File size reduction after using Neat Image

[steve_johnston9]

<p>Hi have been using Neat Image to take noise out of my image. It has certainly worked, reducing the noise element of the picture. However the file size has been reduced dramtically, from 7MB to approximately 700 KB. I have checked the resolution in photoshop and it is the same. Is such a file size reduction ok ? Or should I check something else I have been checking. I concerned that the program may have “thrown away” detail from the file that will prevent me from printing the file large at a later date.</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>Since the resulting file contains less noise it should compress better and be a bit smaller. A 10 fold reduction in size looks too big to me. Check the quality (=compression). This will reduce the filesize without affecting the image size but as you suspected, causes a loss of detail.</p>

[howard_m]

<p>sounds like you're outputting a highly compressed JPEG format image or the image has a lot in the way of lack of details.</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p> I have checked the resolution in photoshop and it is the same.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Not sure what you mean by this, Steve - what did you actually check? If it was "DPI" (which some people think relates to "resolution"), it's not actually telling you anything useful.</p>

<p>Aside from that - what Jos and Howard said.</p>

<p>Which version of Neat Image, incidentally? And - just for completeness - you <em>are</em> talking about processing jpegs here, yeah? </p>

[samuel_lipoff]

<p>That sounds like a reasonable file size reduction, but you might want to double check the JPEG compression. You probably want to keep the quality setting at "High" if it gives you options like "Low, Medium, High and Very High" or above 80% if it gives you a slider. Finally, you might also want to check the resolution, which means not the dpi, but the total number of pixels. For example, I have a 12 MP Nikon D700 which outputs photos at 4288 x 2844 pixels. A typical JPEG might come out of the camera at 5 or 6 MB, but after typical post-processing in Photoshop might end up in the 600 KB to 1.2 MB range, as a "High" quality JPEG and no change in the total number of pixels.</p>

[kim_johnson1]

When you save the image in NEAT dont set it less than 98 percent.

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>When you save the image in NEAT dont set it less than 98 percent.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>There's no reason not to do that.</p>

[kim_johnson1]

<p>So Why no reason.</p>

<p>The problem with many photographers is they feel THEIR way is the only way. When I post a suggestion, I'm just trying to give the OP an option to the solution of their problem or issue. Maybe it will help maybe not.</p>

<ul>

<li>If I take an image in photoshop that is 300ppi, 1800 x 1200px and saved it with a quality of 10 in photoshop, that file size is 722.9 KB</li>

<li>When I take that same image and open it in Neat Image and save at 100, that file size is now 1,825KB. Twice the size of the original </li>

<li>If I take the same image and save at 98% in Neat Image it is at 992kb closer the original. </li>

<li>If I take that same image and save at 80% in Neat Image the file size now 214KB </li>

</ul>

<p>I made the suggestion about the 98% because maybe the OP was thinking that 80% in Neat Image equated to 8 Quality in Photoshop, and therefore THAT was why his file size was so small . <br>

If you save an image in Neat Image at 100%, which will make the file bigger, I dont want to have to go BACK to photoshop to reduce it again. Doesnt make sense. If Neat Image is near the last step in the process, saving at 96% to 98% keeps the image near the file size you saved it at.</p>

<p>Just giving options.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>I have my editor permanently set to save/make jpg files at the highest setting which results in no reduction [ or very little ]. However when sending images by email or posting to my webpage I normally reduce them both in size [ 4500 across pixels down to around 750 pixels ] which reduces the file size from Mb to Kb but also apply compression which then reduces the say 400Kb file down to the quicker uploading/downloading 40<100Kb. This was IMO very desirable with dial-up connections but with broadband I am often being lazy and not making the compression stage as I know my receipients also have broadband.<br>

If you are posting to public sites I believe they automatically impose these changes on your file but as I organise my website myself it is up to me to think about the viewer. So long as the viewer doesn't enlarge their image it is normal for a 40Kb file to look 'good' as an e-mail image on a 'normal' screen. [ large lap-top?] 100Kb is PDG :-)</p>