I like the colours and the multiple eyes

[JBW]

Sony Alpha a58 / Tamron 90mm Lens. ISO 200, F/14, 1/80s, Flash Compensation -2.0

[Stagecoach]

Brian, I'm not sure why you are downloading such large file sizes? 3 Meg

[JBW]

Brian, I'm not sure why you are downloading such large file sizes? 3 Meg

I'm not sure either. Capture 1 tells me it ~2mb. I crop and then down size to a width of 2000. Usually it is 1mb sometimes like this one 2mb but never 3. I posted this to Wordpress and then brought it in the way I usually do.

[Stagecoach]

I suspect it's the 'quality' you set when saving your downsized jpeg Brian, but I'm not sure what options you have.

All applications I use show it as it's 3.2 MB. I mentioned it because it takes so long to open some of your images now on my system due to our internet speeds here.

[JBW]

I suspect it's the 'quality' you set when saving your downsized jpeg Brian, but I'm not sure what options you have.

All applications I use show it as it's 3.2 MB. I mentioned it because it takes so long to open some of your images now on my system due to our internet speeds here.

alright I am using 100% quality. What would you suggest?

[Stagecoach]

alright I am using 100% quality. What would you suggest?

For a 1400 PX wide image I save it to give a file size somewhere between 300 to 500 KB, for Tiny pic use and for loading to my website.

This the KB varies a bit depending upon the image detail.

[Dave Humphries]

I am using 100% quality. What would you suggest?

I use a jpg quality of 75% (or 9 of 12).

I did extensive (pixel peeping) testing in my early days of digital shooting and on-line display and for viewing alone (i.e. downsized and sharpened for on line viewing only), there is no benefit in saving at a higher quality - all it does is increase file size.

If saving for potential future editing, I wouldn't by choice use jpg, but if I had to, then I might countenance using a higher quality than 75%.

Equally, since few monitors are 'taller' than 1050 or 1080 pixels and most people are viewing in a 'landscape' (aka horizontal) orientation, there's little point in downsizing an image that will result in a height of more than say 900 - 950 pixels (to allow for browser banner, etc.) - regardless of the image aspect ratio.

Unless for specific technical reasons; e.g. IQ analysis of lens defects, or to enjoy a huge 'blow up' of a stitched panoramic scene, anything taller is usually just an inconvenience to most viewers.

I'm afraid this image doesn't have the inherent sharpness to be enjoyed at the size provided, it would look better downsized more (e.g. 1000 wide x 967 tall)) and output sharpened with USM 100% at 0.3 px - so it could be viewed at 1:1 pixel matched to a typical display.

[billtils]

Brian

These settings in C1 should do the trick for an upload for viewing as a digital image: File > Export > Variant > Resolution = 72 or 96 (doesn't really matter) > Scale long edge = anything between 1020 and 1400.

Bill

[JBW]

I did my best to incorporate all of the suggestions. The unsharpen mask in Gimp doesn't have the same way of measuring as yours does Dave. But I think everything is closer

[Ziggy]

When I used Gimp I would export out of Gimp as a jpeg and reduce the quality to about 85 with the slider.

[Wavelength]

Very nice image

[zkogut]

I had a very similar image once using a black graduation cap and a overhead flash. Good work.

[Shadowman]

Nicely captured.