«

I have a new Canon S400. I'm shooting at the highest
resolution and getting jpgs that are in the range of
2000kb.

When I open them in Photoshop, it reports they are approx 8
1/2 by 11 at 180 pixels.

I would like to be able to send some of these as email
attachments but they are much too large.

What's the best was of radically cutting the kb size of the
photo, while doing the least damage to the resulting image?

TIA

Louise

I usually open the image in Irfanview, resize it to 800x600, and "save as" the
smaller file in a different directory.

This size works fine with most monitors and the file size is usually around 200k.

HTH,
Jeff

louise wrote:
> I have a new Canon S400. I'm shooting at the highest
> resolution and getting jpgs that are in the range of
> 2000kb.
>
> When I open them in Photoshop, it reports they are approx 8
> 1/2 by 11 at 180 pixels.
>
> I would like to be able to send some of these as email
> attachments but they are much too large.
>
> What's the best was of radically cutting the kb size of the
> photo, while doing the least damage to the resulting image?
>
> TIA
>
> Louise

louise writes:

> What's the best was of radically cutting the kb size of the
> photo, while doing the least damage to the resulting image?

Use the Resize dialog of Photoshop to resample the image at a lower
resolution.

For display on a computer screen (Web site or e-mail), images should be
no larger than 800x600 pixels, so resample your photos to that size.

Most people today have screens of 800x600 pixels in size; a fair number
have screens of 1024x768 pixels.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

louise <> wrote:

>I have a new Canon S400. I'm shooting at the highest
>resolution and getting jpgs that are in the range of
>2000kb.
>
>When I open them in Photoshop, it reports they are approx 8
>1/2 by 11 at 180 pixels.
>
>I would like to be able to send some of these as email
>attachments but they are much too large.
>
>What's the best was of radically cutting the kb size of the
>photo, while doing the least damage to the resulting image?

Louise,

you already got excellent and correct advice. Let me just add
that the two fundamental methods to reduce photo file size are
(1) reduction in resolution, and (2) JPEG compression.

So save the reduced picture as a JPG file and, before doing
this, set the JPEG compression to a desired value. You'll need
to experiment a bit, because if you increase compression, you
decrease quality.

In IrfanView, for example, I use a JPEG compression setting of
60 when I want to get small photos in the 50-80 KB range (for
800 x 600), but the quality is marginal. Settings around 80
yield file sizes of 100-150 KB with somewhat better quality. A
compression setting of 96 yields good quality, but the file size
usually goes way beyond 150 KB.

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.

louise <> wrote:
>I have a new Canon S400. I'm shooting at the highest
>resolution and getting jpgs that are in the range of
>2000kb.
>
>When I open them in Photoshop, it reports they are approx 8
>1/2 by 11 at 180 pixels.

Resize them to 800x600, or crop first and then resize into that ballpark.

Then Save as Web. A quality setting of 30 is usually fine, sometimes
you can get away with 15. This will make a file size typically in the
30-50k range. Very detailed ones as high as 100k.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

Hi,

Your best bet is to resize the to average screen resolution:

1024x768 pixel size.
A program that will let you do this very easy is Irfanview
Rosita

HRosita writes:

> Your best bet is to resize the to average screen resolution:
>
> 1024x768 pixel size.

Most displays currently are 800x600, with 1024x768 running a close
second. All other sizes are far behind.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> HRosita writes:
>
>
>>Your best bet is to resize the to average screen resolution:
>>
>>1024x768 pixel size.
>
>
> Most displays currently are 800x600, with 1024x768 running a close
> second. All other sizes are far behind.


Some facts. A few months ago I checked the stats of my then webhost
Lycos France. A random sample of 1,000 visitors showed that 25% ran
800x600, and 50% ran 1024x768.

Bee


--
West Bank - Palestine http://beeflowers.com/Palestine/start.htm
Russia's New Dawn http://beeflowers.com/Dawn/index.htm
Homepage http://beeflowers.com

B. Flowers writes:

> Some facts. A few months ago I checked the stats of
> my then webhost Lycos France. A random sample of 1,000
> visitors showed that 25% ran 800x600, and 50% ran 1024x768.

Unless something has changed drastically in the past year, your site is
exceptional. The ratio is usually the other way around. It would help
if everyone went to 1024x768, though, as photos on an 800x600 screen are
just barely acceptable in terms of resolution (and I don't even want to
talk about 640x480).

On my site, I provide wallpaper in three sizes: 1024x768, 800x600, and
640x480. That seems to cover about 99% of visitors.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

"Hans-Georg Michna" <hans-> wrote in message
news:...
> (Jason O'Rourke) wrote:
>
> >Resize them to 800x600, or crop first and then resize into that ballpark.
>
> Jason,
>
> very good hint, the cropping. In fact I often do this, but
> forgot to mention it in my preceding message.
>
> Hans-Georg
>
> --
> No mail, please.

The viewable size is reduced considerably by the Menu Bar, Tool Bar, Task
Bar, etc. One HTML book I read suggests an image size of no more than 745 x
415 for viewing at 800 x 600 without scrolling.

Ken