Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Andres Bonilla on July 14, 2009, 01:53:51 pm
-
Ok, I know that the photos you post on the web are never as good as the originals, but are some photos more affected by the compression and massaging done to output to the web? This photo for some reason looks different, I converted it to sRGB and save it to the Web on CS2. Do you guys have a really good methodology to save for the web? Any tips?
Thanks,
Andres.
-
Ok, I know that the photos you post on the web are never as good as the originals, but are some photos more affected by the compression and massaging done to output to the web? This photo for some reason looks different, I converted it to sRGB and save it to the Web on CS2. Do you guys have a really good methodology to save for the web? Any tips?
Thanks,
Andres.
Just reduce the image size to whatever is appropriate for the image. Landscapes with a lot of small details need to be larger so the details can be seen.
BTW, this image looks like a small fragment of a much larger image that had a lot of noise, with the noise reduction done by the camera.
-
I just use lightroom. 70-80% quality with screen sharpening set to low.
Very nice image, btw.
-
Just reduce the image size to whatever is appropriate for the image. Landscapes with a lot of small details need to be larger so the details can be seen.
BTW, this image looks like a small fragment of a much larger image that had a lot of noise, with the noise reduction done by the camera.
Thansk Dale, that was the reason for my question, the web photo ended up showing fine detail as noise; perhaps as you said alarger dimension would help.
-
I just use lightroom. 70-80% quality with screen sharpening set to low.
Very nice image, btw.
Thanks! I don't have lightroom I will experiment with different sharpenings.
-
I use Photo Elements (the smaller version of Photoshop) and seldom use sharpening as I find it tends to ruin the natural quality of the light and alters the appearance and quality of the overall photo, especially if you have a lot of bokeh in your images. Of course, this is just a general observation and I do sharpen occasionally. My program just asks for parameters and to set the the quality of the image and I seldom go beyond 8 out of 12 as this produces huge images unsuitable for posting. About 850-900 pixels across is reasonably good, I find. It could very well be that if you sharpen a lot and then reduce, compressing the images along with its characteristics, the sharpening becomes more evident and there is nothing you can do.
JMR
-
Andres, So far no one has mentioned compression. The size of the picture doesn't really matter a whole lot, though if you go above about 12 inches at 72 ppi on the long side some people will have to scroll to see the whole thing. More importantly: when you compress, a file size above 500K isn't going to add anything to the quality of what people see on a 72 ppi monitor, but it's going to slow down the upload considerably. Personally, if I run into a very slow load obviously caused by the poster not reducing file size adequately, I just kill the download and move on.
-
I use Photo Elements (the smaller version of Photoshop) and seldom use sharpening as I find it tends to ruin the natural quality of the light and alters the appearance and quality of the overall photo, especially if you have a lot of bokeh in your images. Of course, this is just a general observation and I do sharpen occasionally. My program just asks for parameters and to set the the quality of the image and I seldom go beyond 8 out of 12 as this produces huge images unsuitable for posting. About 850-900 pixels across is reasonably good, I find. It could very well be that if you sharpen a lot and then reduce, compressing the images along with its characteristics, the sharpening becomes more evident and there is nothing you can do.
JMR
Whay about if I compress and then sharpen the jpg?
-
Andres, So far no one has mentioned compression. The size of the picture doesn't really matter a whole lot, though if you go above about 12 inches at 72 ppi on the long side some people will have to scroll to see the whole thing. More importantly: when you compress, a file size above 500K isn't going to add anything to the quality of what people see on a 72 ppi monitor, but it's going to slow down the upload considerably. Personally, if I run into a very slow load obviously caused by the poster not reducing file size adequately, I just kill the download and move on.
I usually leave the final size under 350 k since a few Photographic forums won't accept a bigger file. Also I have been told by friends that 1000 pixels at the long side is good for them, bigger they have to scroll and usually they don't like it.
-
Whay about if I compress and then sharpen the jpg?
That doesnt make sense to me. If you compress a jpeg, its jpeg. You cant sharpen the image data after compression. Maybe Im misunderstanding you?
About your general concern, yes, you might occasionally run into images wich, due to content, dont translate very well to web. Dale said it already, in these cases, just increase image size until your detail shows how you need it. Then it becomes a question how much you can decrease the jpeg quality, how much jpeg artifacts you find acceptable. And if under image or file size constrictions of a forum you cannot come up with an acceptable version, just use an external link.