-
BPN Member
Even MORE down sizing images for web use!
Hi there,
maybe someone knows a better way to downsize a image for 1024px & 200px longest side.
I do the usual way for my website "save for Web" settings to have most stripped, well the way everybody posts here in the forum.
I would like to know, is there a way to get rid of file size in an image of 1024px ( smaller than 130kb) longest side and 200px (smaller than 20kb) longest side without loosing to much on quality of the image when posted on the website.
The save for web is fine, but where else can I save kb's ?
Thanks so much any help is highly appreciated
Ciao
Anette
-
You can lower the JPEG compression quality without giving up a noticeable amount of image quality -- just have a look at the final output and see what you think. Sharpening will increase file size but it's not usually something we want to cut down on.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
BPN Member
Hi Diane, sorry for late reply was gone over the weekend. Thanks so much for your reply. I am trying out a few things and will see how all comes out. Thanks so much
Enjoy your Sunday
Cheers Anette
-
Hi Anette,
I hope I understood your question correctly. Diane may have answered all you want to know, but here is what I do for resizing images in PS anyway;
file -automate- fit image ( enter the height and width in pixels of the resized image)
file - save for web- (then if you click in the menu that looks like a stack of paper top RHS of the 'save for web' window, you find an option for specifying a file size of the resized image) so enter a size (KB's) for the image. PS makes sure the file is no larger than this size although maybe smaller.
regards
DON
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
The problem with Fit Image is that it doesn't give you a choice of downsizing algorithms. You can just go directly to Save for Web, even from a layered 16 bit full-sized image, you can specify the ouput size right there, and to its right you have several choices for the resizing algorithm, which can make a difference in your final output quality, and size.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
BPN Member
HI Don and Diane,
thanks so much, this helps a lot. I will play with it till my website is happy, better said Google needs to be happy with all and me with quality. Not that easy. Quality loss is there, even in thumbnails.
Thanks so much for your time and help
Cheers
Anette
-
Originally Posted by
Diane Miller
The problem with Fit Image is that it doesn't give you a choice of downsizing algorithms. You can just go directly to Save for Web, even from a layered 16 bit full-sized image, you can specify the ouput size right there, and to its right you have several choices for the resizing algorithm, which can make a difference in your final output quality, and size.
Uhuh... I knew I would learn something else if I opened my mouth.. Thanks Diane, I have opened the 'save for Web' and seen the options... Do you have any preferences regarding algorithms, or is it image specific..?
DON
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
BPN Member
-
BPN Member
I did it again, now down to 64KB this file…. the gods will be with me
-
64KB seems awfully small for a web site, depending on how it's displayed. Most of the images I post here are from about 250-300 K up to the limit of 400K. I just lookedat your web site -- the slide show images look very good. Maybe they have to be small because of the slide show?
Don, that's my most successful strategy for learning things.... There are different theories about the sizing algorithms -- you can find info online. But it would be try it and see if it looks good. For years now I have exported JPEGs 99% from LR and they have a simple choice of three sharpening levels, so I'm not really current on the Save for Web options.
-
BPN Member
Hi Diane,
what you see now in my website, I assume my server changed all and that it reached already the server on your side. When I change a image it always takes a bit till it is displayed worldwide.
Nevertheless, the slideshow images I pushed down badly, the cheetah to 65kb, the lion to the same, but must say, this one is really on the edge between good and bad and the iceberg is down to 80kb. The other 2 I did not touch yet.
What did I do, well first I downsized them and sharpened when needed, mostly it is not to much. I saved one full size with save for web and another one pushed down as far till I see the first distortion showing up in the pixels. I use the Quality slider for that. Usually I went down to zero and worked my way up, when I was not able to see any shifting than I stopped and gave another 3 kb on top. The thumbnails I did not sharpen, I just added a tad more contrast as this improved more than sharpening! IMHO! I saved a 100% that I could compare where quality loss has happened and how much!
I am trying to improve my website with the Google guidelines, as faster a site the better.
thanks so much for your help in this, now the codes need to be shifted a bit as well. :)
Have a great day
Ciao. Anette
-
Images with more detail (including from sharpening and noise) will have a larger file size at the same Quality Level of compression. For images that need too much compression, you might want to choose different ones.
Don: for any resizing operation in PS where you don't have a choice of resizing algorithms, it will use the one specified in Preferences > General. For most resizing on a larger scale, such as for printing, I've never noticed a difference. It may be more critical for downizing for web presentation.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Thanks Diane.. time to play I think..
DON
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks