Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Hi.
Three things:
1. Upload to gallery:
If i choose multiple files and one of them exceeds file size limit, after the "submit" the site tells me "file...exceeds file size limit!" and there is no way further to continue the upload of the others.
I tried to re-do the upload and check the box towards the bottom of the page saying stg like skip to processing the already uploaded images or such, then it says "you have uploaded your image successfully!" and there is NO image uploaded anywhere in my gallery.
So the whole thing has to be done from start.
2. If i am looking for a person's gallery images, it is extremely cumbersome to get there, in case the person does not have a link to his rff gallery in his signature (many people don't). Could a link to his gallery be included in the same drop-down menu that appears when you click on his name in a thread e.g.? with the links to private messaging, emailing, etc? just an idea.
Could there be something done about this?
3. Also, there's again the thing with the image file size. I am UNABLE to compress some images with PS CS, PS CS3 beta or any other software i had access to, to stg smaller than 150K, unless i size the image to 300x300 pixels! Practically at compression level 4-5 of Photoshop i hit the limit, below that I can go to compression level ZERO and the result is, i get a file of 160 k instead of the 180 k of level 4-5.
My (scanned) images are in srgb, 8-bit colour, and the ones that were extremely problematic were of forest scenes with many little details.
This is the LAST time i ask about the file size limit, i swear. If it will be elegantly ignored again, like the previous times, then, i guess, i will have to live with it (or, better said, without it).
Three things:
1. Upload to gallery:
If i choose multiple files and one of them exceeds file size limit, after the "submit" the site tells me "file...exceeds file size limit!" and there is no way further to continue the upload of the others.
I tried to re-do the upload and check the box towards the bottom of the page saying stg like skip to processing the already uploaded images or such, then it says "you have uploaded your image successfully!" and there is NO image uploaded anywhere in my gallery.
So the whole thing has to be done from start.
2. If i am looking for a person's gallery images, it is extremely cumbersome to get there, in case the person does not have a link to his rff gallery in his signature (many people don't). Could a link to his gallery be included in the same drop-down menu that appears when you click on his name in a thread e.g.? with the links to private messaging, emailing, etc? just an idea.
Could there be something done about this?
3. Also, there's again the thing with the image file size. I am UNABLE to compress some images with PS CS, PS CS3 beta or any other software i had access to, to stg smaller than 150K, unless i size the image to 300x300 pixels! Practically at compression level 4-5 of Photoshop i hit the limit, below that I can go to compression level ZERO and the result is, i get a file of 160 k instead of the 180 k of level 4-5.
My (scanned) images are in srgb, 8-bit colour, and the ones that were extremely problematic were of forest scenes with many little details.
This is the LAST time i ask about the file size limit, i swear. If it will be elegantly ignored again, like the previous times, then, i guess, i will have to live with it (or, better said, without it).
Stephen has been on vacation, so your discussions in the past couple weeks have not been ignored.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
thanks rover.
back alley
IMAGES
email both stephen & jorge directly.
i have said this repeatedly in many threads, email directly is much better than a thread here. jorge does not read each thread and i don't know enough about stephen's habits yet to make a comment.
joe
i have said this repeatedly in many threads, email directly is much better than a thread here. jorge does not read each thread and i don't know enough about stephen's habits yet to make a comment.
joe
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
I'm uploading files over 150kB again sucessfully. Just a few hours ago I uploaded a 200kB photo.
I think (but don't know for sure) that Stephen and/or Jorge realized that 150kB was too small and increased it to 300kB, but crucially they didn't alter the notice whch still says 150kB.
Try a file below 300kB and you may be surprised.
I think (but don't know for sure) that Stephen and/or Jorge realized that 150kB was too small and increased it to 300kB, but crucially they didn't alter the notice whch still says 150kB.
Try a file below 300kB and you may be surprised.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
ok, done.
[But then, what exactly is the purpose of this forum?just moderation related stuff?]
[But then, what exactly is the purpose of this forum?just moderation related stuff?]
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
??? Jon, i just tried an hour ago and a 180K file did not go through.
I mean the gallery, not thread attachments.
I mean the gallery, not thread attachments.
back alley
IMAGES
Pherdinand said:
i'm not talking purpose, i'm talking results.
and i was talking results because you were sounding frustrated. i was trying to help.
joe
peterc
Heretic
Reduce the resolution to 72dpi (you don't really need anything more for the web) and getting the size of a 640x480 pic below 150K should be no problem.
Peter
Peter
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
In the past three days I've put three photos in the gallery all between about 160kB and 200kB with no problems. I uploaded them one at a time: one each day.
All mine are 720x480 and 72dpi.
A few weeks back these would have been rejected and I stopped uploading in frustration. I think others did also. And those that were uploaded at about that time were of sigificantly lower quality.
All mine are 720x480 and 72dpi.
A few weeks back these would have been rejected and I stopped uploading in frustration. I think others did also. And those that were uploaded at about that time were of sigificantly lower quality.
back alley
IMAGES
i actually never look at the size of my files. for web posting all pics are sized at 72 dpi and with a long side of between 800 to 850 and i have never had a problem.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
resolution, dpi does not matter. For files on screen, pixel count is what matters, the rest will only define the size of the image when printed.
Just try it: make an image with 1 dpi and with 1000 dpi, but same pixel number. The viewing quality and the filesize will be exactly the same.
I just tried again. 220 kb file size; result: "svajcDia09_k(exceeds file size limit)."
Joe, don't know how you do it. With black and white i also have no big problems, with colour i do. With the last 3 shots, image size had to be reduced to 300x300 pixels to get down to 148 kB.
Maybe i am doing something very stupid. But i don't think so. Triple checked.
Just try it: make an image with 1 dpi and with 1000 dpi, but same pixel number. The viewing quality and the filesize will be exactly the same.
I just tried again. 220 kb file size; result: "svajcDia09_k(exceeds file size limit)."
Joe, don't know how you do it. With black and white i also have no big problems, with colour i do. With the last 3 shots, image size had to be reduced to 300x300 pixels to get down to 148 kB.
Maybe i am doing something very stupid. But i don't think so. Triple checked.
back alley
IMAGES
my process is self taught (from reading), not sure why it works. all mine are b&w though.
ferider
Veteran
Pherdinand said:
Try saving as, say 800x1000 jpg and increase the file compression to something between 90 and 95%.
Roland.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I agree Pherdinand, I'm with you on this. Besides your complaints I have to fiddle back and forth to see if the KB of you file is in range. For me that means I resize in PSE4 then check in Picasa2, in not right I go back to PSE4, then back to Picasa2. Well, you get it.
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
Maybe instead of a limit of the size of each photo perhaps we could have limit of disk storage per user?
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Jon, that's what I also suggest(ed).
Makes no sense to have unlimited disk space for heavily limited size images.
Makes no sense to have unlimited disk space for heavily limited size images.
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
Resizing
Resizing
Pherdinand
What method are you using to resize your picture files for web posting. There is a process available in Photoshop (except the elements version) which results in optimised files which provide enough quality even at 50-60, but often less than, 100 KB.
With a file open in PS (size at this point doesn't matter), click Help> Image Resize. A copy of the original file is immediately made so that the original remains intact. A wizard box will appear asking if the resize is for printing or online use- select "online", then click next.
In the next dialog box, define the desired pixel resolution for the resized file.
Usually I assign 600 pixels on the long side of the picture. A typical full-frame 35mm file would have something like 400x600 pixels. Click next, then 'finish'.
A new resized file has been made. Apply sharpening (unsharp mask or smart sharpen in the newer PS versions would be best) if desired.
Then save the file. Saving the file using the 'save' or 'save as' tabs would not result in optimised files. Either the quality deteriorates when compression is increased to keep the file size small, or file size remains big when quality is preserved.
Instead use the "save for the web" tab (File>Save for the Web). A new dialog box will appear. You have several options here. The file can be save in different jpg levels- low, medium, high, and very high. The higher the quality, th bigger the file becomes, but not as big as files saved in the 'save' or 'save as' modes. Leave the blur to 0, and leave the "progressive" and "icc profiles" unchecked. The new file size can be read off the bottom of the dialog box. Once satisfied with the quality and file size settings, click 'save'. Rename the file since its default name is "resize wizard".
Jay
Resizing
Pherdinand said:
Pherdinand
What method are you using to resize your picture files for web posting. There is a process available in Photoshop (except the elements version) which results in optimised files which provide enough quality even at 50-60, but often less than, 100 KB.
With a file open in PS (size at this point doesn't matter), click Help> Image Resize. A copy of the original file is immediately made so that the original remains intact. A wizard box will appear asking if the resize is for printing or online use- select "online", then click next.
In the next dialog box, define the desired pixel resolution for the resized file.
Usually I assign 600 pixels on the long side of the picture. A typical full-frame 35mm file would have something like 400x600 pixels. Click next, then 'finish'.
A new resized file has been made. Apply sharpening (unsharp mask or smart sharpen in the newer PS versions would be best) if desired.
Then save the file. Saving the file using the 'save' or 'save as' tabs would not result in optimised files. Either the quality deteriorates when compression is increased to keep the file size small, or file size remains big when quality is preserved.
Instead use the "save for the web" tab (File>Save for the Web). A new dialog box will appear. You have several options here. The file can be save in different jpg levels- low, medium, high, and very high. The higher the quality, th bigger the file becomes, but not as big as files saved in the 'save' or 'save as' modes. Leave the blur to 0, and leave the "progressive" and "icc profiles" unchecked. The new file size can be read off the bottom of the dialog box. Once satisfied with the quality and file size settings, click 'save'. Rename the file since its default name is "resize wizard".
Jay
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
I do not like to use the save for web option, because it strips the file down. It does not attach the colour profile.
I prefer to save / upload colour images with the profile attached to them, so that proper browsers or imaging software display them in the colours i intended (more or less). This needs only an extra 1-2 kbyte only.
When saving to jpeg, i can set the "quality" level from zero tto 12 i think. Zero is highest compression and lowest quality.
Some time ago i used the save for web option which includes an "optimize to file size" thing, and indeed that goes to the value of 100 i think. But i realized (mostly since i am using safari web browser on mac) that some of the images look much much better when the correct colour profile is attached.
The resize i do in the image/resize way. I will try the version you talk about (although at this moment i don't understand why an image resizing function would be hidden in Help).
thanks a lot ZorkiKat.
I prefer to save / upload colour images with the profile attached to them, so that proper browsers or imaging software display them in the colours i intended (more or less). This needs only an extra 1-2 kbyte only.
When saving to jpeg, i can set the "quality" level from zero tto 12 i think. Zero is highest compression and lowest quality.
Some time ago i used the save for web option which includes an "optimize to file size" thing, and indeed that goes to the value of 100 i think. But i realized (mostly since i am using safari web browser on mac) that some of the images look much much better when the correct colour profile is attached.
The resize i do in the image/resize way. I will try the version you talk about (although at this moment i don't understand why an image resizing function would be hidden in Help).
thanks a lot ZorkiKat.
nasmformyzombie
Registered
I agree with Pherdinand. I don't have a gallery here because downsizing images to 400x425 to get within the 150k limit is too frustrating and time consuming. I have several images that I cropped and downsized almost beyond recognition in Photoshop that still come in around 180-200k. I also just tried the image resize procedure suggested in this thread, with the same frustrating result. 300k is a reasonable limit, IMHO.
Last edited: