Getting an image below 100kb without losing quality

<p>Hi There,<br>

I am resizing some photographs for my Facebook page and would appreciate some advice. <br>

I have resized the images to 800 pixels wide and 72 DPI. When uploaded to facebook they look terrible, losing a fair amount of quality.<br>

I am sure this can be solved by uploading photos below 100kb. I have been attempting to do this via the 'Save for web' option in photoshop.<br>

While I can get the 800pixel image below 100kb very easily, I can only do it by lowering the quality to medium and this doesn't look anywhere near good enough. <br>

I am not sure what is preventing my photographs from becoming smaller files without losing considerable sharpness and quality. <br>

I am scanning the photos in via my Plustek scanner from 35mm negatives. It is as though something in the photo is bulking up the size of it, any ideas what this could be? Possibly a colour profile?<br>

Thank you very much for your help,<br>

Marc</p>

<p> </p>

<p>First of all, the DPI setting is completely irrelevant, it only matters how many pixels there are. Second, this 100kB "max." is something I've never experienced much on Facebook. I usually resize to 1200px at the long end, with a quality setting similar to 'high' (files from digital cameras as well as scanned negatives). Only in very dark subtle graduations, I've seen big issues in uploading to Facebook, otherwise, their compressions seems to leave my files pretty much as they are.<br>

Colour profile - for web output always convert to sRGB.</p>

<p>Thanks, but I don't want to upload photos larger than 800 pixels wide</p>

<p>I am uploading a couple of screen shots. Any help would be really appreciated. <br>

The first screen shot shows an image in the 'Save for web' option of photoshop. I had to lower the quality to 65 in order to get the image below 100kb. <br>

The second image is a screen shot of how the image looks when uploaded to facebook in the 65 quality option. As you can see it looks pretty bad!</p>

<p> <img src="http://i60.tinypic.com/2nip5ad.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i62.tinypic.com/rsyadc.png" alt="" /></p>

<p>Can you clarify what you don't like about the lower quality image? To my eye, on an uncalibrated laptop, it looks somewhat grainy and unsharp. </p>

<p>When I resize for the web, I don't use the 'Save for Web' feature. I resize manually, and followup with the PixelGenius sharpening package. If you sharpened at full size, that won't translate well to the smaller size.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, I think the technical quality of the image you posted is fine. It gets the message across without objectionable artifacts, if all I do is look at it as presented in PNET.</p>

<p>Facebook and other viewers usually display images on a 1:1 pixel basis. The size in inches and dpi is irrelevant. Photoshop and publishing software are more sophisticated, and will display images to fit the screen, or to a (roughly) real size, based on monitor information in the setup.</p>

<p>The "quality" level of a jpeg refers to the amount of compression applied to the image. More compression (lower quality) reduces the size, but may introduce artifacts.</p>

<p>In most cases, an 800 pixel, 65% will look just fine unless someone tries to capture and print the results, or enlarge it on the screen. Sometimes repetitive patterns, like checkered fabric or fences will cause objectionable JPEG artifacts, but those are exceptions.</p>

<p>If you want to show thumbnails but allow downloads high quality printing, use applications like Flickr or Dropbox for your work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thanks, but I don't want to upload photos larger than 800 pixels wide<br />I had to lower the quality to 65 in order to get the image below 100kb.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think you got my point: you can upload images larger than 100kB without heavy artifacts. My example of me using larger images was just meant to show that it can be done, without massive detrimental effect to the image. The average image I upload to facebook is between 250 and 450 kB, and as said, little compression artifact normally. So, forget about compressing to 100kB before uploading, but instead upload as high a quality as possible in the resolution you want.<br /> I also fail to see what would be so bad about the example you posted. Whatever problems there would be, it's down to being a small JPEG, in my view.</p>

<p>While I'm not facebook user myself I often see in IRC this recommendation for image resizing to facebook use <a href="https://www.facebook.com/help/266520536764594">How can I make sure that my photos display in the highest possible quality? | Facebook</a></p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=5189561">Wouter Willemse</a> - I do get your point. YOU don't get MY point. I had the same thing happen when I uploaded larger pictures, 900pixels plus. I was advised that the best way to get around this was by reducing the size of the file to below 100kb - hence my question. I have older pictures on my harddrive at around 87kb that uploaded perfectly with no loss of quality at all. If you look at facebook help as well as many articles, it says "To avoid compression when you upload your cover photo, make sure the file size is less than 100 KB." I didn't make it up. </p>

<p>The 2nd image I uploaded is more grainy and less sharp than the original image, hence why I wasn't happy with it. I mean, ok, it will do, but I wanted more than that. Thanks</p>

<p>Hi M Hdz<br>

On Facebook, the Facebook Cover photo "may" look better if it is 100kb or smaller. I don't think that is true of other photos. So as already mentioned, picking a size larger than 100kb can go a long ways.<br>

Couple other points<br>

In the save for web panel I would recommend always checking convert to sRGB and also embed profile. It takes up a lot less room and may help avoid some color issues in browsers that are not color managed.<br>

There is a drop down in the upper right corner of the save for web panel where you can choose the target size for the file.<br>

<br />Finally, here is a link with some good tips on quality images in Facebook: http://benrequena.com/facebook-image-sizes-guide/<br>

Hope the above helps some.</p>

<p>M Hdz<br>

I'd guess Wouter does know what he's talking about-- he generally does.<br>

I personally wouldn't touch Facebook with a 3-meter pole, so I can't disagree with him or you.</p>

<p>In any case. I think you are up against what Mao called a "contradiction". By the laws of nature, you are not going to keep "quality" while reducing a file from 1MB to 100KB. </p>

<p>I resize to 5" on the longest side @ 100ppi, give a very slight sharpening, save to web and adjust to 100kb. Seems to work just fine. Also, convert to Srbg.</p><div></div>

<p>"I resize to 5" on the longest side @ 100ppi"<br>

Why do you do it that way? Same as saying 500 pixels (5" x 100 ppi) on the long side which isn't very big. You don't need to worry about ppi for web display just pixel dimensions.</p>

<p>Resize your images to 960px or 2048px when you post to Facebook. Any other size will get modified by their engine and crunch your quality. Google for <em>facebook 960px</em> to get their support page explaining this.</p>

From Facebook's own FAQ:

 

https://m.facebook.com/help/www/266520536764594

From Facebook's own FAQ:

 

https://m.facebook.com/help/www/266520536764594

<p>720px too, it seems, thanks Lex for the link. I find that even in 2048px, with HQ clicked, it's not that much. Facebook is not really the best place to showcase images, but I have a page anyway, because the social interaction is key.</p>

I'll have to try this as well. I usually size

everything to 1000 pickles for Facebook,

photo.net and Flickr. My Facebook uploads

definitely suffer, but I figured there was

nothing to be done to avoid the compression

degradation.