Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
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.
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
I use a piece of software to resize my photos, called IRFANVIEW...
Thanks Martin, I'll look it up. Does it have any advantages over Photoshop Elements?
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.
Rende, the one advantage over Photoshop is, it isn't Photoshop.. 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...
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.
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 !!!
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
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...
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
01/09/2014 - 30/09/2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View September's Photo Month Calendar