WPF - World Photography Forum
Home Gallery Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts

Welcome to World Photography Forum!
Welcome!

Thank you for finding your way to World Photography Forum, a dedicated community for photographers and enthusiasts. There's a variety of forums, a wonderful gallery, and what's more, we are absolutely FREE. You are very welcome to join, take part in the discussion, and post your pictures!

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.


Go Back   World Photography Forum > Photography Technique > The Digital Darkroom


The Digital Darkroom The In-Computer editing forum.

Overcoming resizing hell?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 10-12-07, 17:53
Matt Green's Avatar
Matt Green Matt Green is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 211
Default Overcoming resizing hell?

Hi all

I'm currently using a Kodak easyshare compact!, some of the pics taken so far with this haven't been ''too'' bad (still just dabbling at this stage) however whenever I resize down to 800x800 pixels to upload in my gallery quite a lot of shots are rendered useless.

Is this just a result of using a cheap compact, or a natural process of resizing...will I still have this problem if I ever started using a DSLR?

Matt
__________________
~ Beginner alert! ~
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-12-07, 20:03
Canis Vulpes's Avatar
Canis Vulpes Canis Vulpes is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 51
Posts: 4,398
Default

Resizing downward will make your pictures better! If you imagine every picture with a number of flaws, when you resize downward to 800 x 800 to reduce the scale of the flaws along with the picture content. The picture content remains but every picture flaw is reduced.

To answer your question, your issue is not a consequence of a cheap compact but more the resizing algorithm being employed in your post production.

Can you show some examples.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-12-07, 22:42
Matt Green's Avatar
Matt Green Matt Green is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canis Vulpes View Post

Can you show some examples.
Thanks, Canis Vulpes

Here's a couple of shots taken tonight

In both pictures the area around the branches has suffered some kind of distortion?, the originals in my folders look fine...

Matt
__________________
~ Beginner alert! ~
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-12-07, 11:47
andy153's Avatar
andy153 andy153 is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bodelwyddan Denbighshire
Age: 78
Posts: 5,271
Default

Hi Matt, I've looked at your thumbnails and the distortion you see in the branches appears to me to be "noise" from High ISO and the cameras own correction algorithm. To quote Ken Rockwell "Modern cameras use clever noise reduction which blurs the image in clever ways to hide noise. These systems are often clever enough to keep edges sharp. Unfortunately they blur soft details and textures along with the noise." I think this is what ahs happened in your case as you pushed the camera near it's limits.
__________________
"I take pictures of what I like - if someone else likes them - that's a bonus" Andy M.

http://www.pbase.com/andy153

http://andy153.smugmug.com/

Equipment: Nikon - More than enough !!!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 13-12-07, 19:32
yelvertoft's Avatar
yelvertoft yelvertoft is offline  
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Essex, UK
Age: 60
Posts: 8,486
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Green View Post
Hi all

I'm currently using a Kodak easyshare compact!, some of the pics taken so far with this haven't been ''too'' bad (still just dabbling at this stage) however whenever I resize down to 800x800 pixels to upload in my gallery quite a lot of shots are rendered useless.

Is this just a result of using a cheap compact, or a natural process of resizing...will I still have this problem if I ever started using a DSLR?

Matt
Matt,

Can you give a fuller description of what you are doing please? Which software are you using to do this resizing? Which particular series of clicks are you going through to get the results you are doing? We may be able to help you a bit more if we have these details. I'd say you're using too high compression with jpeg images from the examples.

As Foxy has said, it should not be a result of using a compact camera, despite what Ken Rockwell would have you believe.

Regards,

Duncan
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 13-12-07, 23:35
Ant Ant is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 34
Posts: 280
Default

try this http://photoscape.en.softonic.com/
It's free... more info, once I've rembered how to use it (had it on the desktop previously). Unless you have something better already.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 14-12-07, 14:21
postcardcv's Avatar
postcardcv postcardcv is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Norfolk
Age: 48
Posts: 1,856
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canis Vulpes View Post
Resizing downward will make your pictures better! If you imagine every picture with a number of flaws, when you resize downward to 800 x 800 to reduce the scale of the flaws along with the picture content. The picture content remains but every picture flaw is reduced.
I'm not sure that I entirely agree with this... I've recently been struggling with downsizing images, they just seem to lack the impact of the full res shots. The loss of fine detail when downsizing can ruin a photo for me.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 14-12-07, 15:06
andy153's Avatar
andy153 andy153 is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bodelwyddan Denbighshire
Age: 78
Posts: 5,271
Default

This is an interesting thread for me because I had trouble to start with and I now do all my resizes with Photoshop Elements. I aim for 480x360 pixels -sometimes I get away with 600x400 which seems to come in around 250 k - just under the site 300 k limit for uploads. If I tried 800x800 the upload would be rejected. How do others resize for uploads?
__________________
"I take pictures of what I like - if someone else likes them - that's a bonus" Andy M.

http://www.pbase.com/andy153

http://andy153.smugmug.com/

Equipment: Nikon - More than enough !!!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 14-12-07, 15:18
mw_aurora's Avatar
mw_aurora mw_aurora is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Westford, MA, USA (was UK)
Posts: 271
Default

I second Duncan's request for info on how you are currently doing it Matt.

Until then, simple steps in Photoshop...

1. Select menu item Image->Image size...

2. Check the boxes "Constrain proportions" and "Resample Image".

3. Select "Bicubic Sharper" from the resample drop-down. I used to use Bilinear and then apply extra sharpening afterwards, but with CS2 and CS3 have used Bicubic for most web images and get favourable results with most images.

4. Type the width (or height) you want the longest edge in the relevant box at the top. For example, I would type 800 in width for a landscape orientated image.

5. Click OK

6. Apply a little sharpening (e.g. USM) only if it needs it...

7. Save as JPEG and adjust the quality to adjust the final file size (or save for web and adjust the quality to adjust the final file size.
__________________
Mark Wilson

Updated: www.rusticolus.co.uk
Tumblelog: mjmw.tumblr.com
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 14-12-07, 15:47
Roy C's Avatar
Roy C Roy C is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Barnstaple, North Devon
Posts: 2,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andy153 View Post
This is an interesting thread for me because I had trouble to start with and I now do all my resizes with Photoshop Elements. I aim for 480x360 pixels -sometimes I get away with 600x400 which seems to come in around 250 k - just under the site 300 k limit for uploads. If I tried 800x800 the upload would be rejected. How do others resize for uploads?
Andy, try reducing the jpeg compression level, you will be surprised how little difference there is between a high quality and low quality jpeg when viewing on the screen.
600 x 400 shot should come in well below 250k (my 900 x 600 come in below 200 k most of the time).
I did a test a while ago by saving a 800 x 533 image in all the jpeg qualities between 4 and 10 and there was virtually no difference when viewing but the file sizes varied from 60k to over 200k.
__________________
Roy

MY WEB SITE
MY PHOTOSTREAM
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:52.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.