Experiment in file saving...and by golly, I think I'm on the right track!

[MiniChris]

After reading several different posts last night, I figured out I was not saving my files in a manner that would show the best attributes of the image, both in clarity and color. This shot is almost exactly as it came out of the camera with only a little editing for dust spots which continue to plague my camera. I think I am going to set it up for a sensor clean each time I turn it on.

[tihsgod]

yes that is looking sharp!

[rob marshall]

Chris

Want to tell us what you did with the new method of saving?

[MiniChris]

I took your advice and saved the file size almost intact at 200dpi (though I think you said you save in RAW and I haven't quite accomplished that transition yet), only changing the pixel size to 700 initially, a bit more with the added framing.
Before, I changed the size to about 6.5-7 inches on the long side but had to cut the dpi to 96 to get it to size into the allotted space; hence, less than brilliant images.

[rob marshall]

Err... did I say 200dpi? I don't recall that. Sorry if I did, it's not important. It should be 72.

I use Photoshop save for web (SFW) in CS5 and I find it works very well. I'm not sure if it's the same in other versions. I find the preview panel (see below) very useful as you can change the quality settings and compare the result before you save. This one is of a 24MB PSD saved at 90 image quality, and you can see it compared to the original PSD. I made my file the same size as yours (737px long), and it came out at about the same file size of 250k. I have also included the actual JPEG from the save for web. I did sharpen it after I had saved it as this sometimes improves it. I think it depends on the shot. I set 'bicubic sharper' in the SFW dialogue as that's supposed to be best for reducing images.

I saved mine at 737px to keep it the same as yours, but there isn't normally much point in doing that. Anything over 700px gets rescaled here on CiC (but perhaps not elsewhere) and there may possibly be some loss of IQ in the rescaling - I'm not sure on that. If you want to post a larger original so members can do a 'view image' you might as well go to a much larger size, such as 1024px. It still gets rescaled here, but members can see the larger original and get a larger view of it in a different browser window. What I mean is, there isn't much view difference between 700 and 737, so why do it?

The other thing you could do is create your file at say 1600px and post it to Flickr. There you select a 700 version and get the link for posting on CiC, and provide a link to the 1600px version on Flickr and put that in your post as a URL link, rather than an IMG link. Snarkbyte did something like that today here

I'd be interested to hear what others do?



Final JPEG output. If you right click it and do view image info you will get the stats on the file (on Firefox at least). Splendid chap, isn't he?

[MiniChris]

Now it is back to the drawing board...I will check out the Save for Web option in CS5 and see what that does. I have so enjoyed the accelerated brillance in my prints since I started this and don't want to lose that as you can see in this latest go at image ouput...

[rob marshall]

Now it is back to the drawing board...I will check out the Save for Web option in CS5 and see what that does. I have so enjoyed the accelerated brillance in my prints since I started this and don't want to lose that as you can see in this latest go at image ouput...

As you have CS5, you should be able to do what I just did, but with your shot. As for the brilliance - there is an option in the quality settings for MAC viewing and that does come out brighter. Not sure what it does on Windows viewing though.

[rob marshall]

Chris

You might find this useful. If you don't want it in here let me know and I'll remove them.

This one is very practical. He covers saving normal images, and also logo files. Click the You Tube logo in BR corner to view on YT and get full screen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut_F7iGlze8

[bambleweeney]

I always use PS Save for Web. It sets the right colour space which if you work in Adobe or ProPhoto saves embarassment; I think it also sets 72dpi default. Firstly I resize the image to whatever is required (long side 700px for here - 640px for the website ... or whatever). Apply a touch of sharpening as appropriate and then Save for Web. (I'm using CS3) Seems totally reliable. Previously I often used to forget to change the colour space or the dpi with the resulting consequences. I once submitted a CD of images for a 'slideshow' and left the colour space at ProPhoto, only a couple of hundred people in the audience - it was hideous

[rob marshall]

Firstly I resize the image to whatever is required (long side 700px for here - 640px for the website ... or whatever). Apply a touch of sharpening as appropriate and then Save for Web. (I'm using CS3) Seems totally reliable.

That's interesting. I just load the original file and do SFW. Although before I got a 64bit 6GB machine it took a while to load the image in SFW. It's much quicker now.

[Geoff F]

Default monitor resolution does vary. 72 ppi is standard for USA while 96 ppi is the European standard. Although I haven't really noticed any real difference between the two. For best quality results, where file size doesn't matter, I find that 120 ppi does appear a little sharper.

That is all at best quality Jpeg setting. Increasing the Jpeg compression obviously reduces quality but makes a substantial saving in file size. It is all a question of compromise.

I still tend to do my image reduction using the basic Image Menu, and usually the Bicubic Sharpener option for substantial reduction. Then if the image has to conform to a fixed maximum file size I do a final check with Save For Web and adjust the Jpeg compression to suit. Also double check the output colour (sRGB) etc.

[Dave Humphries]

I'm gonna be stubborn

I have never understood the relevance of dpi and physical sizes when applied to downsizing an image for web use.
Why juggle with a ratio and physical size just to achieve an answer that's directly available in the droplist of downsize options? Namely Pixels.

Simply down size it to the number pixels you want it to be, job done, no maths involved: "KIS"


Personally, I don't trust "Save for web"; certainly on Elements 6, it had some undesirable effects, like stripping EXIF data (I never did find an option to stop it doing that).
It also encourages one to use the sharpening offered within the dialog which I found way too coarse in the radius department.

I'd rather retain complete control; so I downsize, sharpen and Save As, then if necessary, undo a couple of steps

Why this works for me:
I aways work in sRGB anyway, so I won't get caught with the wrong colourspace
I also don't print much, but again, when I do, I don't phaff around with dpi, I just print at the maximum resolution to the size of paper I have (A4 max).

I guess I'll have to update my prejudices with CS5 (now I have it), but until then ....

[purplehaze]

I am trying to apply all this to my configuration. I have been uploading my photos from Aperture 3 to Flickr using the Flickr Uploadr application and the latest version of Firefox. I haven't been manually saving my RAW photos, but just assumed Aperture was sending the best quality JPEG for Web Export. Now I am wondering whether Firefox isn't determining my Web Export quality as I see that the Firefox preferences for JPEG are to use the base operating system's (not Aperture's) Preview application, the quality of which is 8. Should I be choosing Aperture to handle my JPEGs or does the Firefox setting even enter into the equation when I am using the Flickr Uploadr application installed on my system? Aperture users, if you are out there, please stand up. I have other questions for you as well.

[Colin Southern]

I always use PS Save for Web. It sets the right colour space which if you work in Adobe or ProPhoto saves embarassment;

Unfortunately, (and off memory), it also strips out EXIF data, and thus makes it harder to give C&C.

By the way, I used to use Prophoto, but in reality, if a colour is so "far out" that it can't be represented in Adobe RGB then it's extremely unlikely that it can be printed or displayed anyway, so these days I just stick to Adobe RGB. Personally, I just created an sRGB action and have it as a 1-click button on my list of actions, so with one click I convert to 8 bit & sRGB.

[Colin Southern]

I have never understood the relevance of dpi and physical sizes when applied to downsizing an image for web use.
Why juggle with a ratio and physical size just to achieve an answer that's directly available in the droplist of downsize options? Namely Pixels.

I agree 100%

Additionally, most monitors are closer to 90 to 100 dpi these days anyway.

[MiniChris]

Err... did I say 200dpi? I don't recall that. Sorry if I did, it's not important. It should be 72.

I use Photoshop save for web (SFW) in CS5 and I find it works very well. I'm not sure if it's the same in other versions. I find the preview panel (see below) very useful as you can change the quality settings and compare the result before you save. This one is of a 24MB PSD saved at 90 image quality, and you can see it compared to the original PSD. I made my file the same size as yours (737px long), and it came out at about the same file size of 250k. I have also included the actual JPEG from the save for web. I did sharpen it after I had saved it as this sometimes improves it. I think it depends on the shot. I set 'bicubic sharper' in the SFW dialogue as that's supposed to be best for reducing images.

I saved mine at 737px to keep it the same as yours, but there isn't normally much point in doing that. Anything over 700px gets rescaled here on CiC (but perhaps not elsewhere) and there may possibly be some loss of IQ in the rescaling - I'm not sure on that. If you want to post a larger original so members can do a 'view image' you might as well go to a much larger size, such as 1024px. It still gets rescaled here, but members can see the larger original and get a larger view of it in a different browser window. What I mean is, there isn't much view difference between 700 and 737, so why do it?

The other thing you could do is create your file at say 1600px and post it to Flickr. There you select a 700 version and get the link for posting on CiC, and provide a link to the 1600px version on Flickr and put that in your post as a URL link, rather than an IMG link. Snarkbyte did something like that today here

I'd be interested to hear what others do?



Final JPEG output. If you right click it and do view image info you will get the stats on the file (on Firefox at least). Splendid chap, isn't he?

I tried this method and lost a lot of color detail. I saved it as an optimized image. Is that the correct format and what caused the loss of color?

[rob marshall]

Unfortunately, (and off memory), it also strips out EXIF data, and thus makes it harder to give C&C.

I think it used to. But in CS5 it saves it as an option. Look at the image EXIF in the shot directly above.

[purplehaze]

Now I am wondering whether Firefox isn't determining my Web Export quality

Okay, now I see that Uploadr connects directly to the Flickr website and only launches Firefox if I want to go to the website to organize my uploads. My Uploadr preferences are set to "Don't resize", which I think I chose because I wanted my family and friends to be able to download the best quality. Still, I do not understand what quality Aperture is sending when I have not manually saved. My workflow lately has been to open my RAW files in the camera manufacturer's software (Nikon or Canon, as the case may be) and then import them into Aperture and work with them as referenced files.

[rob marshall]

Okay, now I see that Uploadr connects directly to the Flickr website and only launches Firefox if I want to go to the website to organize my uploads.

That's right, mine does the same.

[MiniChris]

This should show the loss in color data...



Now, I am baffled as of the two I posted in the Nature thread the web one shows a significant loss of color..but in this one, albeit much smaller, you don't see it as much...