Pherdinand
the snow must go on
So. Here I go, trying to upload a few new shots. Colour ones this time. 700x700-ish.
Hell no. What a bad idea.:bang:
OK, reduce pixel count.
We are at 600x500-something.
Not good enough.:bang: :bang:
Try without the colour profile embeded. Only 4k less.
Try to increase jpeg compression. Level 6. A bit still too much. Level 5. A few kbytes still too much. Level 4. Entering quality range LOW, so says Photoshop. Finally, under 150 kbytes. Not by much, though!
Here it is. Look for yourself.
The sky is totally f@ked up. The deails are smeared out at most places.
I don't know what happened to the last post on this subject, where things like increase to 300k were mentioned... For smallish grayscale shots it is still almost enough...see here...
but come on, guys, if you can compress a colour shot to such a level and still keep it enjoyable pls tell me the secret.
I'm grateful for a free rff gallery and everything, but still.
Better put a limit on the nr of uploaded shots, coz this sucks.
W all my respect
Pherdinand.
Hell no. What a bad idea.:bang:
OK, reduce pixel count.
We are at 600x500-something.Not good enough.:bang: :bang:
Try without the colour profile embeded.
Only 4k less. Try to increase jpeg compression.
Level 6. A bit still too much. Level 5. A few kbytes still too much. Level 4. Entering quality range LOW, so says Photoshop. Finally, under 150 kbytes. Not by much, though!Here it is. Look for yourself.
The sky is totally f@ked up. The deails are smeared out at most places.
I don't know what happened to the last post on this subject, where things like increase to 300k were mentioned... For smallish grayscale shots it is still almost enough...see here...
but come on, guys, if you can compress a colour shot to such a level and still keep it enjoyable pls tell me the secret.
I'm grateful for a free rff gallery and everything, but still.
Better put a limit on the nr of uploaded shots, coz this sucks.
W all my respect
Pherdinand.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I agree, look at my gallery one image, too much work. I am a patron ($) on other sites and may well be on this one, but the avatar, and gallery stuff is crazy. Just give us a pixel edge size!
Avotius
Some guy
yeah, I have not uploaded anything to the gallery because of the 150 k upload size, the image quality is just too low despite what all those people say about it being fine. The other topic about 150 k size was for attaching stuff in threds, not for the gallery, they made the same changes there though.
ampguy
Veteran
word.
..........
..........
Well, Pherdi, I regret to hear of your frustration! However I have no such trouble, maybe because of an easy fast work method in the German shareware program GraphicConverter for Macintosh.
http://www.lemkesoft.com/xd/public/content/index._cGlkPTE5Mw_.html
The program includes a browser similar to Photoshop's. I open an original scan to edit. I rotate/crop as needed. Increase color saturation a little, and adjust color balance. Look at histogram and set black and white points. Spot lint & dirt as needed. Scale proportionally to desired pixel size (I believe RFF requires less than 800 pixels on the long side). Add a bit of sharpening. Add black border (feature of program, set to 2 pixel width within already-set picture size). Save-As, setting to JPEG filetype, and the control window then displays options and a slider for compression level. I move the slider to bring the file-size below 150Kb, usually around 85/100 (higher is larger file, less compression), this depending on amount of texture/detail present. Hit the OK button and go to the next.
Let's see about attaching a sample using the above method... (ZI with 50 Sonnar)
http://www.lemkesoft.com/xd/public/content/index._cGlkPTE5Mw_.html
The program includes a browser similar to Photoshop's. I open an original scan to edit. I rotate/crop as needed. Increase color saturation a little, and adjust color balance. Look at histogram and set black and white points. Spot lint & dirt as needed. Scale proportionally to desired pixel size (I believe RFF requires less than 800 pixels on the long side). Add a bit of sharpening. Add black border (feature of program, set to 2 pixel width within already-set picture size). Save-As, setting to JPEG filetype, and the control window then displays options and a slider for compression level. I move the slider to bring the file-size below 150Kb, usually around 85/100 (higher is larger file, less compression), this depending on amount of texture/detail present. Hit the OK button and go to the next.
Let's see about attaching a sample using the above method... (ZI with 50 Sonnar)
Attachments
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
thanks doug. I will try that software myself. Was looking for a smaller, quick program for Mac anyway.
oscroft
Veteran
I'll second that - I've been using GraphicConverter for years and I really like it (I use its batch processing a lot to orientate and sharpen my scans).
Igor.Burshteyn
Well-known
Whatever graphic editor is used to post-process images, it all ends up with jpeg compression. Jpeg compression is lossy (as opposite to loseless comression schemas as LZW, for example). Jpeg is well suited for "continous tone" images, and is problematc with "line work" elements - lines, vignettes etc. Quality degradation is perceived as lack of details (that were in original image), and as compression artifacts that compressed image exhibits(ususally in pattern 8x8 pixels). My image that Pherdinand refers to
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=56091
exhibits compression artifacts all over smooth tone transition areas - just look at bottom haf of pic.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=56091
exhibits compression artifacts all over smooth tone transition areas - just look at bottom haf of pic.
There is certainly a trade-off, Igor. That photo has a particularly large amount of small detail that is very difficult for JPEG compression; you might have to move the compression slider down to maybe 50% or lower to get the file size down and then you get the compression artifacts. A photo with more areas of even tone such as sky, or with out of focus background like mine, don't need to get so much compression.
Also, if the pixel size of the photo is reduced, then the same small filesize can be reached with less compression. Further, if the file has previously been saved as JPEG and then further editing is done, and it's saved/compressed again, then visible artifacts are more likely just due to the generational issues.
I don't really like lossy compression but it's effective for the web in getting the file size down so that the pic loads quickly for viewers, with reasonable appearance quality... In most cases with no noticeable degradation at the displayed resolution.
Also, if the pixel size of the photo is reduced, then the same small filesize can be reached with less compression. Further, if the file has previously been saved as JPEG and then further editing is done, and it's saved/compressed again, then visible artifacts are more likely just due to the generational issues.
I don't really like lossy compression but it's effective for the web in getting the file size down so that the pic loads quickly for viewers, with reasonable appearance quality... In most cases with no noticeable degradation at the displayed resolution.
Avotius
Some guy
time to raise the gallery limit up and then let us upload high quality images. Quite poor that the best rangefinder site online has poor quality photos allover it then eh?