Sizing Images for Posting

[Swampy]

I just wanted to show you some differences between quality levels and files sizes as well as open discussion for getting the most out of your JPG's while sizing them for posting here. I bring this up to help the board run smoother. Bandwidth is bandwidth and if you have to download a 250k when it could have been 125k, that's wasteful and time consuming for everyone.

I did some research. Before I took over the forum, file sizes being uploaded averaged 400k in size and people really took advantage of the 500k limit. All of this and thier posting 800x600 sized images. Now that I've dropped the limit down to 250k, has any one noticed a decrease in quality of images being posted here? People still take advantage of the 250k limit. While I didn't have time to run the average numbers for file sizes after the 250k limit was set, I do have some average file sizes posted by some of the recent posters.

The number after the name is the average file size that particular user uploads here taken from averaging out thier last 150 images posted (or as many as they've uploaded up to 150 - one person only had 43 images uploaded).

Mike - 192k
Igor - 156k
Me - 125k
Sandman - 105k
Auminer - 186k
Tom Nolle - 186k
5string - 77.8k
deMille - 108k
fujifilmnut - 124k
AzRich - 168k
Robinp - 124k
Serge - 123k
S_Leeper - 140k
Melody - 134k

Now, I'm not picking on anyone above. I just randomly grabbed names from the photo's sections on the front screen and ran the numbers real quick.

Again, I'm just trying to speed up the forums, but when you think about it, if you could cut 50k off of your images and say, each image gets downloaded an average of 50 times, that's 2 1/2 megs of data transfer time saved. Who's got dialup? I know a few still do. That's probably 20 minutes time saved. While it might not seem like much time for Broadband users, it will make the board snappier with the bandwidth savings.

Sometimes DPI plays a role in the file size. 72 is all your screen can show, so for the web, why not 72? That's what I tend to stick with.

In Photoshop, there are quality levels when you save (I save mine by doing File>Save As - not using the "save for web" function). When I name it, it pops up a quality level box that I can select a number from 1-12. Usually 8 does it for me.

Here are two examples of size differences. One is about 104k and the other is about 70k. Can you tell the difference?

Converted from RAW, cropped about 10 percent out, saved as a PSD. Opened the PSD, resized, USM 47, .7, 0, saved at level 10. Closed, opened the PSD, same procedure except saved at level 8.

[deMille]

I see quite a difference in the highlights.

I set dpi at 96 rather than 72. 72 dpi is optimum for macs but pcs are different in the way they handle graphics and 96 is best for them.

Now the discussion can go on and on about "if you can see any difference" but since the machine is designed that way, it makes sense to set it up that way.

I also set the image length (usually) at 600 rather than 800. That allows me to view the entire image in the post on my 22" LaCie. I change monitor resolution depending on the way I feel ... or if my eyes are tired. Fortunately, using Firefox as a browser, I can increase font size on any post by pressing ctrl/+ or decrease it with ctrl/-.

Dale

[lightwrangler]

I see the difference too. However I do agree that in the interests of keeping the forum running efficiently smaller files are a must. I try whenever possible to keep mine to 100k or less which is around 640 x 480 pixels at 72dpi, medium to high jpeg quality. If anyone wants to see it better they can email me and I'll send them a larger file.

[chaser of light]

Ive been posting at 400x600 at 72 dpi with an average of 130kb....but I have no problem posting in smaller sizes.....I look at composition and ideas more than tech quality so it would make no difference to me :cheers:

[Swampy]

Adrian has the point for sure. I'm not griping, just trying to make the board run smoother. I'm not changing the limits of the file sizes either mind you. :)

Odd, you know, after I posted the image, I thought I had done something to make it slightly darker. So I re-did them both and even did one at 6 and 12 along with them. Seems the lower you go, the more contrast you loose or something like that.

I've never looked at it color/contrast wise, only artifacting, which is very hard to see a difference between 8 and 10.

But, we're not looking at these web postings like we are making 100 grand on the image and using a loupe on a print type of thing. Just sharing, but I can see how a larger, higher quality will make the image pop more. So, well, do what you want, just like I said before, I'm just trying to make things run smoother.... :o

[AzRich]

if you're hosting your own files somewhere else, you can just use links via the 'insert image' icon.

I'm assuming that helps out a lot, right :)

[Swampy]

if you're hosting your own files somewhere else, you can just use links via the 'insert image' icon.

I'm assuming that helps out a lot, right :)

Yes, that helps, but... I'd rather people post them here. I don't archive anything here, it's always here and available. If you post with a link, you'll probably move it or delete it after a few weeks or months or whatever and now, the topic of conversation is gone from here. I hate that when I go to a site and the picture is gone but the text is there....

Again, I'm not complaining of what's going on here now, my mind just pulls things out of no where to try and optimize things. :D

[BadpicKev]

interesting topic. I have a lot of files already hosted, since I am lazy I post a link, they are 475-700k. newer pick I try to get them small, but my quality drops to 6-8, If I care, i keep it large and link. I do think its my resposability to follow the rules of the board, but getting it that small, I will link. i sort of have unlimited hosting.

[fujifilmnut]

Swampy,

Nikonians has a 100k limit and sometimes I size for posting in either forum. Can you give some hints on dimensions and settings for save for web (jpeg quality) that will give good results?

Jim

[HulaMike]

Never thought about it Brian. I like to post large scale here (1000x600) at just under 250k. I like viewing 'larger' images here but I guess I'll rethink that.

[Swampy]

Never thought about it Brian. I like to post large scale here (1000x600) at just under 250k. I like viewing 'larger' images here but I guess I'll rethink that.

I'm not pointing fingers Mike. Just trying to optimize a little. Spent some more money this week and got rid of my Cisco 3524 10/100 switch and replaced it with a Netgear 10/100/1000 24 port switch. It performs better considering the cost difference and is tons quieter. I feel like I don't need a server room anymore. Haha.

I started that other thread about what resolution you run your screen at and there are lots of people who are running at 1024x768 and 1280x1024 or around there and 1000 wide will make them have to scroll around a bit. Granted, yes, you can have the browser resize the image to fit, but there's more degredation of an image right there, so that's not an option for me as I'm sure not for many others too. I want to see an image as close to what the poster meant me to see as I can.

800x5xx for a full frame image seems to be about right for a landscape and 700x4xx for a full frame image for portrait. It's always been a good rule of thumb, but even 700 tall for a portrait can be a stretch for some people, but hey, I'm only willing to go sooo small here. :)

So, maybe take a look at saving at a quality of 9 or 8 and a different size than 1000 is all you need to do.

[Swampy]

Swampy,

Nikonians has a 100k limit and sometimes I size for posting in either forum. Can you give some hints on dimensions and settings for save for web (jpeg quality) that will give good results?

Jim

Jim, as I just posted to Mike, 800x5xx for lanscape and 700x4xx for portrait. I do all my editing in PS, resize to 800 or 700 depending on the orientation, then I do my sharpening, then save as <filename.jpg> and there will be a dialog that pops up where you can set the quality. I tend to stick with around 8 or under 125k which ever level gets me closest without going past 10, baseline optimized. I check the preview checkbox and that will show me in the image if I'm doing anything really bad. That same box will also show you the size at the bottom if you were to save it at the level you have set too.

Now, as you've seen above, there is a difference in the images between level 8 and 10, a slight highlight muting so it seems. So, again, it's up to you.

If you didn't see both, would you know? :)

[HulaMike]

:eek: Gasp! You mean not everyone runs with a 21" pro monitor set to 1600x1200 screen rez??? :rolleyes:

Just kiddin. I'll start using 800x??? and see how it feels.

[BadpicKev]

on another forum it was reccomended that the longest border be 800. it usually is a good place to start.

[fujifilmnut]

Swampy,

Thanks for the advice. Will implement immediately.

Thanks also for your dedication to this site and the members. We all owe you!! :goldcup:

Jim

[corms]

For posting I found just a simple batch or single file converter called PIXresizer, i use it for web or e-mail etc. I found it to work great. Program is only a mere 2.18 MEG and is freeware.. And does a great gob on the resizing of pics. And is smart. If you have a 6X4 or 4X6 it will correctly resize the image without having to rotate all your images to portrait first and will allow you to specify a destination folder for your resized pics so no worries of overwriting your good copies....

This is the link to their sites Download Section:

http://bluefive.pair.com/downloads.htm

[robinp]

I started that other thread about what resolution you run your screen at and there are lots of people who are running at 1024x768 and 1280x1024 or around there and 1000 wide will make them have to scroll around a bit.

Must have been otherwise occupied when this thread originally started but as I'm one of the people in Swampy's example list I'll post a few random thoughts now.....

As I've mentioned elsewhere I open the .tiff in Irfanview, resize to 1500 pixels wide and sharpen, then resize again 900, 950 or even 960 wide depending on whether the original is cropped 1.5/1 or 1.414/1. The quality slider is usually at about 8.5 but occasionally I've had to turn it down a little to fit in with the 250k limit.
I run my little 17" monitor at 1024x768 and can (just) see a 960 pixel wide image without scrolling around (in Firefox).
Because of the way .jpg compression works the final file size depends on the amount of detail in the picture (a large area of the same colour will give a smaller file, but you knew that anyway :) ). If I get an unusually small file after compression then I get suspicious about the lens quality or the amount of post processing that's been done.
Finally a plea to those who habitually post at 600 wide - please consider 800, some of us have old eyes :)

Cheers, Robin