look a bit better, more like the printed version. As for athomefun's comment about not understanding the cropping problem, I use CS2, but no program is going to help me to crop the picture and retain the flag AND the end of the pier, one or the other has to go to make a 5x7 print, and I don't wish to lose either. I want to keep the leaves at the bottom, but will clone the ones on the right out, as suggested by Les et al. Thanks guys.

That looks better EA.

I like this one very much, I think the railing gives one a sense of being there.
And I would rather be there, than in this frozen artic system !!

CousinMadness wrote in post #2396757
Hi John,


The previous poster is using a sweeping statement about the save for web function. The image detail and increments of colour are obviously reduced the more you slide that little bar down to get the kB to where you need it. But it doesn't completely discard the colour profile. That is a misleading suggestion.

Simple tricks like pushing the saturation up a tiny notch will more than compensate. The save for web feature is a lot safer than save as. The only exception I can think of is an image with a high concentration of bare tree branches. The algorithym has a hard time reducing the kB without making the close knit branches look like broken spaghetti.

The ability to dial in the kB factor right down to the wire is a great feature and a brilliant piece of code written by Adobe.

http://www.scotlandone​.com/galleries/medium-1853

Check the above link and I will prove my point. If you think that image is dull and colourless then I will eat my hat. Every one of my shots on the Scotland site was finished off by using the save for web feature, and they started life as a jpeg... not this RAW nonsense.

Cheers.


Cousin CS2.

Martin , what do you mean safer ?

dv2004 wrote in post #2400359
Martin , what do you mean safer ?

Hi Dimitri,


For the most part our digital images are viewed right here on the screen you are staring at. Few end up in print form, even fewer enjoy life as a huge print that you could see from the side of the Motorway. To this end and for the purposes of my reply, we'll take the stance that the majority of us are concerned with optimising images for the web.

What this means is that your snazzy 10.2 megapixel SLR with the $1000 lens and RAW capability is serious overkill. Well yikes... you've probably never heard your camera being described as overkill... but it is. We allow ourselves to become brow beaten by retail hysteria that we really need more megapixels. Don't be a Lemming - stop and think for a minute. The latest Canon creates a RAW image containing 10,000,000 of those pesky little microns. This is reduced generally by average online photo gallery standards to around 200,000 - 300,000. For this forum the maximum is 100,000. OK... so where has the other 9 million 900 thousand gone to? Down the toilet that 's where... along with your hard earned money.

I've wandered... back to Dimitri's question. Why is the "save for web" feature safer?

The Adobe algorithm for jpeg compression was procured by Thomas Knoll in the early 90's. Many have tried to emulate it's amazing capabilities... but the fact is it is an ingenius piece of code. The "Save for web" algorithm calculates "how busy" parts of the image are and gives precedence to those areas. Open skies and large similarly coloured areas are "attacked" more vigorously by the compression code.

The program figures out which areas of the image you are least likely to notice the data it has thrown out. You can also virtually dial in the end kB that you want right down to +/- 5kB. Using "Save As" is not unlike taking a machete to cut off that loose thread on your shirt collar. It chops the kB drastically with little control and does so across the luminance and chrominance spectrum. Chunks of coloured areas will really suffer and you can say goodbye to fine details and hello "jaggies".

"Save for web" is safer because it eliminates the guess work as to which parts of the image really won't miss a few hundred kB's. It's bad enough that we are throwing out 99% of the original 10 megapixel image... at least this way we will have thrown out the least important ones so our picture can wow the POTN members that little bit more.

Sorry for the hijack Elizabeth... and I hope this gives you a better understanding Dimitri of how it all works when you drag that slider bar in Adobe to get the numbers down for web posting.

Cheers, and thanks for asking. Ol Cousin here has a load of useless information stored in his heid. It's only handy when someone asks.


Cuz.... who else can ramble like this anyway?

Beautiful scene, E-A. I keep trying to persuade my son and new daughter-in-law to visit you...at my expense. They can't sit still long enough to decide how they should spend my money.