Resizing images

[Steve S]

I resize my images, and then re-sharpen. Then upload to photobucket at the same size. When viewed at 100%, they look fine, but i often view web pages at 125%(and bet alot of othes do as well) and my images look like crap. Is there anything you can do about this? I also notice a few people post images and it doesn't seem to affect their resolution. What are they doing different?

I'm using file>save for web & devices----saving as png---bicubic sharper---saving and then resharpening--uploading to photobucket.

Are the images sharper if you just paste into a thread?

[PopsPhotos]

It pretty much universally accepted that "save for web" should never be used. Because I don't use it, I can't speak from experience.

I just choose "image->resize" and fiddle with the size from there. I generally save my web pictures at 130 pixel resample density, although most instructions tell you to use 72 pixels.

Pops

[Overread]

Why view web pages at 125%? It stands to reason if the webbrowser is upscaling the image from a small JPEG without apply any sharpening that its going to look rubishy

Myself I would also say leave photobucket and move to flickr. Granted flickr makes more of a case to pay for their services on an annual basis (its less than half the cost of a years magazine subscription); but they offer a lot more in the long term (no upload limits nor storage limits - whilst even a paid photobucket account has these limits). Plus a more easy to work with interface (photobucket is so bloated with ads and other things these days).
Further more upload say a 1000pixel image on the longest side and flickr makes resizes in smaller scales itself - and each one has a good sharpening code go over it so they are usable resized versions.
Finally photobucket has some nasties in its terms and conditions (royalty free no limits of any image whilst its uploaded to their site) whilst flickr has no such dirty tricks in its terms and conditions.

edit: my method
Edit shot fully and sharpen - save as PSD fullsized
Resize image to 2000pixels on the longest side and sharpen (as much as needed) again
Resize down to 1000pixels and sharpen again (typically only a small amount is needed here).
Upload 1000pixel version to flickr - use the 500 versions that are auto made for forums with a link to the large 1000pixel version.

I only use save for web if the website states that images must be under a certain file size.

[Colin Southern]

Is there anything you can do about this?

The short answer is "don't view them at 125%" I'm afraid. I suspect that higher resolutions will be less affected, but there isn't a perfect solution that I know of.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Steve, et al,

My thoughts:

I use jpg, not png, I have no experience how png behaves.

I most definitely do not recommend "Save for Web" (from an adobe product) because it also kills the EXIF data (but it's not the only thing that does that).
Also, using the "Save for Web" interface for the down sizing might seem like a time saver, but it is at the expense of control of quality.

If you are manually applying post resize sharpening, I would avoid "bicubic sharper" because you can end up with halos.

I also support the view that if you view any image at other than 100% in your browser, you throw all the quality the person saving put in, out the window.
I do sometimes zoom my browser; e.g. to slouch back and read from a greater distance (and make use of the full screen width) but I am very careful to "Ctrl+0" to reset it to 100% before I critically review any image for sharpness or noise, because I know the browser zoom destroys meaningful analysis. The thing is - certain resolutions might be a multiple of browser zoom, leading to variability between zoom factor for different sized originals, some can appear almost acceptable as you mention Steve, but it is luck of the drawer and very unreliable, so I would always go to 100% to assess an image, iiwy.

I don't use the "double downsize with sharpening" method, but if done carefully, I see no harm in it.

Are the images sharper if you just paste into a thread?

You cannot paste an image into a thread (like you can in an e-mail), so it has to be hosted somewhere and linked from there. What "makes them sharper" is doing the resize to the intended final viewing size yourself and sharpening after, then hosting and displaying all at the same size. Don't let anyone mess with your pixels

If you want this to be without effort on the viewer's part and the image doesn't need to be "screen filling" for effect, make them 698, 699 or 700 (not >700) on longest side. If you need bigger, make 'em bigger, within limits (say 1200 width). Personally, I find the flickr 500px size too small for analysis, but maybe that's my eyes

HTH,

[agaace]

My guess is, on your website you could probably put a ton of cumbersome JavaScript to detect browser zoom level and handle it properly, or you could use a photo viewer in Silverlight or Flash that handles it gracefully. Just not worth the effort in my opinion.
And not possible on forums. But then, on photography forums like this, there are people who know something about images, and won't be looking at them at anything else than 100% zoom level. So again - why bother

[Steve S]

Thanks everyone for the info. Just something that has been bothering me.

A png file is more along the lines of a TIFF file. The only way you can convert to it is with save for web function. The only down side i see, is you have to retrieve your file for sharpening and then save again.

Never tried the 2 stage method................is it worth the effort?

[Overread]

To be honest I've never done a comparative test under controled conditions. I find that often the first sharpening pass and the second are very similar in amounts whilst the last stage is only around 20ish in amount. (radius 0.8 and threshold 4 for all in unsharpen mask). I also don't boast a great understanding of sharpening itself (nor editing in general ) but I've found this method works for me, the results are pleasing and even using photoshop elements I find that the process takes only a few moments per shot.

[Terry Tedor]

I'm curious, when y'all say "I most definitely do not recommend "Save for Web" (from an adobe product)..." or "It pretty much universally accepted that "save for web" should never be used." are you specifically refering to CS4 "Save for Web & Devices" or am I missing something?

Thanks.

[Steve S]

I really don't know what they are talking about. I've used it and the png-24 file is a little better than the jpeg. (colors and sharpness) The only thing you have to do is retrieve your file and resharpen it after resizing.

[Dave Humphries]

I'm curious, when y'all say "I most definitely do not recommend "Save for Web" (from an adobe product)..." or "It pretty much universally accepted that "save for web" should never be used." are you specifically refering to CS4 "Save for Web & Devices"?

I wasn't being specific about CS4 at all. Perhaps the "an" in my sentence should have been "any". Since I strongly suspect they all work the same way, at least, I have yet to see anything contradict my opinion.

~ or am I missing something?

I don't know you don't normally
I pretty much agree with what you reply to other's posts and it usually saves me saying the same thing

Cheers,

[Terry Tedor]

I wasn't being specific about CS4 at all. Perhaps the "an" in my sentence should have been "any". Since I strongly suspect they all work the same way, at least, I have yet to see anything contradict my opinion.



I don't know you don't normally
I pretty much agree with what you reply to other's posts and it usually saves me saying the same thing

Cheers,

Thanks!

I just wanted to make sure, because CS4 doesn't have a "Save for Web" just the "Save for Web & Devices", but I do imagine it's the same code running in the background no matter what Adobe product you're using.

[PopsPhotos]

I have no direct experience with "save for web" and I use half a dozen various products for pp, up to PSE 7. However, in my travels around a fair number of photography sites, I have seen the admonition to not use that method many times. That was why I stated "pretty much universally ... "

Pops

[Terry Tedor]

I have no direct experience with "save for web" and I use half a dozen various products for pp, up to PSE 7. However, in my travels around a fair number of photography sites, I have seen the admonition to not use that method many times. That was why I stated "pretty much universally ... "

Pops

Were there any specific reasons given as to why you shouldn't use it? I've never had any trouble with it. As a matter of fact, I've found that it does indeed pass EXIF data from the parent image to the jpeg output. Now I'm wondering if I'm missing something?

Terry

[ninaamanda]

Depends on the sharpening amount, too. It pops out when zoomed in, so you can't use very high values and expect to retain image quality.

[PopsPhotos]

Were there any specific reasons given as to why you shouldn't use it? I've never had any trouble with it. As a matter of fact, I've found that it does indeed pass EXIF data from the parent image to the jpeg output. Now I'm wondering if I'm missing something?

Terry

Degradation of quality is the primary reason given, with lack of control being the next most common one.

Pops

[Terry Tedor]

Degradation of quality is the primary reason given, with lack of control being the next most common one.

Pops

Sorry, not trying to be dense here, but how does using "Save for Web..." result in any more "degradation of quality" than using some other engine to convert from .psd, .tif or whatever your preferred format is to JPEG and if it does, what is the preferred conversion method? And could you be a little more definitive regarding "lack of control? The "Save for Web" has so many options, I don't know where to begin sometimes.

[Dave Humphries]

Sorry, not trying to be dense here, but how does using "Save for Web..." result in any more "degradation of quality" than using some other engine to convert from .psd, .tif or whatever your preferred format is to JPEG and if it does, what is the preferred conversion method? And could you be a little more definitive regarding "lack of control? The "Save for Web" has so many options, I don't know where to begin sometimes.

Hi Terry,

In Elements 6, while there appears to be a lot of options, the reality is that when saving as a jpg, I can only control two things;
jpg quality - there are about 6 different ways of doing this - overkill, and
image size - I can set by pixels, with or without constrain proportions, or in percent ratio from current size

I don't want to be colour correcting, putting mattes or borders on, etc., when saving, so the rest is irrelevant to me, even if I could figure it out.

The important bits are:
I have no control over (or even knowledge of) the sizing algorithm used; bicubic, bicubic smother/sharper, etc.
I cannot sharpen it, except by opening the smaller image in its own edit session, sharpening, then saving again, thus I just sharpened the jpg artefacts of the first save and added more with the second

I do not see a good side to this, sorry

[Terry Tedor]

Why not just resize in CS4 or Elements and then "Save for Web" without any resizing? Gives you control over the resizing method and allows you to use USM for sharpening. I've never used "Save for Web" to resize or sharpen and, to be quite honest, I was never aware that these options were available nor did it ever occur to me that they might be. Goes to show how close I pay attention.

Other than possibly adding one step to the workflow, I see no other drawbacks. Am I missing something still?

I cannot sharpen it, except by opening the smaller image in its own edit session, sharpening, then saving again, thus I just sharpened the jpg artefacts of the first save and added more with the second

I do not see a good side to this, sorry

You must be editing in camera JPEG's, right?

[Dave Humphries]

Why not just resize in CS4 or Elements and then "Save for Web" without any resizing?

Exactly, and if you don't use them, why not just use Save As instead?

I think we've got to the same point

The problem as I see it, is that people new to PS and PSE might find this menu item called 'Save for Web' and think; "this is great, I can do eveything I need in one go, all in one dialog" then after a while, they begin to wonder why their pictures are never as sharp as other people's, they get sad, come here and we put them straight

Cheers,