Re-sizing for the gallery
 

I would like to know the best way to re-size my pics for the gallery,I have cs2 and I was just re-sizing them by reducing the pixel size to get under the 300kb limit but I believe it is better to compress the jpeg more,can anyone help please.Please forgive me if this has been answered before.

somert8,

If you are using CS2, the way I do it is to resize the image to 1024 pixels wide (landscape) or 800 pixels high (portrait) by
Image > Image Size , entering the dimensions I've just given, ensuring that all boxes "Scale Styles", "Constrain Proportions" and "Resample Image" are ticked. I use the option "Bicubic" against the Resample Image box.

Then
File > Save As , give the file a suitable new name, and pick JPEG as the file format. Click on "Save".

You are then presented with a JPEG options dialogue box with a numerical setting for Image Options. I find that a setting of 6 or 7 is quite good enough for viewing on WPF. This should get you a file size of typically 100kB to 130kB (depending on the picture).

Hope this helps.

Duncan

Well,many thanks again Duncan,your help was spot on,my file is now bigger on screen,but is a smaller file size,I do think it looks better and I`ll sort the other three out.

http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...00&ppuser=2183

Cheers

Somert,the way I do this is by re-sizing the image to say 1025 max,then going to Save for Web function.when the box appears,in the top right hand corner you will see-Preset-custom is in the box next to this.Just to the right of this box,you will see an arrow,click on this and a box comes up Optimize to file size.Click on this box,and a small box appears,where you can set the size of file required.I set mine to 200 then it meets the requirements of BF.click okay in this small box,this then dissappears,and your pic is re sized in a JPEG format.You are also given a reading as to the quality of your pic.It is so easy.The picture is perfect.
This may sound complicated,but I promise it is very,very simple.You can save in higher pixels(higher than 1025 etc).But if your image is very large say the original size at 3000 plus,it will advise that you do lower the size.There is no loss of image quality.You are able to watch your image being re-sized,both pics are side by side,and you will see that the new one has the same quality as the original.I use Elements 4.0,but I guess all Adobe progs have this function.
Hope this is of some assistance.

Well Christine that sounds really good,thanks a lot,I`ll give it a try:)

Please check the link I left for Polo on this thread, response # 8

-----LINK----

I do it the same as Duncan inCS2. Resize and save as a jpeg quality 6. For some reason I have always had better pics doing it this way than the 'save for web' function.

Thanks for the reply guys,still fiddling!

If the image has lots of fine detail then save for web can be the best way of getting it to a reasonable file size. Save as jpeg will be 300 ppi, save for web is 200 ppi.

Don

Don, I never have problems getting a reasonable file size by saving as a quality 6 jpeg but perhaps this explains why the 'save for web' function never seems as good a quality.
Not quite sure what you mean by 300 ppi and 200 ppi (assume pixels per inch) I always use 72 ppi for the web so where does the 300 and 200 come in to it?

Roy, yes ppi = pixels per inch. I normally save as compressed jpeg that by default is 300ppi. I noticed that save for web comes in at 200ppi. I have never tried 72. I don't understand how 72 ppi can be better quality than 200 unless for web viewing 200 is way to much and lost detail cannot be seen.

I noticed a big file size difference when I got a 12mp camera over 6mp particularly if there is lots of fine detail. It will be interesting when cameras are 20mp, but perhaps its a lot down to me not being to genned up on file size reduction from large files without loosing detail.

Don

You've hit the nail on the head there Don. The pixel size resolution of most monitors is such that 200ppi is more detail than can be displayed. For an old CRT, then 72ppi was more than could have been displayed. I haven't bothered working out the resolution of the newest, best flat panel displays.

I have only just started trying the 72ppi setting to see the result and am quite surprised, viewing on the web there doesn't seem to be any loss in quality. The reason I thought I would give it a go is because of copyright. If it can only be seen at the 72ppi then its know use to anyone trying to use your image.

Thanks Duncan and Christine,

I will have a play and then use 72 for my next pic.

I had a good look at Roys gallery and they all seem good. :)

Don

Don, I dont think you will see any difference when viewing on the web if you use 72 ppi, 300 ppi or 1000 ppi. Neither will the image size be any different. Canon Cameras default to 72 dpi whereas my Nikon CP 4500 defaults to 300 ppi but quality wise it is irrelevent - you can change to whatever you like, file size will not be effected. The only time it makes a difference is for printing output.

Christine, DPI/PPI doesn't matter for web viewing, only for printing. If you post a image say 800 pixels wide at 72 ppi - you will get a 11.1 inch print if you use 72 dpi (poor quality print) if you print at 300 dpi you will get a 2.6 inch print size (good quality print)
Try saving a inamge at say 30 ppi, you still will not see much difference when viewing on the web.

The general opinion is that the very best monitors nowadays can display up to 90ppi - but you are talking about top quality monitors, the average will still only display around 72 ppi. If you wanting to be ultra safe you could save at 96 ppi but you would be hard pushed to see any difference.
This is why I was totally confused by Don's posting about 200 and 300 ppi.

I have just done a save from a tiff in 3 flavours all sized to 1024 at 100% for a level playing field.

300 came out at 718kb
96 came out at 717kb
save for web which is 200 came out at 650kb

The difference between save for web and the others is that it has stripped out the exif info which probably accounts for the smaller file size.

Don

Terminology error on my part I should have said DPI not ppi. :o

Don

This back up what I said Don 300 ppi and 96 ppi = the same file size. As you quite rightly say, the only reason the 200 ppi is smaller is because the exif data has been stripped. There is no difference in quality to any of these dpi sizes.

DPI is only relevant to the quality of a printout. As far as processing and saving files PPI and DPI is the same thing. see this link for a better explanation http://www.tildefrugal.net/photo/dpi.php

Cheers
Roy