reduced image still is not accepted

[Joel Arrington]

I have cut my dimensions down to 720x480 pixels but my image still is not accepted. All previous successful submissions have been 800 on the long dimension at 72 ppi. I dropped the quality from 6 to 5, but no go. The error message is:

Your file of 146.5 KB bytes exceeds the forum's limit of 146.5 KB for this filetype.

What am I doing wrong?

[Alfred Forns]

HI Joel I'm sure it has to do with the kbs When you save the image use save for web rather than save as

With saving with a specific quality there will be variations according to the image Best to do a save for web and specify a size To be safe I specify 140 There is a little arrow to the right of unnamed When you click a dialog opens and you specify the size

Let me know but should work every time

Alfred

[Joel Arrington]

That worked nicely. Thanks Alfred

-J

[Alfred Forns]

Glad it did Joel !!!!:)

btw one more thing To obtain the best quality use bicubic sharper when downsizing the image !!!

[Joel Arrington]

I saw somewhere the count of submissions I have made since I began at this wonderful site about a month ago - 30 or more, I think. Not one produced a warning message about size. I set 800 pixels for the long dimension and saved for medium quality and without exception they all went without incident. Then I tried the GBH. Too big - the message said. I reduced the side to 750 pixels and it still wouldn't get under the wire. Then Alfred suggested I send after "saving for web." Well it went that time. Only he forgot to suggest I use bicubic sharpener when downsizing the image. That's the first time I ever heard he word.

On my monitor, the GBH image looks every bit as good - resolution wise - as any of the 30 or so images sent witout incident. I have a 11x14 print of it and it is immaculate. There is nothing technically deficient with the image on my hard drive - or with any similar ones of the same bird from that day. Not that I don't get birds out of focus, in motion and every other deviation from correct. I am learning the standards for good performance and trying to apply them.

But as for the angle of he head, it is within a few degrees of parallel to what used to be the film plane. What is wrong with that? Are we looking at the same image?

[Joel Arrington]

At 11:07 last night the image was rejected at 146.5 KB. I took some friendly advice offered here and tried again a couple or more times. For quality purposes, I was trying to get it in just under the maximum size. When it finally was accepted and posted this morning, it was, to my surprise, down to about 56 KB. No wonder it was criticized for poor quality.

Head position is too esoteric to argue about. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[Fabs Forns]

I have my CS3 Save for web option set to optimized at 145 kb.
See my short tutorial at the Digital Workflow Forum.

[Larry Daniel]

I have my CS3 Save for web option set to optimized at 145 kb.
See my short tutorial at the Digital Workflow Forum.

Sorry, not all of us use CS3 with its infinite controls. I don't believe this option exists in Aperture or Capture NX.

The various dimension and file size requirements of different forums appears to beg for standardization?

[Alfred Forns]

With Aperture Capture NX and LightRoom you basically convert and have some flexibility for tweaking Neither is enough to produce a final image If you are trying to use them for that purpose might suggest to buy a copy of Adobe Photoshop Elements I believe it sells for $89 It is a fully capable program

When trying to post directly form those programs you do have an option Not to have the exact size in kb but play with the compression Not the way to the best quality but it will work

As far a PS some people get creative to purchase for a lower price They buy in eBay an older version and then just purchase the upgrade Seems to save you about half

[Robert Amoruso]

The ebay option Alfred mentioned is a good method to get PSCS3 at a reduced price.

[Larry Daniel]

I have CS3, I just find Aperture and NX easier to use and get the results I want.

What I really wanted addressed was the varying forum size requirements. Some want/allow 800, others 750 or 760 and others don't care as they resize them. It would be very helpful if there were a standard among forums. I would not need to have folders for the photographs for each forum.

Someone surely said once upon a time that it does not hurt to dream?
:)

[Ian McHenry]

Hi Joel
Although I have Photoshop Elements 5 I use the free edit programme FastStone for cropping and resizing images.
For resizing I go to Edit/ Resize and select Percent then scroll down till the image size is about point 28 megpix.
This usually brings it down to about 145 Kbs but if you feel it needs a touch sharpening on the smaller size that might add a few Kbs to image size.
Ian Mc

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Larry it is a good idea but on that will never happen

We started out at 750 and some members mentioned most of their images were 800 Lots of European sites use that dimention So we made the change.
Imagine you could send an email to all the other sites to get them up to 800 pixels

[Joel Arrington]

Thanks. The system seems to reject images unpredictably. I have successfully sent many at 800 pixels on the long side. Twice I have had to step down 50 pixels at at time THREE times, uploading each smaller version, before it accepted it.

[Alfred Forns]

Joel it has to do with the final size of the image Getting the image to 800 pixels on the wide is only hafl

I you save and then specify jepeg things are left to luck If you save to web and speciify 145kb It will not be refected

How are you saving the images

[Joel Arrington]

My usual practice, if I have no immediate particlar demand for an image for printing or otherwise, is to edit a master from the RAW and save a master file as .psd or .tif. Later I load that image and, for example, edit it for printing at whatever dimensions equired and 360dpi. Or I edit it to post to my website at 12x8 inches, usually, and 72 dpi. To post to BPN, nearly all those images will serve. I may have to crop a little. Occasionally they don't. One in 30 posts are rejected and I have to start trimming down. I want the biggest image that will get in under the maximum size standards. This steped downsizing goes in minus 50 pixels from the long side, resaving (with bicubic saves checked), than up-loading again. On two occasions I have had to step down from 800 to 750 to 700, to 650 pixels on the long side, saving at 5 quality. I used to get away with 6 quality, but that seems to be too much now. These trimming exercises and re-uploading get tedious in a short time and degrade the image with every step. If I could settle on a process that works every time for every image, I would be relieved. With all the shooting and processing I am doing, I hardly have ime to spit in my hand. A sure, quick way to upload my images would be delightful. -J

[Robert Amoruso]

Joel,

Try the method at http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=839.

This should work for you if you are using PSCS.

[Alfred Forns]

Joel if you follow the normal posting instructions there will be no image degradation Images Will look just fine

[Joel Arrington]

I copied the procedure and will try it today. Thanks.

[Amy DeStefanis]

Joel,

I use Capture NX also, and was having the same problem.

I figured out that for most images this works:
Resize to 800 pixels on the long side, (leave dpi wherever it is - don't change to 72)
Save as jpg, and when it asks for quality, use 40-50. It all partially depends, as someone said elsewhere, on how complicated the image is as to how much compression it can get, (and therefore how small the file will finally be). But generally, I've had success with 50, and if I need to, go down to 40. It's worked ok so far.

Good luck.