Orientation : 1
X Resolution : 72.0000000
Y Resolution : 72.0000000
Software : Adobe Photoshop 7.0
Published: Wednesday 15th of April 2009 09:04:07 PM
Does anyone know how to reduce jpeg size without losing so much from the original? In my posting it's a real mess, whereas the original shown above has quite adequate detail in the stockings for example ... thanks
I see no real problem John , It's a beautiful work well composed with good light and b&w colors . Losing a bit of details didn't harm the result
John, You are right. A pixel is a pixel. It is discrete. What I mean is that the idea of those filters is just to keep the antialiasing between pixels at a certain level, so that adjecent pixels have good contrast (=more local detail).
Aha, now that's an interesting detail I knew nothing about .. thank you.
John, First of all - i want your stairs! :P As for the size reduction - you might spend some time reading about image reduction algorithms and filters. In Photoshop there are options like "best for reduction/enlargment etc". In ACDSee there are Lancoz-Mitchell filters and others. Playing with them a little will give you a good feeling of which fits best for your needs. Usually saving a JPG with less than 90% starts to "smooth" the details. That's why I like to keep it high and when reducing the image size I sometimes apply a very subtle sharpen (sth like 50% with 1px radius) I hope this helps.
Dear John, i agree with Alon Eshel. But i will anser your question.There are another Photo - Community in Germany. A member, Alexander Fox Koker (wrote an Internet based programm witch transfered a big size picture in an small one. ( http://neutrino.mach-mich-passig.de/upload2.php?sprache=en) This link direct you to the English version. In the upload area, you can input the max kb of the picture in the end. you caqn carry out a test, its free. Best greetings, Christian P.S. Excuse me for my defective english.
Thanks George and Biliana. I have a very old photoshop and it doesn't have those subtilities unfortunately. On second thought on the matter though I imagine that since pixels are not compressible, when you reduce their number you will inevitably lose definition. I guess it's just a matter of reducing the least number possible. PS. Yes, since some reviewers enlarge a picture before making their critique, I have got to enlarging a picture occasionally to discover what they will too .. some will even go so far as to copy the picture and then change contrast etc., to see items that are not what is presented for review .. it realy seems like a rather absurd thing to do, but then so is human nature sometimes, isn't it now .. :-) .. Obviously, you treat a picture differently when it is presented here in small jpeg for review from what you do a large print, and even more so something that is planned for publication.
Does your version of PS have the bi-cubic sharpener option?
Hi John. Great shoot, as always, a super ambiance sexy and glamour, even in the stairs, congratulations. Beautiful model, very beautiful and sexy, and perfect lighting. A angel face and the white stocking gives a Lolita style . Friendly. Jean-Jacques.
Hey John, Perhaps, I may be able to help. As a rule, when you begin with a well focused and exposed image, a good point to start when posting images to the web is to reduce the dpi to 72. Then change the image size to a dimension that is no larger that 700 pixels on the longest side. This way, it will project very nicely on the monitor and show adequate detail. If someone were to copy the file, there won't be much risk in having it reproduced with great quality due to the small file size. This is a standard that has been suggested by our local camera club. www.carrollcameraclub.wordpress.org
John WOW!!! Beautiful Alberto
about resizeing. send me your original via mail and i will give it a try. kind regards, franz
Ines Lojna Funtak
I like it very much! Ines
Stairs, light, young lady .. ..