Saving JPEG files

[kenri_basar1]

<p>Does saving JPEG files in smaller size than than the maximum camera MP capacity makes it look better for online sharing?<br>

Total noob here. I was thinking along the line of compress and imagining megapixels in a tighter smaller frame.</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>I'm no expert either but I think that size reduction does not make it look better. I expect more from processing algorithms, these may make an image look better.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Downsizing by a factor of 2 will hide imperfections. But it will also hide positive qualities.<br>JPEG compression also does not help to maintain image quality, so do not compress too much.<br>On the other hand, if a x by y pixel image is required for whatever, you can indeed downsize to x by y pixels because it will then happen sooner or later anyway.

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I usually save my originals in Raw form and then use a program to downsize them as needed, in bulk. I don't think downsizing makes a file look better, but it usually does not make it worse, if you're viewing on line and not cropping or magnifying. Some programs re-apply the JPG compression at each save, so if you're going to resize, I'd do it all at once from the original for each instance. If your image needs sharpening, it also often helps to do that after the resize. </p>

[hapien]

<p>There are three options.</p>

<p>First one is to resize image to smaller pixel dimensions and smaller size, which is the traditional way, it saves storage size, reduces network load, reduces end user processing time and quality remains allways in control, in a way, that what You post online, enduser sees similarly, but the picture does not always fill the sceen or be suitable for printing. Some displays show image favorably and some no so. This is also good way to prevent image theft. IIRC photo.net gallery demands images to be smaller or equal of 720 pixels long side and size under 100kB, which in practice can mean jpeg image quality 60 for square format. </p>

<p>Second way is to craft a online gallery that has multiple size options for different screen resolutions or gallery that resizes images on the fly, preferably on enduser processing time. The images fill screen better, more storage size, network bandwidth and processing time is used. Image quality is very good, everybody has access to even printable images, but endusers may experience slight delays in operation.</p>

<p>Third way is to post full size jpeg or tiff. Good sides are that everyone has access to printable image. This may invite to image theft. Downsides are large storage size, heavy use of network bandwidth and delays that endusers experience. This practice is not really recommended, it is better to pass ready and quality controlled prints if so must be, with some rare motivational pictures meant for large audience being exception to this. With todays high resolution cameras, it is rare to see photographer give the full resolution originals unless requested and paid for. </p>

<p>It is good practice to get familiar with most used screen resolution statistics and used social media recommendations, if facebook says images look their best if they are posted to front site with size under 100kB it is better to believe that rather than recieve heavily recompressed image.</p>

<p>If possible, begin resampling with original image and scale directly to end dimension, as this gives smaller size than multiple steps degraded by jpeg compression.</p>

 

[kerry_grim]

I suggesting taking the photos in RAW and use a program like Lightroom to process them. Yo can have many "versions" of the same photo, yet the original RAW files in not modified.

 

You could then crop as you like and export a JPEG that you may want to use on Facebook, say with a pixel of 1200 on the long side of the photo.

 

Then later should you decide that the photo would make a nice background on your computer you could make another copy from the RAW file (since it has not been modified) and crop it to match your computer screen. The file size would naturally be much larger that the image you used on Facebook.

 

The point is...using RAW when taking the photo, leaves many options for later use. If your camera is set to process small jpegs, you will limit yourself for other uses that require a larger file size, like a computer background or printing a large photo.

 

In short, just use RAW, process the RAW for a JPEG image customized for the particular use, and don't worry about anything else.

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Shoot maximum resolution (size and quality) JPEGs and raw files whenever possible unless there's a very specific reason not to.</p>

<p>I've often regretted shooting less than maximum size JPEGs with my older JPEG-only digicams. I've never regretted shooting maximum size/quality photos, or shooting "too many" photos. My delete key works just fine later. There is no magic "Oops, wish I'd shot that at maximum quality" time machine button.</p>

<p>A maximum resolution (size/quality) JPEG will withstand some careful post-processing, depending on the image content. An exception would be a landscape or scenic with large expanses of blue sky - this can lead to posterizing with additional editing, and even some in-camera JPEGs may show posterizing in blue skies.</p>

<p>The only exception I make now is for certain sequences of thousands of photos intended solely for time lapse videos and animated GIFs. Depending on the estimated number of frames I may record at medium resolution with my 10mp and 16mp cameras. With my older 4mp dSLR I record at maximum resolution, since 2400 x 1600 is about right for most purposes with these projects.</p>