Hi there, I start with a 4000x3000 pixels, 6MB sharp picture. I go on photoshop to Image/ size and reduce the picture to 600x400 pixel. It has them 403 MB. I then go to File/ Save for web to reduce it to 69KB. Very often this reduced version has lost sharpness. I have tried several other ways on those pictures (sharp on the large size in the first place), like doind a sharpening before I reduce, or doing a 180 to 72 dtp adjustment etc. For those problematic pictures, if I do a sharpening on the small version, it shows, and I dont like. Starting from a sharp picture in the first place, is there another method or software to reduce a picture to EPZ size without loosing sharpness ? With thanks, Francois

Hi there,

I start with a 4000x3000 pixels, 6MB sharp picture.
I go on photoshop to Image/ size and reduce the picture to 600x400 pixel. It has them 403 MB.
I then go to File/ Save for web to reduce it to 69KB.

Very often this reduced version has lost sharpness. I have tried several other ways on those pictures (sharp on the large size in the first place), like doind a sharpening before I reduce, or doing a 180 to 72 dtp adjustment etc.

For those problematic pictures, if I do a sharpening on the small version, it shows, and I dont like.

Starting from a sharp picture in the first place, is there another method or software to reduce a picture to EPZ size without loosing sharpness ?

With thanks,

Francois

There's no need to reduce the size twice for uploading. You can upload an image to EPZ at full size and it would automatically be reduced. Alternatively, you can save for web at 1000 pixels at the longest edge. Or resize to 1000 pixels on the longest size (4000pixels) first. Bicubic sharper is recommended for downsizing. regards Ken

There's no need to reduce the size twice for uploading. You can upload an image to EPZ at full size and it would automatically be reduced.

Alternatively, you can save for web at 1000 pixels at the longest edge. Or resize to 1000 pixels on the longest size (4000pixels) first.

Bicubic sharper is recommended for downsizing.

regards

Ken

run unsharp mask at 100% Radius 0.2 Threshold 0 on the original then resize to 1000 wide at resolution 72 pixels/inch then select Bicubic Sharper (best for reduction) press ok Then run unsharp mask another 2 or 3 times. Save as jpg. This should be fine for epz.

run unsharp mask at 100% Radius 0.2 Threshold 0 on the original then resize to 1000 wide at resolution 72 pixels/inch then select Bicubic Sharper (best for reduction) press ok
Then run unsharp mask another 2 or 3 times. Save as jpg.

This should be fine for epz.

[link=https://www.ephotozine.com/forums/topic/web-sharpening-87864]Our very own, PMorgan, described his sharpening technique before, and it works brilliantly. Linky here[/link]

Many thanks for the help. Kind regards, Francois

Many thanks for the help.

Kind regards,
Francois

Why are our photos not as sharp on EPZ when they were sharp on our screen at home?

Why are our photos not as sharp on EPZ when they were sharp on our screen at home?

Because the screen EPZ use is not as high a resolution as yours.

Because the screen EPZ use is not as high a resolution as yours.

Some good advice [link=https://www.ephotozine.com/user/jestertheclown-88694/gallery/photo/a-question-of-sharpening--19369673][i][b]here.[/b][/i][/link] As you can see from the link, it's an old problem and one that still causes me problems from time to time, although by following the advice I received there, it's much less of a problem than it once was. Personally, I'd never let Epz. resize my images.

Some good advice here.

As you can see from the link, it's an old problem and one that still causes me problems from time to time, although by following the advice I received there, it's much less of a problem than it once was.

Personally, I'd never let Epz. resize my images.

[quote]Because the screen EPZ use is not as high a resolution as yours.[/quote] Thanks Mikehit. But why don't I have the same problem with sharpness on another photos sharing site?

Quote:Because the screen EPZ use is not as high a resolution as yours.


Thanks Mikehit. But why don't I have the same problem with sharpness on another photos sharing site?

I was just trying to think of a way to incorporate the ACR 'masking' slider into sharpening for web, as it's such a superb tool for masking off unwanted areas of sharpness in LR and ACR. The main problem is that the minimum radius (0.5) is a little high for finely detailed images at typical web sizes. However, if you used a workflow similar to Paul Morgan's, it'd perhaps be doable. You can alter image size in ACR using the crop tool (dial in specific dimensions under the custom setting) - and ACR will use an adaptive resizing algorithm to suit. So if you resized to 2000 pixels longest side, where a 0.5 radius would still be pretty high frequency, you'd be able to sharpen up your image to taste, and then mask off those areas you don't want sharpening using the intuitive and rather nifty masking slider whilst holding down the 'Alt' key. After that you'd obviously have to resize again down to 1000 pixels for ePZ, which would take a slight edge off of sharpness, but again you could easily use a low-radius tweak such as Paul originally suggested to tidy up. Despite what it says in Photoshop, 'bicubic sharper' is often a somewhat crude way to downsize—frequently overcompensating for loss of sharpness—whereas with 'bicubic' there'll be no sharpening whatsoever added and hence you get more control over the final version.

I was just trying to think of a way to incorporate the ACR 'masking' slider into sharpening for web, as it's such a superb tool for masking off unwanted areas of sharpness in LR and ACR. The main problem is that the minimum radius (0.5) is a little high for finely detailed images at typical web sizes.

However, if you used a workflow similar to Paul Morgan's, it'd perhaps be doable. You can alter image size in ACR using the crop tool (dial in specific dimensions under the custom setting) - and ACR will use an adaptive resizing algorithm to suit.

So if you resized to 2000 pixels longest side, where a 0.5 radius would still be pretty high frequency, you'd be able to sharpen up your image to taste, and then mask off those areas you don't want sharpening using the intuitive and rather nifty masking slider whilst holding down the 'Alt' key.

After that you'd obviously have to resize again down to 1000 pixels for ePZ, which would take a slight edge off of sharpness, but again you could easily use a low-radius tweak such as Paul originally suggested to tidy up. Despite what it says in Photoshop, 'bicubic sharper' is often a somewhat crude way to downsize—frequently overcompensating for loss of sharpness—whereas with 'bicubic' there'll be no sharpening whatsoever added and hence you get more control over the final version.

Thanks for the explanation. I use Aperture 3 though. I'm still wondering why I don't have any sharpness problems elsewhere. Also it was fine before moving to V5 or whatever it is.

Thanks for the explanation. I use Aperture 3 though.
I'm still wondering why I don't have any sharpness problems elsewhere. Also it was fine before moving to V5 or whatever it is.

* Just correcting myself again (obviously I am going senile) - there is a small degree of sharpening in the 'bicubic' algorithm; it's 'bicubic smoother' - the upsizing algorithm, that uses none.

* Just correcting myself again (obviously I am going senile) - there is a small degree of sharpening in the 'bicubic' algorithm; it's 'bicubic smoother' - the upsizing algorithm, that uses none.

[quote]Thanks for the explanation. I use Aperture 3 though. I'm still wondering why I don't have any sharpness problems elsewhere. Also it was fine before moving to V5 or whatever it is.[/quote] I was just thinking out loud really, in case it's an idea that anyone wants to explore. I've never been the fussiest of web sharpeners - a little clumsy at times in fact. I have got the FocalBlade plugin for Photoshop, which is a good way for me to put photos online in one of my vegetative states. I haven't experienced the same problem as you though, Jean-Noel—photos for me are as clumsily sharp as they've always been on ePz. Maybe a browser or site setting? I noticed my photos were being slightly cropped a few months ago, which turned out to be an ePhotozine website setting needing a tweak. I'm assuming you view your ePhotozine pictures on the same monitor you edit them with?

Quote:Thanks for the explanation. I use Aperture 3 though.
I'm still wondering why I don't have any sharpness problems elsewhere. Also it was fine before moving to V5 or whatever it is.


I was just thinking out loud really, in case it's an idea that anyone wants to explore. I've never been the fussiest of web sharpeners - a little clumsy at times in fact. I have got the FocalBlade plugin for Photoshop, which is a good way for me to put photos online in one of my vegetative states.

I haven't experienced the same problem as you though, Jean-Noel—photos for me are as clumsily sharp as they've always been on ePz. Maybe a browser or site setting? I noticed my photos were being slightly cropped a few months ago, which turned out to be an ePhotozine website setting needing a tweak. I'm assuming you view your ePhotozine pictures on the same monitor you edit them with?

[quote]I'm assuming you view your ePhotozine pictures on the same monitor you edit them with?[/quote] Yes.

Quote:I'm assuming you view your ePhotozine pictures on the same monitor you edit them with?

Yes.

[quote]Why are our photos not as sharp on EPZ when they were sharp on our screen at home?[/quote] As Mikehit notes, this is presumably to do with resolutions used on web screens. My feeling is that it doesn't just apply to our uploaded photos when viewed on-line. Photos merely viewed online at many sites, such as review samples , seem to be of a lesser quality than if they're saved to disc then evaluated using an image viewer.

Quote:Why are our photos not as sharp on EPZ when they were sharp on our screen at home?


As Mikehit notes, this is presumably to do with resolutions used on web screens.

My feeling is that it doesn't just apply to our uploaded photos when viewed on-line.

Photos merely viewed online at many sites, such as review samples , seem to be of a lesser quality than if they're saved to disc then evaluated using an image viewer.