I would go along with this all the way, especially item 7 about adjusting the quality to give you the desired file size - as stated in my previous post there is very little difference between a high and low jpeg quality when viewing (printing is a different ball game).

I never use 'save for web' as it strips the Exif.

Andy,

You aren't doing your pictures justice by using this method. Most members seem to have their screens set up to view pictures with a max width of 1024 pixels (landscape) or height of 800 (portrait). If your squeezing them down to 600x400 then people really won't be appreciating them at their best. Try resizing to the max dimensions I've given (depending on format) and varying the jpeg compression to about 70% of the max. As Roy says, it can make very little difference, but this depends on how complex the picture is.

This has been discussed at great length in several other threads.

Duncan

Thanks

To resize down to 800x600 pixels I simply use a free download tool from power toys plus?, downloaded it last year and never had cause to use anything else...I don't currently use any software from Photoshop.

I don't seem to have had ''too'' many of these problems with the last three images in my gallery.

Thanks for the responses everyone

Matt

There is an element of truth in what Foxy is saying if the original image is poor. i.e blurred. Generally the image will look sharper when down-sampled.

If the original is sharp then you are at the mercy of the re-sampling algorithm. Some are quick and dirty while others try to take into account what else maybe happening in that area of the image which entails more processing.

I am often accused of pixel peeping but I find it helps explain what is really happening. I've knock up a couple of simple images in Photoshop and down sampled them using a crude method and the bilinear method to compare against the original. The set in the top row are of a diagonal line with random noise added. The bottom set are just the line. The original was 480 x 480 pixels and down sampled to 233 x 233 pixels. The attached are 50 x 50 pixel crops blown up by 600%. In the crude method the resultant pixel is simply voted in or out by the majority. The bilinear method has dithered to retain some data instead of completely removing it. The dithering has caused a blurring hence the need for some degree of sharpening after the re-sampling.

The method outlined by Mark is tried and tested and gives good results.

Thanks all - I have always gone for highest quality jpegs - I'll use your advice from now on and maybe repost some of my images.

Andy,

If you don't want to lose any comments you have already received, you can use the "edit photo" link on the appropriate gallery image page and replace the original image with the resized one.

Duncan

Thanks Duncan, I found that button and have just replaced one or two images.
Andy M.

Hi Matt
Although I now have a digital SLR as well as a compact and Photoshop Elements 5 I still use the freebie Faststone for resizing my pictures.
I find that resizing down to 800 X 600 usually gives better results than resizing less !!!
Might be worth trying Faststone for cropping, resizing and sharpening as I do.
It's free & it might work for you.
Cheers : Ian Mc
PS Hi everyone from an expat Scot in Christchurch New Zealand.