Re: Image sizes for [SI]

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by NM5K, Sep 11, 2011.

  1. NM5K

    NM5K Guest

    On 9/11/2011 12:30 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    ..
    >
    > Here is one (almost picked at random) which helps illustrate the
    > point: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_1683-2.jpg is really a
    > photograph of a man fishing from a small red boat. This is the
    > original (taken with a D70) with a JPG of 3.98 MB (2000 x 3008 MB).
    >
    > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_1683-2a.jpg is the same
    > photograph reduced to 450 x 676 and 302kB.
    >
    > In my opinion the loss of detail in the smaller photograph causes it
    > lose the impact present in the larger photograph. I'm not advocating a
    > 4MB file size but I do want to make the point that reducing the file
    > size does take something away from the original image.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Eric Stevens
    >
    >
    > PS. The boat is actually plain weather-beaten aluminium. In
    > post-processing I painted it red to make it stand out more in the
    > photograph.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Eric Stevens


    In some ways I tend to agree. You do lose some detail when
    downsizing. No way to escape it..
    But.. I think you could get a little more bang for the buck
    as far as your downsizing. For that small second shot, it's
    a pretty large file size for what you get out of it.
    And a good bit of detail has been lost. I bet you did no
    sharpening to the downsized image for one thing.
    I've found adding a little sharpening goes a long way to
    retaining a crisp look when using a smaller file size.
    Sure, it causes some artifacts, but when looking at the
    whole image and not pixel peeping, it's usually not a
    major problem. With the way I downsize, I can get a good
    bit larger image for the same file size, than the example
    you've shown.
    It's lost some detail vs the original, but not massively
    so.
    As an example..
    Which would you rather look at.
    Yours at that pretty small 450 x 676 size..
    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_1683-2a.jpg

    Or this one which is 837x1260, and actually using a
    slightly smaller file "283k" than the one you posted..
    http://home.comcast.net/~disk200/boat50-4.jpg

    Sure, it's not perfect, but I think a tad more efficient
    at keeping the impact of the original. Yes, I did sharpen it
    just a tad, and also bumped the saturation a tad, as the
    conversion using my program took a bit of color out for some
    reason.
    When I load a large image into the browser and then click the
    "-" to make it fit full screen, it tends to sharpen the image
    almost like using a sharpener in an edit program.
    With my smaller version, you see less of that, so not quite as
    sharp as the original in that view. But.. I think it looks sharper
    than the small image you converted to.
    I think you could probably use a bit more jpg compression than
    you presently are, and still keep a pretty decent, but larger
    downsized image.
     
    NM5K, Sep 11, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. NM5K

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:13:01 -0500, NM5K <> wrote:
    : On 9/11/2011 12:30 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    : .
    : >
    : > Here is one (almost picked at random) which helps illustrate the
    : > point: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_1683-2.jpg is really a
    : > photograph of a man fishing from a small red boat. This is the
    : > original (taken with a D70) with a JPG of 3.98 MB (2000 x 3008 MB).
    : >
    : > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_1683-2a.jpg is the same
    : > photograph reduced to 450 x 676 and 302kB.
    : >
    : > In my opinion the loss of detail in the smaller photograph causes it
    : > lose the impact present in the larger photograph. I'm not advocating a
    : > 4MB file size but I do want to make the point that reducing the file
    : > size does take something away from the original image.
    : >
    : > Regards,
    : >
    : > Eric Stevens
    : >
    : >
    : > PS. The boat is actually plain weather-beaten aluminium. In
    : > post-processing I painted it red to make it stand out more in the
    : > photograph.
    : >
    : > Regards,
    : >
    : > Eric Stevens
    :
    : In some ways I tend to agree. You do lose some detail when
    : downsizing. No way to escape it..
    : But.. I think you could get a little more bang for the buck
    : as far as your downsizing. For that small second shot, it's
    : a pretty large file size for what you get out of it.
    : And a good bit of detail has been lost. I bet you did no
    : sharpening to the downsized image for one thing.
    : I've found adding a little sharpening goes a long way to
    : retaining a crisp look when using a smaller file size.
    : Sure, it causes some artifacts, but when looking at the
    : whole image and not pixel peeping, it's usually not a
    : major problem. With the way I downsize, I can get a good
    : bit larger image for the same file size, than the example
    : you've shown.
    : It's lost some detail vs the original, but not massively
    : so.
    : As an example..
    : Which would you rather look at.
    : Yours at that pretty small 450 x 676 size..
    : http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_1683-2a.jpg
    :
    : Or this one which is 837x1260, and actually using a
    : slightly smaller file "283k" than the one you posted..
    : http://home.comcast.net/~disk200/boat50-4.jpg

    I think I prefer the original. The sharpening in the doctored picture makes
    the bare twigs on the trees far more luminous than they would be in real life,
    and I find that distracting. Remember, you're supposed to notice the boat.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Sep 11, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. NM5K

    NM5K Guest

    On 9/11/2011 11:33 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:13:01 -0500, NM5K<> wrote:


    >
    > I think I prefer the original. The sharpening in the doctored picture makes
    > the bare twigs on the trees far more luminous than they would be in real life,
    > and I find that distracting. Remember, you're supposed to notice the boat.
    >
    > Bob


    When I size his large image to fit the screen, and also the one I did,
    to where they look the same size, I actually notice more of that with
    his image than mine. The large one ends up more "crinkly" around the
    twigs, etc..
    But maybe that is a quirk of the resolution I'm using, or the browser.
    Like I say, there is something that seems to add sharpening when
    viewing with the browser, and the result is almost the exactly the same
    as using sharpening in a edit program. I've noticed some view programs
    do that too. It only does it when you fit the image to the screen so
    you can see all of it.
    I was just trying to get close to the sharpness you see when you
    fit his original image to screen size. If you left out the sharpening,
    that would make the file size even smaller, and you could use less
    compression to stay under 300k. But to me, his small size image seemed
    pretty flat and not very sharp looking. Or at least compared to the
    original. That's why I added a little sharpening, as the lack of
    crispness seemed to maybe be one of his complaints. But maybe not..
    I could use less, or a different method, and maybe have it come out
    better. That was just a quicky re-size using my Sony software.
    I guess my main point was I think he could come out with a bigger
    re-sized image that would be usable, and still stay under 300k.
    The one he did was pretty small for a 300k image, kind of like he
    was using little or no compression.
     
    NM5K, Sep 11, 2011
    #3
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Markus Dehmann
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,404
    Xanophile
    Feb 19, 2005
  2. Marful
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    970
  3. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,152
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  4. why?
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    810
  5. why?
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    594
Loading...

Share This Page