• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

reducing the image size (1 Viewer)

ammadoux

Registered doux
Hello all.

got an image for the camera that is 5.67 Mb, i want to upload it here on BF without cropping, only like to add a frame, how can i do this without losing the IQ.

i am using either PSE7 or Photoflilter.

thanks so much.
 
I don't profess to be an expert at this myself, but I think you will have to resize your image due to the image dimension constraints allowed for upload (this is different to cropping). For jpg's this is 800x800 pixels. This will inevitably lose some IQ. Once you have an image of the correct dimensions, try "saving for web". This will get your file size down below the upload limit. Can't suggest any other way of doing this.
 
Dulce, in PSE7 you need to make the longest side around, say, 800 pixels and then do a 'save as' and make the jpeg quality so that the file size is under 200kb (usually around jpeg quality 6 to 8 depending on the image). You can also do a 'save for the web' instead of a 'save as' if you want - the only differences is that the EXIF is stripped in the 'save for the web' option as far as I can see, file sizes will be very similar in both methods. I personally prefer using 'save as' as I find getting the optional file size a bit easier (and I like to leave the EXIF intact).

edit: BF do allow file sizes up to 325kb but you do not really need them that big and people with slowish internet connections could get a little miffed loading the larger files.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Roy. Usually I'm not interested in the size in pixels, so I work with the size in inches. My pics for web are saved at a jpeg quality of 9.
 
You can also do a 'save for the web' instead of a 'save as' if you want - the only differences is that the EXIF is stripped in the 'save for the web' option as far as I can see, file sizes will be very similar in both methods.


Roy C - thanks for reiterating my suggestions.

In my limited experience of saving for web, I don't think it's true to say that this method produces similar file sizes to using 'save as'. It will obviously depend on the size of the original image, but in my experience 'save for web' can produce much smaller file sizes.
 
Last edited:
Roy C - thanks for reiterating my suggestions.

In my limited experience of saving for web, I don't think it's true to say that this method produces similar file sizes to using 'save as'. It will obviously depend on the size of the original image, but in my experience 'save for web' can produce much smaller file sizes.
It may produce much smaller file sizes for you but it most certainly does not for me and I have tried it thousands of times (especially when I was starting out) - assuming the jpeg compression is the same for each file then all you would save is the EXIF data which is negligible. As I see it the main difference is when you use 'save for the web' the programme determines the amount of compression depending on some simple selections but when you use 'Save as' you are in full control of the amount of compression (e.g. file size).
I would not knock anyone who uses 'save for the web' each to their own - personally I hate it.
 
I personally like the "save for web" because the reduction in pixel number can happen as part of that process instead of having been done independently before hitting "save as". However, I hate the fact that exif is stripped by "save for web".

I don't think there is a difference in the size of the final size of a file in the two processes, I agree with Roy that it probably comes down to different compression levels being chosen.

Niels
 
Thanks Niels.
I've only used Save for web once (I did say I had limited experience!). I needed to get an image below a certain file size for uploading to a web page, and could not achieve this by using Save As, even with the maximum amount of compression possible. In desperation I tried Save for web and was pleasantly surprised that this achieved the file size easily.
As you suggest, it may have achieved this by reducing pixel number. I must check this when I'm next on the PC containing the images referred to.
Kevin
 
Thanks Niels.
I've only used Save for web once (I did say I had limited experience!). I needed to get an image below a certain file size for uploading to a web page, and could not achieve this by using Save As, even with the maximum amount of compression possible. In desperation I tried Save for web and was pleasantly surprised that this achieved the file size easily.
As you suggest, it may have achieved this by reducing pixel number. I must check this when I'm next on the PC containing the images referred to.
Kevin
Kevin, just a little tip if using 'save as' for a jpeg.As you reduce the jpeg quality there will be an indication of the file size somewhere on the screen, you need to be aware of this size and just carry on reducing the quality until the file size reaches what you want.

The main difference in PS is that 'save as' uses a jpeg quality scale of 1-12 wheareas save for the web uses 0-100 but they are much the same thing (e.g. save as quality 6 is much the same as save for the web quality 50).

There will be very little difference in file sizes given an equal amount of jpeg compression, save for the web will give a slightly smaller file for reasons already mentioned in this thread but the difference will be minimal.

If you are already fully conversant with the two methods then please ignore this post but your comment about not being able to reach a file size by using save as but it was easily achievable when using save for the web suggest to me that maybe a little help is in order.

Hope this helps.
 
Hi,

One rather big difference between Save of Web and Save As is that SoW will automatically convert 16-bit images to 8-bit. At least in CS2 you have to do that manually before using Save As if you want to save as JPEG. That said, I always use Save As for two reasons: 1) it offers me more control, and 2) I have experienced a couple of times that the resulting image was considerably duller and grayer when I used Save for Web compared to Save As. Interestingly, this has only happened when I have saved lager images (say 1200*800px) for slide shows, and not when I have save normal (900*600px) for the web...

Thomas
 
Hi,

One rather big difference between Save of Web and Save As is that SoW will automatically convert 16-bit images to 8-bit. At least in CS2 you have to do that manually before using Save As if you want to save as JPEG. That said, I always use Save As for two reasons: 1) it offers me more control, and 2) I have experienced a couple of times that the resulting image was considerably duller and grayer when I used Save for Web compared to Save As. Interestingly, this has only happened when I have saved lager images (say 1200*800px) for slide shows, and not when I have save normal (900*600px) for the web...

Thomas
You are right about the auto conversion from 16 bit to 8 bit Thomas, it is the same in CS4 - You have to do a Image > Mode > 8 bits/channel, I have been doing this for so long that it has become second nature to me.

Another thing that can influence the file size a bit when using 'save as' is the jpeg conversion method you use, I always use Baseline ("Standard") but you can reduce the file size slightly by using one of the other two methods if you want.

At the end of the day I see the two methods as being very similar and it comes down to a personal choice. If you want to get rid of the EXIF and do not want to convert to 8 bits yourself then use SFW but if you do not mind a few extra keystrokes in converting and want to retain the EXIF then go for 'save as'.

I must admit that I have never been happy with some of the results I have gotten from using 'save for the web' , I have always put it down to something I might have been doing wrong but I have not got a clue what as it is basically a fully automated process. I do feel happier doing a 'save as' because like you, I feel more in control.
When saving for a Gallery like BF I like to get the files size as near as I can to just under 200 kb and find it an absolute doodle to do this by just moving the quality slider. I also like to retain the EXIF data as a couple of critique sites I use insist upon it when submitting an image and although I could always retrieve it from the raw file it is convenient to me to be able to access it at will from the jpeg file. I also like looking at other peoples EXIF at times but that is just be nosey I guess :-O

Disclaimer – I am just an amateur/hobbyist snapper and do not claim to be an expert so take what I say with a pinch of salt.. Be warned, my thoughts will probably be challenged by the more knowledgeable ;)
 
I use the freeware Irfanview for most of my quick and easy image editing needs.
 

Attachments

  • irfanV.jpg
    irfanV.jpg
    153.8 KB · Views: 39
  • 4-4-2010 2-03-19 AM.jpg
    4-4-2010 2-03-19 AM.jpg
    158.4 KB · Views: 48
  • 4-4-2010 2-11-31 AM.jpg
    4-4-2010 2-11-31 AM.jpg
    135.9 KB · Views: 35
Last edited:
As an update to my last post, I have just had a gander at 'save for the web' in CS4 and it looks like you can include the Metadata if you want. I have just save one as a test and it shows varying amounts of EXIF info depending on the software I use to interrogate it with. With the standard windows photo info it just shows some of the shooting details (see attached image) but if you open it in Photo shop it still retains all the shooting data - strange!
 

Attachments

  • metadata.jpg
    metadata.jpg
    97.9 KB · Views: 36
Kevin, just a little tip if using 'save as' for a jpeg.As you reduce the jpeg quality there will be an indication of the file size somewhere on the screen, you need to be aware of this size and just carry on reducing the quality until the file size reaches what you want.

If you are already fully conversant with the two methods then please ignore this post but your comment about not being able to reach a file size by using save as but it was easily achievable when using save for the web suggest to me that maybe a little help is in order.

Hope this helps.

Thanks Roy. I'm fully familiar with using Save As, and with the file size indication in the jpeg compression dialog window. Like yourself, I too have been using this method for years. As said previously, for the image mentioned, I could not reduce the file size below what I needed even with the compression slider moved completely to the left. However, when I used SFW on the same image, the file size was reduced well within what I needed.

I haven't checked yet, but this may have been a reduction in bit mode, or a reduction in pixel number which I was unaware of being applied. I must experiment to understand how this works. I too prefer having full control of setting changes, and in being in charge of the machine, rather than the other way round!
 
Digital cameras produce huge file sizes. There are many free websites like Image Optimizer, Web Resizer, Image Resizer, Shrink Pictures to help you create smaller images. Reduced file size enables faster loading, better management of the pictures and space saving - without loss of picture quality. These products can also help you convert images between different formats.
 
I always use Save For the Web, after I have reduced the longest side to 800 pixels, as I find it so easy. I have had similar problems to Astrokev when using Save As, as I end up with a file which is still too big. When using SFW I open up the Optimize Menu (extreme top right of the main window) and you can then choose the desired final file size. It then does the calculations for you. I am not too bothered about losing the Exif data as I am sure people won't learn much of use from my photos. As Roy said, it is possible to configure it to retain some Exif data anyway.

One other benefit for me from using SFW is that as default it converts images to sRGB colour space. As I normally use Adobe RGB at work for print purposes, I sometimes forget to change to sRGB before editing photos and the colour changes noticeably when using SFW. This reminds me to have another go at editing them in sRGB. This shouldn't be a problem with a competent operator!

I think it depends on which method suits you best. There is not a lot to choose between them.

Ron
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 14 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top