Slightly OT: another quick photo question



P

Peewiglet

Guest
Apologies, but I'm sure many of you must know the answer to this.

I'm putting together a TR re: my Pennine Way walk, and I'm trying to
work out how best to reduce the file size of the photographs I'm going
to include. I have Paint Shop Pro v.8 and I've resized the image to
40% of the original and then used the defaults in the File/Export/JPEG
Optimiser thingy, but I thought that was meant to reduce the colours
to 256, and it doesn't seem to have done so.

I started with a file size of 1.04MB, and the tweaks mentioned above
have reduced it to 135KB, but that still seems fairly large. Is there
anything else I should be doing?

Many thanks, as always, for any help.


Best wishes,
--
Peewiglet
 
(Apologies if this post appears aeons after this Q has been answered,
but my osts to Usenet seem to going via Stromness and Pigeon Post at
that :-(


On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:00:08 +0100, Peewiglet <[email protected]>
wrote:


>I started with a file size of 1.04MB, and the tweaks mentioned above
>have reduced it to 135KB, but that still seems fairly large. Is there
>anything else I should be doing?

It sounds as if you're almost there. I don't know PSP so can't give
you specifics, but this is what I would normally do to zap photos for
online presentation;

1. Make sure you're working with a copy of your image

2. Assuming you're just looking to resize for the web (all other
tweaks, if any, have been done) then:

a. resize image to something like 640 px by 480 px. These dimensions
should reduce your image size proportionately, i.e. keep it the same
shape as the original, to be safe look for an option to "constrain
proportions" and select it. 640x480 that is plenty big enough for a
web page, you may want to go smaller for an in-page positioning with
text, etc..

When saving (select "save as" to get the options) you should be
looking for a final file size of about 65k for one photo @ 640x480,
smaller if you can (especially for pages with multiple photos on one
page) :

b. save @ 72dpi (dots per inch) resolution (monitors can't show more
than this so any more is making your file bigger for no gain).

c. save at a [jpeg] "quality" level of about 4, 5, or 6; this is the
change that reduces the file size but it also reduces the clarity of
the image. What you're aiming for is to save at the lowest "quality"
without spoiling your final image; there is probably a "preview"
option on the save dialogue, watch your changes and choose the
"quality" that gives you the smallest file size wihout breaking your
picture. If no preview then you'll have to do it the long way; save a
few at different resolutions and see which is the best


HTH


PS the above changes will not give an image suitable for print-out,
keep your image as large as poss for best print-out

PPS the "256 colours" content you mention is for files in the gif
format, jpegs don't use a discrete number of colours.






SteveO

NE Climbers & walkers chat forum;
http://www.thenmc.org.uk/phpBB2/index.php

NMC website: http://www.thenmc.org.uk
 
Bitstring <[email protected]>, from the
wonderful person Peewiglet <[email protected]> said
<snip>
>I started with a file size of 1.04MB, and the tweaks mentioned above
>have reduced it to 135KB, but that still seems fairly large. Is there
>anything else I should be doing?

135k seems pretty reasonable to me. You might be able to get a bit more
by selecting the .jpeg output 'options' and setting the default .jpeg
compression level lower, but I'm not sure I'd bother .. 135k is not
outrageous for emailing, and for web pages most web page constructors
will reduce the actual .jpeg to a 'thumbnail' (maybe quite a big one!)
with a hyperlink to the full-sized picture if you click on it.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
 
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:50:08 +0100, SteveO wrote:

<snip great stuff>

Many thanks - that's exactly what I needed!

(My posts are also taking forever to get to the NG at the moment. I
wonder why?)


Best wishes,
--
Peewiglet
 
Peewiglet typed:
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:50:08 +0100, SteveO wrote:
>
> <snip great stuff>
>
> Many thanks - that's exactly what I needed!
>
> (My posts are also taking forever to get to the NG at the moment. I
> wonder why?)
>
>
> Best wishes,

Peewiglet, If u are having trouble with your Newsgroups.... it could be
your ISP clara.net. I use News.Individual.NET set up an account at
www.News.Individual.NET

Very fast amd reliable server, however they do not have binaries, for me
that's not an issue

--
McPloppy ©

{ Remove both MyShoes to email me }
{ Homepage: http://tinyurl.com/bbel }

{ Local Radio: http://tinyurl.com/j1vi }
{ My Alternative Site: http://tinyurl.com/rynb }
 
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:35:46 +0100, "Mcploppy ©"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Peewiglet typed:
>> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:50:08 +0100, SteveO wrote:
>>
>> <snip great stuff>
>>
>> Many thanks - that's exactly what I needed!
>>
>> (My posts are also taking forever to get to the NG at the moment. I
>> wonder why?)
>>
>>
>> Best wishes,
>
>Peewiglet, If u are having trouble with your Newsgroups.... it could be
>your ISP clara.net. I use News.Individual.NET set up an account at
>www.News.Individual.NET
>
>Very fast amd reliable server, however they do not have binaries, for me
>that's not an issue

Many thanks, Mcploppy - I'll go over there and take a look :)


Best wishes,
--
Peewiglet
 
Peewiglet typed:
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:35:46 +0100, "Mcploppy ©"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Peewiglet typed:
>>> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:50:08 +0100, SteveO wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip great stuff>
>>>
>>> Many thanks - that's exactly what I needed!
>>>
>>> (My posts are also taking forever to get to the NG at the moment. I
>>> wonder why?)
>>>
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Peewiglet, If u are having trouble with your Newsgroups.... it
>> could be your ISP clara.net. I use News.Individual.NET set up an
>> account at www.News.Individual.NET
>>
>> Very fast amd reliable server, however they do not have binaries,
>> for me that's not an issue
>
> Many thanks, Mcploppy - I'll go over there and take a look :)
>
>
> Best wishes,

No Problem :)
--
McPloppy ©

{ Remove both MyShoes to email me }
{ Homepage: http://tinyurl.com/bbel }

{ Local Radio: http://tinyurl.com/j1vi }
{ My Alternative Site: http://tinyurl.com/rynb }
 
Peewiglet wrote:

> I'm putting together a TR re: my Pennine Way walk, and I'm trying to
> work out how best to reduce the file size of the photographs I'm going
> to include.

I'd strongly recommend Easy Thumbnails, which is freeware;
http://www.fookes.com/ezthumbs/

You can resize multiple images in one go, to any size you specify (not
just thumbnails), and can set jpeg quality and sharpen at the same time.
Dead easy to use, just set it up for one photo and then leave it to do
the whole lot. Way easier than doing each image one at a time

> I have Paint Shop Pro v.8 and I've resized the image to
> 40% of the original and then used the defaults in the File/Export/JPEG
> Optimiser thingy, but I thought that was meant to reduce the colours
> to 256, and it doesn't seem to have done so.

No, 256 is gif, you don't want to do that to photographs.

> I started with a file size of 1.04MB, and the tweaks mentioned above
> have reduced it to 135KB, but that still seems fairly large. Is there
> anything else I should be doing?

135 is fine, but you could make them a little smaller, I usually aim for
around 100 per pic. I use Jpeg Optimizer, but that doesn't resize or
anything. Easy thumbnails is a much simpler all-in-one solution.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
 
SteveO wrote:

> a. resize image to something like 640 px by 480 px. These dimensions
> should reduce your image size proportionately, i.e. keep it the same
> shape as the original,

Not from 35mm it won't, dimensions are 3x2.

> b. save @ 72dpi (dots per inch) resolution (monitors can't show more
> than this so any more is making your file bigger for no gain).

Totally irrelevant. dpi has no bearing whatsoever on screen display,
you can set it to 200dpi, 300dpi or 4000dpi and it will still be exactly
the same size on screen. dpi is only used for printing, it has nothing
to do with monitor display, there's a lot of confusion and
misunderstanding about this.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
 
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:00:08 +0100, Peewiglet <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Apologies, but I'm sure many of you must know the answer to this.

www.picasa.com will do what you require along with many other useful
photo organising functions.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
 
Andrew wrote:

> www.picasa.com will do what you require along with many other useful
> photo organising functions.

Looks like more of a photo organiser than a batch resizer.

Does it do batch resizing with sharpening and other functions at the
same time?

Just wondering if it does the job as well as one specifically designed
solely for that task.

I'll download it and try it out.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
 
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 16:27:54 +0100, "Paul Saunders"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> www.picasa.com will do what you require along with many other useful
>> photo organising functions.
>
>Looks like more of a photo organiser than a batch resizer.

It does both, you select the pictures/albums you want to resize, then
press export.

>Does it do batch resizing with sharpening and other functions at the
>same time?

No, you didn't specify that in your original message.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
 
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 17:09:24 +0100, "Paul Saunders"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> No, you didn't specify that in your original message.
>
>I didn't ask the question

Oops, sorry Paul :)
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
 
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:04:03 +0100, "Paul Saunders"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>SteveO wrote:
>
>> a. resize image to something like 640 px by 480 px. These dimensions
>> should reduce your image size proportionately, i.e. keep it the same
>> shape as the original,
>
>Not from 35mm it won't, dimensions are 3x2.

hence my use of the phrase "something like" and also mentioning
"constrain proportions" to maintian the aspect ratio, whatever the
original might have been.

>> b. save @ 72dpi (dots per inch) resolution (monitors can't show more
>> than this so any more is making your file bigger for no gain).
>
>Totally irrelevant. dpi has no bearing whatsoever on screen display,
>you can set it to 200dpi, 300dpi or 4000dpi and it will still be exactly
>the same size on screen. dpi is only used for printing, it has nothing
>to do with monitor display, there's a lot of confusion and
>misunderstanding about this.

Er, jussa minnit, it may be the same size on-screen but its a
different matter when looking at the file size, which _was_ what we
were talking about.

....so ner ;-)
(you bin up all night Paul?)



SteveO

NE Climbers & walkers chat forum;
http://www.thenmc.org.uk/phpBB2/index.php

NMC website: http://www.thenmc.org.uk
 
In article <[email protected]>,
SteveO@?.?.invalid writes
>On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:04:03 +0100, "Paul Saunders"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>SteveO wrote:
>>
>>> a. resize image to something like 640 px by 480 px. These dimensions
>>> should reduce your image size proportionately, i.e. keep it the same
>>> shape as the original,
>>
>>Not from 35mm it won't, dimensions are 3x2.
>
>hence my use of the phrase "something like" and also mentioning
>"constrain proportions" to maintian the aspect ratio, whatever the
>original might have been.
>
>>> b. save @ 72dpi (dots per inch) resolution (monitors can't show more
>>> than this so any more is making your file bigger for no gain).
>>
>>Totally irrelevant. dpi has no bearing whatsoever on screen display,
>>you can set it to 200dpi, 300dpi or 4000dpi and it will still be exactly
>>the same size on screen. dpi is only used for printing, it has nothing
>>to do with monitor display, there's a lot of confusion and
>>misunderstanding about this.
>
>Er, jussa minnit, it may be the same size on-screen but its a
>different matter when looking at the file size, which _was_ what we
>were talking about.
>
The file size is dependant upon the number of pixels. The dpi only
affects the number of pixels if your software is referring to the size
of the image in inches.

It be a scarlet herring.

--

Dominic Sexton
http://www.dscs.demon.co.uk/
 
SteveO wrote:

>>> b. save @ 72dpi (dots per inch) resolution (monitors can't show more
>>> than this so any more is making your file bigger for no gain).
>>
>> Totally irrelevant. dpi has no bearing whatsoever on screen display,
>> you can set it to 200dpi, 300dpi or 4000dpi and it will still be
>> exactly the same size on screen. dpi is only used for printing, it
>> has nothing to do with monitor display, there's a lot of confusion
>> and misunderstanding about this.
>
> Er, jussa minnit, it may be the same size on-screen but its a
> different matter when looking at the file size, which _was_ what we
> were talking about.

Eh? dpi has nothing to do with file size either, it's just a number
stored with the file that tells the printer what size to print it at.
You can set it to 64 billion dpi if you like but the file size and
screen size will be exactly the same.

All that matters as far as jpeg file size is concerned is a) pixels, and
b) compression.

> ...so ner ;-)
> (you bin up all night Paul?)

On and off.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
 
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:01:47 +0100, GSV Three Minds in a Can
<[email protected]> wrote:

[...]
>135k seems pretty reasonable to me. You might be able to get a bit more
>by selecting the .jpeg output 'options' and setting the default .jpeg
>compression level lower, but I'm not sure I'd bother .. 135k is not
>outrageous for emailing, and for web pages most web page constructors
>will reduce the actual .jpeg to a 'thumbnail' (maybe quite a big one!)
>with a hyperlink to the full-sized picture if you click on it.


Many thanks :)


Best wishes,
--
Peewiglet
 
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:00:57 +0100, "Paul Saunders"
<[email protected]> wrote:

[...]
>I'd strongly recommend Easy Thumbnails, which is freeware;
>http://www.fookes.com/ezthumbs/

>You can resize multiple images in one go, to any size you specify (not
>just thumbnails), and can set jpeg quality and sharpen at the same time.
>Dead easy to use, just set it up for one photo and then leave it to do
>the whole lot. Way easier than doing each image one at a time

Thanks v. much indeed! This looks perfect :)

[...]


Best wishes,
--
Peewiglet
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back