Images for web quality

[jorgedelfino]

I take hundreds of pictures a week that end up on a web page, (mostly social and fashion related), use Aperture for procesing and exporting for web use (500 px on the large size), is there any software that will do a better job? I mean the right amount of contrast, sharpening, color balance, etc, etc, for just web use?
Is not that I'm unhappy with Aperture, we actually save a large version of the photos for future printing also, and I feel ok with the large version, but the "small"...
Just, maybe I can get better results? with something made for that purpose.
You can see the pictures here;

www.yofui.com

thanks

[Gordon Buck]

I take hundreds of pictures a week that end up on a web page, (mostly social and fashion related), use Aperture for procesing and exporting for web use (500 px on the large size), is there any software that will do a better job? I mean the right amount of contrast, sharpening, color balance, etc, etc, for just web use?
Is not that I'm unhappy with Aperture, we actually save a large version of the photos for future printing also, and I feel ok with the large version, but the "small"...
Just, maybe I can get better results? with something made for that purpose.
You can see the pictures here;

www.yofui.com

thanks
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'd like to see some sort of study and report on just how "poor" a job can be done on processing and still yield an acceptable image for viewing on the web.  I'm increasingly reaching the opinion that it almost doesn't matter.  

That said, what I *try* to do is to make an image that is complete except for the final sharpening.  I call this image a "preprint" and include that label in the file name.  I take the "preprints" and reduce them to, say, 800 pixels max, apply final sharpening (PK sharpener for web), convert to sRGB and save to a jpg at about CS3 quality of 4 to 6.  I then add a file label of "(web)" to the file name.

But I haven't always done this and so often use software like BreezeBrowser to make a jpg from an image that has already been sharpened for printing.  My goal is to routinely use the "preprint" concept but I usually take the easier direct conversion method for older files.

Some of these images -- not necessarily defined as to the processing method -- are on my website, [a href=\"http://hornerbuck.com]HornerBuck[/url]

[Alaska]

Irfanview is a nice program for batch processing images for the web.  Used on this end for posting images to the web at 72 dpi and 800 px high or wide.  

There are also controls to set contrast, color, sharpness, etc.  But again, it is not per image but done in a batch.  The program in comparison to PS CS2 is very fast.  About two images per second.

http://www.irfanview.com/

It will also rename images from IMG_3876.jpg to 3876.jpg or start a new sequence from 0001.jpg, etc.

My PS workflow is to take the RAW file and process in PS to correct for color, contrast, etc.  Then convert from RAW to JPG at 72 dpi.  The next step is to add in PS a transparent copyright and email.  Then into Irfanview and from there to the server.

Jim

[jorgedelfino]

Irfanview is a nice program for batch processing images for the web.  Used on this end for posting images to the web at 72 dpi and 800 px high or wide. 

There are also controls to set contrast, color, sharpness, etc.  But again, it is not per image but done in a batch.  The program in comparison to PS CS2 is very fast.  About two images per second.

http://www.irfanview.com/

It will also rename images from IMG_3876.jpg to 3876.jpg or start a new sequence from 0001.jpg, etc.

My PS workflow is to take the RAW file and process in PS to correct for color, contrast, etc.  Then convert from RAW to JPG at 72 dpi.  The next step is to add in PS a transparent copyright and email.  Then into Irfanview and from there to the server.

Jim
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126112\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

great! but what about using aperture alone?

and thanks for the tip.

[Alaska]

great! but what about using aperture alone?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126118\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No experience using Aperture.  So can not help in that regard.  Just stated what I have found effective and useful.

Have fun with the project.

Jim

[jorgedelfino]

I'd like to see some sort of study and report on just how "poor" a job can be done on processing and still yield an acceptable image for viewing on the web.  I'm increasingly reaching the opinion that it almost doesn't matter. 

That said, what I *try* to do is to make an image that is complete except for the final sharpening.  I call this image a "preprint" and include that label in the file name.  I take the "preprints" and reduce them to, say, 800 pixels max, apply final sharpening (PK sharpener for web), convert to sRGB and save to a jpg at about CS3 quality of 4 to 6.  I then add a file label of "(web)" to the file name.

But I haven't always done this and so often use software like BreezeBrowser to make a jpg from an image that has already been sharpened for printing.  My goal is to routinely use the "preprint" concept but I usually take the easier direct conversion method for older files.

Some of these images -- not necessarily defined as to the processing method -- are on my website, HornerBuck
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126007\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Gordonsbuck, they look nice, but I'll like to see pictures with skin tones! that's the subject here.

cheers