How can I downsize a photo for surfbirds (1 Viewer)

devon.birder · Sep 24, 2006

I have just started using a Canon 350D with a Sigma 170-500 lens and my photos are about 3.75MB. I thought I would post a photo of the Hayle Least Sandpiper on Surfbirds and as the maximum file size is 50KB I tried to downsize to 500 pixels width but the file was still too big. I ended up posting a photo about two inches wide. I used Photoshop Elements. As I would think many of the surfbirds photos are taken with DSLR cameras can anybody tell me what I am doing wrong. The surfbirds "help page" did not give me the answer. Roger

RAH · Sep 24, 2006

Your original attempt (500 pixels wide) is a good choice for an online image. Examining some of my own images around that size, they usually are around 50-70K. Try using more jpg compression (should be an option on the Save screen).

Roy C · Sep 24, 2006

devon.birder said:
I have just started using a Canon 350D with a Sigma 170-500 lens and my photos are about 3.75MB. I thought I would post a photo of the Hayle Least Sandpiper on Surfbirds and as the maximum file size is 50KB I tried to downsize to 500 pixels width but the file was still too big. I ended up posting a photo about two inches wide. I used Photoshop Elements. As I would think many of the surfbirds photos are taken with DSLR cameras can anybody tell me what I am doing wrong. The surfbirds "help page" did not give me the answer. Roger

500 pixels is ok but you need to use a medium (or less) quality jpeg. In CS2 this would be about quality 5 or 6.

devon.birder · Sep 24, 2006

Roy C said:
500 pixels is ok but you need to use a medium (or less) quality jpeg. In CS2 this would be about quality 5 or 6.

Thanks Roy, that was the answer I needed. I had been saving at quality 6 which was OK for photos taken with my Coolpix995 but too big for the Canon. I have now deleted the "mini" Least photo and replaced it with a larger one. I have also uploaded photos of Dotterel and Egyptian Goose taken with the Canon to two of the other Galleries. Roger

RAH · Sep 25, 2006

Isn't that what I said too?

danehower · Sep 25, 2006

Hey Roger , I am by no means a wisard at photo elements, but what I do when I want to downsize an image for posting is I go to IMAGE - then down to RESIZE - and then to IMAGE SIZE - and then in the PIXEL DIMENTION'S in the WIDTH I type 800 and then the hight is usually automaticaly compensated for - and then that seems to work for me. I am sure there is a much better way to do it - but I hope this helps

normjackson · Sep 25, 2006

RAH said:
Isn't that what I said too?

It's great being invisible RAH. You can say rude words like "botty" and nobody believes you :-O

devon.birder · Sep 25, 2006

RAH said:
Isn't that what I said too?

Sorry I did not thank you for your reply RAH, I was pleased to receive it even though I was probably too ignorant to understand what you meant. However as soon as Roy mentioned 5 and 6 I knew then what I had to do. Regards Roger

normjackson · Sep 25, 2006

If you're a Windows user, Roger, might be worth a look at the freebie called Easy Thumbs (been recommended here on BirdForum a few times) by Fookes (oops) software :
http://www.fookes.com/ezthumbs/
It has probably a more "interactive" way of producing resized versions than Photoshop Elements. Even if you don't stick with it, a play will at least give an improved feel for how levels of jpeg compression will affect your pictures' appearance and output size (read off top border). Also how combining a bit of sharpening with downsizing is usually a good idea. I expect there are similar products for the MAC.
Think I just found your photos; 19 September Roger Treeby. Very nice too

devon.birder · Sep 25, 2006

danehower said:
Hey Roger , I am by no means a wisard at photo elements, but what I do when I want to downsize an image for posting is I go to IMAGE - then down to RESIZE - and then to IMAGE SIZE - and then in the PIXEL DIMENTION'S in the WIDTH I type 800 and then the hight is usually automaticaly compensated for - and then that seems to work for me. I am sure there is a much better way to do it - but I hope this helps

Thanks Dave but that is what I used to do when I wanted to downsize photos taken with my Coolpix995 and by changing the pixels to 500 this did the trick in reducing the file size to the 50KB limit (the file limit for surfbirds.com gallery). However with photos taken with the Canon 350D by reducing to 500 pixels I ended up with a photo of just over two inches yet most of the photos in the galleries are nearer eight inches in width. I therefore knew there must be something else I should be doing and that something was to reduce the compression from 6 to 5 when saving the image. Easy when you know how but I was getting very frustrated by surfbirds rejecting my Least Sandpiper photos because they were over the file limit of 50KB even though I had recuced the pixel width to 500. Regards. Roger

devon.birder · Sep 25, 2006

normjackson said:
If you're a Windows user, Roger, might be worth a look at the freebie called Easy Thumbs (been recommended here on BirdForum a few times) by Fookes (oops) software :
http://www.fookes.com/ezthumbs/
It has probably a more "interactive" way of producing resized versions than Photoshop Elements. Even if you don't stick with it, a play will at least give an improved feel for how levels of jpeg compression will affect your pictures' appearance and output size (read off top border). Also how combining a bit of sharpening with downsizing is usually a good idea. I expect there are similar products for the MAC.
Think I just found your photos; 19 September Roger Treeby. Very nice too

Thanks for that, I have just downloaded Easy Thumbs and will give it a try later. Many of the photos on surfbirds.com are much larger in width than mine even though I reduced the pixel width to the suggested 500 and used factor 5 instead of my usual 6. It will be interesting to see what result factor 4 will give. I also posted a Dotterel on the Scarce Gallery and an Egyptian Goose on the Common Gallery. Regards. Roger

Roy C · Sep 25, 2006

devon.birder said:
Thanks for that, I have just downloaded Easy Thumbs and will give it a try later. Many of the photos on surfbirds.com are much larger in width than mine even though I reduced the pixel width to the suggested 500 and used factor 5 instead of my usual 6. It will be interesting to see what result factor 4 will give. I also posted a Dotterel on the Scarce Gallery and an Egyptian Goose on the Common Gallery. Regards. Roger

Reducing the jpeg quality will not change the physical size of the image it just reduces the file size in kb's. 500 pixels is 500 pixels no matter what the quality is. The only time it will look different is if you view it on different resolution monitors.
p.s. are you using 72 dpi as this is all that is required for web viewing.
Edit: Frank is right, dpi is only relevant when printing an image.

hollis_f · Sep 26, 2006

Roy C said:
p.s. are you using 72 dpi as this is all that is required for web viewing.

Actually, for web viewing, the dpi value is unimportant. On a 1024x768 screen a picture that's 512 pixels wide will take up half the screen width, whether it's 72 dpi or 72000 dpi.

How can I downsize a photo for surfbirds (1 Viewer)

More options

devon.birder

Well-known member

RAH

Well-known member

Roy C

Occasional bird snapper

devon.birder

Well-known member

RAH

Well-known member

danehower

Well-known member

normjackson

Well-known member

devon.birder

Well-known member

normjackson

Well-known member

devon.birder

Well-known member

devon.birder

Well-known member

Roy C

Occasional bird snapper

hollis_f

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread