Just started back on this site and doing some posting. When can one avail themselves of the 500kb "optional" file size? Is this merely a request to use the smaller file size (300kb), or are there specific guidelines to go bigger?
Welcome back! It's very difficult to judge sharpness and detail on the small 300 kb files, so we may (and are encouraged to, but not required to) also post a larger 500kb size.
Sandy
Hi Phil! When you post to the critique galleries the first option on the posting page is for your main/original 720px file, and a few lines below that you have the option to include a 1200px file (under 500kb) for a larger version. You do need to upload the larger file AT THE TIME OF YOUR ORIGINAL POST, though...you won't have the opportunity to edit later to add or remove the large file.
I'd supply a link for you but I'm responding from my phone so its a little difficult to do that...I do hope this helps, though!
Thanks Sandy! I read and re-read the Posting Guidelines and just couldn't glean any additional info. Yeah, I had to keep scrunching and scrunching my last post to get it under 300kb.
It doesn't sound like there's any real restrictions, so why have the 300kb limit? Is it just to try and conserve space on the server unless the larger size is really needed?
Thanks John! I'll do that next time. This particular image has a lot of detail, so the 720px file was just too big. Guess I can always ratchet down the "quality" of the jpeg to try and get it to fit, but don't know if I should really go below 80%?
Posted by Lorna Taylor on June 10, 2012 at 12:17 AM
Hi Phil,
I know I have the same problem as in my files are often times to big and I compress them to try and fit and finally I just give up and don't post them. Most times it works out find but a third of the time I just can't figure out how to compress and maintain quality.But I am not very computer savvy. Good luck and welcome back.
Posted by Debbie Yarra on June 10, 2012 at 4:20 PM
What size images are you trying to compress? I always reduce my image size to a 4x6 or 6x4 before I go to " save to the web" in PS and then in the size options type in your 720 length. Sometimes I might have to reduce to 90% but never below 80%. You can hit the preview button on the screen and it will pull it up on the web and give you the files size info. Hope that helps.
What size images are you trying to compress? I always reduce my image size to a 4x6 or 6x4 before I go to " save to the web" in PS and then in the size options type in your 720 length. Sometimes I might have to reduce to 90% but never below 80%. You can hit the preview button on the screen and it will pull it up on the web and give you the files size info. Hope that helps.
Making an intermediate size reduction to 4x6 or 6x4 is meaningless here - the issue is the amount of jpeg compression required to get a 720 pixel image under the 300Kb size (an the 1200 pixel image under the 500Kb limit). Jpeg compression works best when there are large expanses of similar color (like sky or monochrome backgrounds); and has a lot of trouble when there is a lot of fine detail/texture in the frame (fine feathers, lots of distinct leaves; patterned clothing, etc.).
So, a photographer's options are:
1. limit the amount of fine detail in the original
2. make image dimensions smaller (like 600 px instead of 720 px, or 1000 px instead of 1200 px)
3. move the jpeg compression slider more to the left (lower quality setting)
4. post a link to a copy of the image with less compression and thus more Kb hosted somewhere else
5. don't post at all
Is reduction in quality due to compression something that is normally noticed by people other than the original poster, do you think? I know once in a while it is, but I mean generally?
Is reduction in quality due to compression something that is normally noticed by people other than the original poster, do you think? I know once in a while it is, but I mean generally?
My guess is: generally, no. I think experienced photographers/posters know when a posted image was probably difficult to compress. If I see a lot of texture in a posted image (like repeating grasses in an expansive marsh) I won't expect it to all look crisp in a small web image. Over compression is usually easiest to see where a detailed subject meets a uniform expanse of sky - the viewer can see the compression blocks in the transition area.
I also think that many photographers take this a bit too seriously. I can't recall ever having an image that I couldn't compress under the posting limits here at NPN. I've also tried a few experiments where I've started with a tif file and compressed by various amounts, then compared them in Graphic Converter (an app for Macs that will do a pixel by pixel comparison or two images and output a new image showing the variation at each pixel).
Discussion
9 repliesJust started back on this site and doing some posting. When can one avail themselves of the 500kb "optional" file size? Is this merely a request to use the smaller file size (300kb), or are there specific guidelines to go bigger?
Thanks,
Phil
Sandy
I'd supply a link for you but I'm responding from my phone so its a little difficult to do that...I do hope this helps, though!
It doesn't sound like there's any real restrictions, so why have the 300kb limit?
Thanks again!
Phil
I know I have the same problem as in my files are often times to big and I compress them to try and fit and finally I just give up and don't post them. Most times it works out find but a third of the time I just can't figure out how to compress and maintain quality.But I am not very computer savvy. Good luck and welcome back.
Making an intermediate size reduction to 4x6 or 6x4 is meaningless here - the issue is the amount of jpeg compression required to get a 720 pixel image under the 300Kb size (an the 1200 pixel image under the 500Kb limit). Jpeg compression works best when there are large expanses of similar color (like sky or monochrome backgrounds); and has a lot of trouble when there is a lot of fine detail/texture in the frame (fine feathers, lots of distinct leaves; patterned clothing, etc.).
So, a photographer's options are:
1. limit the amount of fine detail in the original
2. make image dimensions smaller (like 600 px instead of 720 px, or 1000 px instead of 1200 px)
3. move the jpeg compression slider more to the left (lower quality setting)
4. post a link to a copy of the image with less compression and thus more Kb hosted somewhere else
5. don't post at all
My guess is: generally, no. I think experienced photographers/posters know when a posted image was probably difficult to compress. If I see a lot of texture in a posted image (like repeating grasses in an expansive marsh) I won't expect it to all look crisp in a small web image. Over compression is usually easiest to see where a detailed subject meets a uniform expanse of sky - the viewer can see the compression blocks in the transition area.
I also think that many photographers take this a bit too seriously. I can't recall ever having an image that I couldn't compress under the posting limits here at NPN. I've also tried a few experiments where I've started with a tif file and compressed by various amounts, then compared them in Graphic Converter (an app for Macs that will do a pixel by pixel comparison or two images and output a new image showing the variation at each pixel).