Model
Kassandra
Posts: 1076
Coram, New York, US
Alright,getting pist now. Im like Ohhh look at my pretty crisp 100% 300dpi imgs ohhh *hughughug* Yeah. Well. I love them a hell of a lot less when i have to size them down. They lose so much!
Now assumng im not going to start shooting RAW tomrrow, anyone have suggestions on a crisper downsize?
What i normaly do:
Downsize about 30%>> layer via copy>> Filter>>Other>>HighPass>>Put layer to overlay>>Sharpen layer, tweek it. Slap copyright over it:Post.
Photographer
RickHorowitzPhotography
Posts: 513
Fresno, California, US
One thing you can do is downsize in small increments. Downsize like 5 or 10% at a time. Takes more time, but you'll lose less, from what I've read. Also, if you're downsizing in Photoshop, you might change the resampling method to something like bicubic sharper.
For my part, I really don't see why anyone would not want to shoot RAW, but I guess to each their own. Having shot RAW for the last couple months, I'll never go back. There's just too much control over post-processing and I really love that.
-- rick
Photographer
StephanieLM
Posts: 930
San Francisco, California, US
First off, make sure you're always selecting "bicubic sharper" when downsizing an image. Second, you should be using either a sharpen filter or high pass sharpening, but not both. If the high pass isn't strong enough, it's far better to duplicate the high pass layer and adjust the opacity than to sharpen your high pass layer.
What sort of quality loss are you getting? Is it pixelization or are you getting weird noise effects or image softness?
Photographer
Dr Molly Black
Posts: 663
Cleveland, Ohio, US
Kassandra wrote:
Alright,getting pist now. Im like Ohhh look at my pretty crisp 100% 300dpi imgs ohhh *hughughug* Yeah. Well. I love them a hell of a lot less when i have to size them down. They lose so much!
Now assumng im not going to start shooting RAW tomrrow, anyone have suggestions on a crisper downsize?
What i normaly do:
Downsize about 30%>> layer via copy>> Filter>>Other>>HighPass>>Put layer to overlay>>Sharpen layer, tweek it. Slap copyright over it:Post. It depends on what it's for? If it's for the web you don't need to do anything than make the image 72 dpi since that's what the web standard is. If you need to make sure it doesn't lose more than that, you can optimize for web and just make sure to keep it depending on where it's going around 600 on the largest edge and around 175K - that way it won't get re-sized by most sites. If it's for the "other site" then you should make it exactly as I just stated but around 75k because that's their standard. Print and web have two very different size needs. :-)
** Edit to add **
Yes, shoot RAW always with JPG together. That way you can do on the fly JPG editing from PS immediately, but do the real work in RAW when it's ready to come to print time.
Photographer
StephanieLM
Posts: 930
San Francisco, California, US
So Shoot Me! wrote:
One thing you can do is downsize in small increments. Downsize like 5 or 10% at a time. Takes more time, but you'll lose less, from what I've read. Also, if you're downsizing in Photoshop, you might change the resampling method to something like bicubic smoother. (I think that's the right one for downsizing. You might want to experiment.)
For my part, I really don't see why anyone would not want to shoot RAW, but I guess to each their own. Having shot RAW for the last couple months, I'll never go back. There's just too much control over post-processing and I really love that.
-- rick This is incorrect. You downsize in one fell swoop and upsize in increments. And always use bicubic sharper if you're downsizing and bicubic smoother for upsizing. If you're making your image smaller, you're likely to have the image soften whereas if you're making it larger, you're going to get pixelation that you don't want to sharpen.
Photographer
RickHorowitzPhotography
Posts: 513
Fresno, California, US
Oh, and you might have more luck with the high-pass if you switch to Lab color first, and use a sharpening layer.
Duplicate the background (or if it's multiple layers, you might want to do a control-alt-shift-E). Change the blending mode of the new layer to overlay. Then do your high-pass. Lower settings give less sharpening.
-- rick
Model
Kassandra
Posts: 1076
Coram, New York, US
Hmmm Thanks for the speedy feedback! I did hear about the diff types of image resample, nearest nabior,etc N i had mine set already but i supose i could try not sharpening the hi pass but doing another layer of
Photographer
amy coe
Posts: 198
Clatskanie, Oregon, US
I'm not quite sure what you are wanting to reduce them for, but here is what I do for quick down loading on the internet.
I reduce the longest side of the image to 7 inches and the dpi to 72. Then I use the Unsharp Mask at 50%, radius .05 and threshold 0. Then I save it as a jpeg at whatever level gets me to 100mb or less.
hth
a
Photographer
RickHorowitzPhotography
Posts: 513
Fresno, California, US
StarlaMeris wrote:
This is incorrect. You downsize in one fell swoop and upsize in increments. And always use bicubic sharper if you're downsizing and bicubic smoother for upsizing. If you're making your image smaller, you're likely to have the image soften whereas if you're making it larger, you're going to get pixelation that you don't want to sharpen. About the bicubic sharper, I thought that didn't sound right, so I double-checked my book. You got out this response before I could post the correction. 
I don't usually downsize.
As far as incrementing, I was taught that the re-sampling would work better in either direction if you went in increments. I don't claim to be an expert, but it seems like if you went in increments, you'll have more accurate re-sampling, wouldn't you? (That's a question - and not a rhetorical one.)
-- rick
P.S. Colin Smith's Complete Photoshop CS2 for Digital Photographers seems to be a fairly useful book for information like this. I just got it and while it seems somewhat simplistic, I have learned a few things from it already. And it's a fast read.
P.P.S. I should note that "I don't usually downsize" might be misleading. I use "Save for Web..." when I want to create the web versions of my work.
Model
Kassandra
Posts: 1076
Coram, New York, US
amy coe wrote:
I'm not quite sure what you are wanting to reduce them for, but here is what I do for quick down loading on the internet.
I reduce the longest side of the image to 7 inches and the dpi to 72. Then I use the Unsharp Mask at 50%, radius .05 and threshold 0. Then I save it as a jpeg at whatever level gets me to 100mb or less.
hth
a Im an avid poster at : http://kayleigh.deviantart.com/ about 6oo photos and counting wee
Model
Kassandra
Posts: 1076
Coram, New York, US
So Shoot Me! wrote:
About the bicubic sharper, I thought that didn't sound right, so I double-checked my book. You got out this response before I could post the correction.
I don't usually downsize.
As far as incrementing, I was taught that the re-sampling would work better in either direction if you went in increments. I don't claim to be an expert, but it seems like if you went in increments, you'll have more accurate re-sampling, wouldn't you? (That's a question - and not a rhetorical one.)
-- rick Seems like i now have an excuse to sit at home playing in photoshop tonight SCOREEEE. Well, i normaly would be doing that ne way but least i have an exuse today..lol
Photographer
StephanieLM
Posts: 930
San Francisco, California, US
So Shoot Me! wrote:
About the bicubic sharper, I thought that didn't sound right, so I double-checked my book. You got out this response before I could post the correction.
I don't usually downsize.
As far as incrementing, I was taught that the re-sampling would work better in either direction if you went in increments. I don't claim to be an expert, but it seems like if you went in increments, you'll have more accurate re-sampling, wouldn't you? (That's a question - and not a rhetorical one.)
-- rick
P.S. Colin Smith's Complete Photoshop CS2 for Digital Photographers seems to be a fairly useful book for information like this. I just got it and while it seems somewhat simplistic, I have learned a few things from it already. And it's a fast read. Haha. Sorry I beat you to it! I can't remember the why of the "one fell swoop" rule, but it was taught to me in an independent study in school with a nationally known retoucher, so I pretty much take it as gospel. I know the explanation made sense when I heard it and it's worked very well for me since--I myself am primarily a retoucher. Lol. I'll try and find the explanation again. 
Photographer
RickHorowitzPhotography
Posts: 513
Fresno, California, US
Kassandra wrote:
Im an avid poster at : http://kayleigh.deviantart.com/ about 6oo photos and counting wee Wish I could get on DeviantArt. Unfortunately, I use one of the largest Internet Service Providers in the United States. (SBC)
And apparently, it's banned from DeviantArt, so I can't create an account.
-- rick
Photographer
amy coe
Posts: 198
Clatskanie, Oregon, US
Kassandra wrote:
Im an avid poster at : http://kayleigh.deviantart.com/ about 6oo photos and counting wee I have actually written myself an action for reducing the size of images for posting...actually I wrote two, one for vertical images and another for horizontal. Run the action and VOILA! you will have them resized in no time. Run them as a bacth, save and close to a specific location just for your internet sized images, grab a quick bite while PS does all the work for you.
best,
a
Model
Kassandra
Posts: 1076
Coram, New York, US
amy coe wrote:
I have actually written myself an action for reducing the size of images for posting...actually I wrote two, one for vertical images and another for horizontal. Run the action and VOILA! you will have them resized in no time. Run them as a bacth, save and close to a specific location just for your internet sized images, grab a quick bite while PS does all the work for you.
best,
a I do the same thing for my imgs LoL i cant tolerate repeditivness like that specialy with the size of some of my shoots*dies* thank you photoshop actions! how i lived without you is a mystery!
Photographer
RickHorowitzPhotography
Posts: 513
Fresno, California, US
StarlaMeris wrote:
Haha. Sorry I beat you to it! I can't remember the why of the "one fell swoop" rule, but it was taught to me in an independent study in school with a nationally known retoucher, so I pretty much take it as gospel. I know the explanation made sense when I heard it and it's worked very well for me since--I myself am primarily a retoucher. Lol. I'll try and find the explanation again. No problem. I should have looked it up before posting, because I just read it the other day. I was just so eager to get a feather from helping Kassandra, whose work I just discovered this morning.
As for the explanation, I think I'll take yours over mine. I don't remember where I read it and, for all I know, with my weak mind it was accompanied by "only use this method for upsizing" and I just forgot that part!
-- rick
Model
Kassandra
Posts: 1076
Coram, New York, US
So Shoot Me! wrote:
I should have looked it up before posting, because I just read it the other day. I was just so eager to get a feather from helping Kassandra
-- rick LMAO i just got this disturbing image of me handing out a special boyscout badge for helping me to photographers. Oh lord. My brain without sleep is a scarey place to be
Photographer
StephanieLM
Posts: 930
San Francisco, California, US
So Shoot Me! wrote:
No problem. I should have looked it up before posting, because I just read it the other day. I was just so eager to get a feather from helping Kassandra, whose work I just discovered this morning.
As for the explanation, I think I'll take yours over mine. I don't remember where I read it and, for all I know, with my weak mind it was accompanied by "only use this method for upsizing" and I just forgot that part!
-- rick Either way you're not going to see too huge of a difference unless you're going from like a 16x20 to a 4x6. Although now I'm curious so I think I'm going to test it myself. Maybe I'll post the results in the forums.
Photographer
RickHorowitzPhotography
Posts: 513
Fresno, California, US
Kassandra wrote:
LMAO i just got this disturbing image of me handing out a special boyscout badge for helping me to photographers. Oh lord. My brain without sleep is a scarey place to be I live for fear!
-- rick
Photographer
ward
Posts: 6142
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
I crop my jpg files 5x7.5 inches...add my borders to the image, then go into file>save as and save it at 72 dpi for web uploads. Web images don't need to be any larger then 72 dpi since they slightly larger then postage stamps anyway. For prints, I save at 300 dpi after I've cropped them to my portfolio/book print size.
Photographer
FosbreStudios
Posts: 3607
Medford, New Jersey, US
600 imgages....and counting, huh? You can resize all 600 at once in about 10 mins! Go to a website called www.pixresizer.com Download their program, its free, and there will be a tab for "SOURCE", click on that, go to that folder the photos are in....and then go to "DESTINATION" tab, and make a new folder named "Resized", and it will resize the SOURCE folder into the RESIZED folder all at once.
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 17825
El Segundo, California, US
StarlaMeris wrote:
Either way you're not going to see too huge of a difference unless you're going from like a 16x20 to a 4x6. Although now I'm curious so I think I'm going to test it myself. Maybe I'll post the results in the forums. That's what I recommend.
After doing a lot of research and a lot of testing on my images, I've found that simply resizing to the pixel dimensions desired (DPI doesn't matter on the web!) via Bicubic in one pass, followed by effective sharpening gives results indistinguishable from step-downsizing, Bicubic Sharper, or other downsizing techniques. Careful use of sharpening makes the biggest difference. (Well, other than being sure to convert the image into sRGB mode if you were using a different color space.)
1. Resize to the pixel dimensions you want.
2. Sharpen, assuming your viewer will see the image at approximately 75-100 dpi--whatever their screen is set to. That usually means an Unsharp Mask Radius setting of 0.3 to 0.8. (Higher radius will usually benefit from smaller amounts). If you're using High Pass sharpening or a third party tool, test it. (Unlike sharpening for print, sharpening for the web CAN be roughly eyeballed on screen--though LCDs and CRTs do have different optimum values.)
Sharpening in LAB mode sometimes improves the image; sometimes it's just wasting time. For web images, I don't bother, though I did fade to Luminosity before I switched to using PhotoKit Sharpener.
3. On rare occasions, boosting saturation (5%-10% at most) will help restore some of the potential loss of apparent saturation due to detail loss. (I no longer have this step in my actions, but some of my clients prefer it.)
4. Add borders, text, etc. This is best done AFTER sharpening to avoid those elements from being sharpened, unless you're mixing unsharpened and downsized photographic elements for the frame or logo.
|
