RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
dcsang said:
Sure it's possible to do, and "just fine," but in fairness to Avotius, unless you change your workflow and correct/plan for a web-sized (<150kb) output there is a difference between a higher quality image and the same image saved out to medium quality. I tried it out yesterday. I worked on a 72 dpi/high quality image and then saved the out to medium quality. The result was a very distinct difference.
Jorge said that he would increase the current 150kb limit. We're waiting.
.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
RayPA said:Sure it's possible to do, and "just fine," but in fairness to Avotius, unless you change your workflow and correct/plan for a web-sized (<150kb) output there is a difference between a higher quality image and the same image saved out to medium quality. I tried it out yesterday. I worked on a 72 dpi/high quality image and then saved the out to medium quality. The result was a very distinct difference.
Jorge said that he would increase the current 150kb limit. We're waiting.
.
Now that I've posted this. I have to admit I just posted the two images to my pBase site and honestly...I can't see the same difference that I see between the two images in Photoshop. Can anyone else see a difference? See Here.
.
ampguy
Veteran
Yes I do see a difference
Yes I do see a difference
If there is demand for low bandwidth critiques, how about making it a theme?
Default img is on in critiques, so it would not burden the site at all for critiques to load inline img's until/unless thumnail sizes are increased.
It's fine that Dave thinks his mega compression with $700 software is "good enough", but it's silly for him to expect others to accept this.
Some folks are happy with 128kbps mp3 audio, and many others are not. Why resort to name calling to folks who happen to disagree?
btw, my screen I'm typing on now is 120dpi, not 72.
Yes I do see a difference
If there is demand for low bandwidth critiques, how about making it a theme?
Default img is on in critiques, so it would not burden the site at all for critiques to load inline img's until/unless thumnail sizes are increased.
It's fine that Dave thinks his mega compression with $700 software is "good enough", but it's silly for him to expect others to accept this.
Some folks are happy with 128kbps mp3 audio, and many others are not. Why resort to name calling to folks who happen to disagree?
btw, my screen I'm typing on now is 120dpi, not 72.
RayPA said:
R
Rich Silfver
Guest
150K is a pretty normal size limit for photos posted to online galleries/critique board and I've personally never had a problem creating 750-800 wide images that were 150K or less - without significant (read: visible on a screen) loss of detail.
Seems like a good file size and should significantly reduce the storage cost. Uploading a file of 6-700K for online viewing at a fan-based forum seems like extreme overkill.
Seems like a good file size and should significantly reduce the storage cost. Uploading a file of 6-700K for online viewing at a fan-based forum seems like extreme overkill.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Seeing as how there is a difference that can be seen; would you care to point out those differences; that is, without blowing up the image as it currently exists (i.e. leave the image size as Ray has uploaded and point out the differences in the image - do not blow up the image to find those differences either)
I'd be happy to upload a full res 5D image here just so people can see how crisp and sharp etc. etc. etc. the image is but really, it doesn't do anyone any good and, in the end, it sucks bandwidth.
While most of us do have broadband network connectivity, there are, like it or not, many folks who do not. As such, you still have to accommodate them.
If you feel that 300dpi is appropriate, then please, upload 300dpi images.
Perhaps Jorge would be better off not setting a "kb" limit so much as a "pixel" limit. That being a limit on image dimensions vs file size.
And btw, one does not need "$700 software" to resize an image. It's quite simple to do with freeware or even image software that comes with many cameras - Adobe Elements is a whopping $99 for the full version and it can do resizing. $99 too much? Hey, use Google and check out some of the shareware that's out there.. Photolightning can do the resizing and much more and it costs $40 - so Photoshop is not a requirement but it just happens that's what the "standard" is for professionals.
Dave
I'd be happy to upload a full res 5D image here just so people can see how crisp and sharp etc. etc. etc. the image is but really, it doesn't do anyone any good and, in the end, it sucks bandwidth.
While most of us do have broadband network connectivity, there are, like it or not, many folks who do not. As such, you still have to accommodate them.
If you feel that 300dpi is appropriate, then please, upload 300dpi images.
Perhaps Jorge would be better off not setting a "kb" limit so much as a "pixel" limit. That being a limit on image dimensions vs file size.
And btw, one does not need "$700 software" to resize an image. It's quite simple to do with freeware or even image software that comes with many cameras - Adobe Elements is a whopping $99 for the full version and it can do resizing. $99 too much? Hey, use Google and check out some of the shareware that's out there.. Photolightning can do the resizing and much more and it costs $40 - so Photoshop is not a requirement but it just happens that's what the "standard" is for professionals.
Dave
ampguy
Veteran
Hi guys,
I'm not here to argue. If you're happy with 8" wide (long side) images at 150kb, more power to you.
I'm not, and I do see the difference in quality on screen.
The rules state they are to be images posted here, not img'd and hosted elsewhere (although img is *enabled* in these forums, and would cost RFF less than storing on RFF).
Has anyone asked for a low res, low bandwidth critique theme for dial-up? If they have, there is no reason to not have them, but the rules now allow for 8" photos. For me, 150kb for 8" photos degrades the quality significantly.
Do you guys promoting thumbnail sized images, even use the critiques? Ever used color? Didn't think so.
I'm not here to argue. If you're happy with 8" wide (long side) images at 150kb, more power to you.
I'm not, and I do see the difference in quality on screen.
The rules state they are to be images posted here, not img'd and hosted elsewhere (although img is *enabled* in these forums, and would cost RFF less than storing on RFF).
Has anyone asked for a low res, low bandwidth critique theme for dial-up? If they have, there is no reason to not have them, but the rules now allow for 8" photos. For me, 150kb for 8" photos degrades the quality significantly.
Do you guys promoting thumbnail sized images, even use the critiques? Ever used color? Didn't think so.
Dougg
Seasoned Member
My trouble with the 150k limit is that for some time now I've been keeping my files intended for upload between 150k and 160k, so I'll have a bunch of re-editing to do. I also note that if I've already uploaded the file elsewhere in RFF, the system points to the old location and prevents me from uploading it again... makes sense if storage space is getting tighter.
I also note that if I've already uploaded the file elsewhere in RFF, the system points to the old location and prevents me from uploading it again... makes sense if storage space is getting tighter.
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
I have images ready for upload above 150kB too and am less then satisfied that each one will need reworking.
Or maybe i'll just forget it and not upload.
Or maybe i'll just forget it and not upload.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
RayPA said:
The net on the second one is much less sharp, especially on the bottom half of the image. On the top half, there's the usual weird JPG compression artifact between the wires. just look under the letter M.
Sure 150kb is fine for 8-bit BW at a smallish size with very careful compression.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Makes no sense what you pro-150K guys are arguing about. Nobody wants the possibility to upload fuill frame DSLR (or M*, if you prefer) images, not even 6-700K files.
The difference between 150k and 250k is already considerable.
Better don't put an "unlimited" portfolio option and allow for bigger file sizes, i would say. On some point, it's quality against quantity.
The difference between 150k and 250k is already considerable.
Better don't put an "unlimited" portfolio option and allow for bigger file sizes, i would say. On some point, it's quality against quantity.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
What the ****, why is M-eight a bad word?
This will change soon.
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
Jorge: thank you. (Assuming that'change' means increase and not decrease!)
150KB increased to 300KB
150KB increased to 300KB
the problem with large file sizes is their effect on server speed, bandwidth, and long term storage.
After talking it over with George, the upload file size has been incrased to 300KB, but it is not going back up to the old limit.
Stephen
150KB increased to 300KB
the problem with large file sizes is their effect on server speed, bandwidth, and long term storage.
After talking it over with George, the upload file size has been incrased to 300KB, but it is not going back up to the old limit.
Stephen
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
Stephen: 300kB sounds fine to me here. Thank you.
Avotius
Some guy
300 is great, 200 would have been fine too, thanks
jmilkins
Digited User
HI folks
I used to have trouble sometimes using PS to resize the image - No probs now, as I understand the workflow better.
But someone on this forum mentioned Infranview freeware which is very easy and quick. http://www.irfanview.com/
Probably does the same as PS but the GUI seems easier. Generally, I do any manipulation first in PS, save a higher res printable file to A3 size if it's a decent enough image and then resize in Infranview for RFF. Extra work - probably, but its a way that I've found acceptable and Iranview seems to produce lower file sizes than the PS resize. I've not noticed critcally important differences at the intended 800 px long viewing size.
I used to have trouble sometimes using PS to resize the image - No probs now, as I understand the workflow better.
But someone on this forum mentioned Infranview freeware which is very easy and quick. http://www.irfanview.com/
Probably does the same as PS but the GUI seems easier. Generally, I do any manipulation first in PS, save a higher res printable file to A3 size if it's a decent enough image and then resize in Infranview for RFF. Extra work - probably, but its a way that I've found acceptable and Iranview seems to produce lower file sizes than the PS resize. I've not noticed critcally important differences at the intended 800 px long viewing size.
ampguy
Veteran
Thanks Stephen
Thanks Stephen
This helps a lot.
Thanks Stephen
This helps a lot.
CameraQuest said:
Dougg
Seasoned Member
Agreed; thanks! The more bokeh is evident in the photo, the easier it is to get the file-size down, but I generally have no trouble getting down into the 150k range with images smaller than 800 pixels on the long side. I use GraphicConverter, and it's just an easy adjustment of the jpeg compression. But shots with more detail and texture are more resistant to compression. I'll still try to keep files below 160k, with few exceptions, and I appreciate the extra elbow-room now allowed!Avotius said:
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
Jorge Torralba said:
Jorge and Stephen, thanks for hearing us, and thanks for raising the limit.