Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

Reducing file size for uploading


Rende e2
7 37 4 Netherlands
30 Apr 2007 12:01PM
I have a whole bunch of photographs that I can't upload because the quality goes down so much when reduced to the 60 kb required by Ephotozine that it just isn't worth it. They are generally photos with lots of detail. I have a Canon 400D and use PS Elements 2 and / or Digital Photo Professional. The detailed images generally come out between 6 and 11 MB after adjusting contrast, saturation and using unsharp mask. I then downsize them to 600 pixels max in PS and then store them in a size under 60kb, which generally destroys them. (as an example you can see the tulip field that I uploaded today)
Is there a way to reduce the files without so much quality loss?
Thanks for any advice and tips.
Rende

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

mdpontin e2
10 6.0k Scotland
30 Apr 2007 12:13PM

Quote:I then downsize them to 600 pixels max in PS and then store them in a size under 60kb


Can you give us a bit more detail about how you are doing this? For example, are you using the 'Save for Web...' option to try to optimise quality of the smaller file?

Alternatively, another option might be e2 membership. That would give you a range of benefits including the option to upload 1000px images with a file size of up to 200KB.

Doug
Rende e2
7 37 4 Netherlands
30 Apr 2007 12:28PM
Thanks Doug; in PS I go to Image, then click 'resize', then 'image size' and then type in 600 in the pixel dimensions.
I might consider the e2 membership, but would like to see whether there is a better way to resize them first.
Rende
mdpontin e2
10 6.0k Scotland
30 Apr 2007 12:41PM
Understood, Rende. There's an article here which should help you to get the best out of your resizing process. I'd suggest working through the advice in the article and seeing whether it works for you.

Hope that helps.

Doug
Martin54 e2
8 509 United Kingdom
30 Apr 2007 12:53PM
The save for web option is best as it strips any unnecessary information (such as EXIF data) from the image which would otherwise take up valuable file space.

However, I have found that since the permitted image size has been increased to 600 pixels that the 60 kb limit is more restrictive and its takes a lot more compression to fit into this. When the picture size was 500 pixels, 60 kb seemed OK - has any thought been given to increasing the 60 kb limit to say 100 kb?

Martin
Rende e2
7 37 4 Netherlands
30 Apr 2007 1:05PM
Thank you, Doug and Martin. I just tried the 'save for web' option as you both suggested and it's really a lot better! I will use that from now on. I will also read the resizing article to see whether it can be improved even further, but I have to get back to work now. This already helped significantly. Thanks again.
Rende
Rende e2
7 37 4 Netherlands
30 Apr 2007 6:44PM
I also read the article and resized a couple of photos, that lost too much with my previous method, according to Doug and Martin's advice. They came out much better and I will upload one tomorrow to show you the result Wink
Thanks again!
Rende
30 Apr 2007 8:20PM
I use a piece of software to resize my photos, called IRFANVIEW...
Rende e2
7 37 4 Netherlands
1 May 2007 12:12PM
Thanks Martin, I'll look it up. Does it have any advantages over Photoshop Elements?
Rende
kalseru e2
7 3 9 England
1 May 2007 11:55PM
Just one point to make about re-sizing you say that you use unsharp mask before re-sizing which may account for some loss of quality. Sharpening should be done at the final size & resolution. Sharpening radius is critical and should be calculated by dividing the resolution by 200. Therefore at 300dpi (for printing) sharpening radius should be 1.5 but at 72 dpi used for web images it works out at 0.36 - I usually use 0.5. Also you may not need 100% sharpening for an on screen image I'll often use 50-80% - images for printing need to be almost oversharpened to make the final print look sharp. If you have CS2 use Smartsharpen rather than unsharp mask it's better at leaving large smooth areas un-sharpened (which avoids noise) i.e. sky and water.
2 May 2007 9:11AM
Rende, the one advantage over Photoshop is, it isn't Photoshop.. Wink It is a freebie that does simple things to images, and is easy to use... I've used it for a lot of years... No good with RAW, but great with jpegs and other popular image file types...
Rende e2
7 37 4 Netherlands
2 May 2007 11:48AM
Thanks Andy, for the detailed explanation; I didn't know about the calculation of the sharpening radius, I just did it by eye. Also will do sharpening as the last thing.
And thanks Martin, I'll definitely have a look at it; sounds good.
Rende
Fishnet e2
10 5.0k 5 United Kingdom
2 May 2007 7:05PM
I'm glad someone else posted about this too, I am having serious trouble reducing mine at the moment, I have never had any problems before but if I want to take advantage of the new 600 pixel size photos there is no way I can get my photos to come out anywhere decent, they all look pixelled.
Here is an example, I followed the procedure recommended on here to the T and it is dreadful.....there is no way I can upload photos like this, even at 500 pixels they don't always come out good and I can't upload quite a few of my photos.

BTW, I hope I'm allowed to add links here:
Uncompressed photo: http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y56/annabaria/test2.jpg

Compressed Photo: http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y56/annabaria/test1.jpg

OK, I have tried for 15 mins now but it will not post the h t t p:// at the beginning of my links !!!
Pete e2
13 18.7k 96 England
2 May 2007 9:09PM
Another feature of the new site (that we've probably failed to mention) is that the limit has been removed. No more fumbling around to get it to fit. Just size down to 1000 pixels (600 non e2) and go Smile
dougv e2
10 8.4k 3 England
2 May 2007 9:13PM
Nice one Pete!
Just so long as we don't get any really huge files uploaded and clogging up the system!

One thing I would point out to everyone is that the bigger the file you are uploading, then the longer it will take.
Please remember that before you start sending error reports in about uploading being slow...
Wink

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.