sizing pics for viewing in IE

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by louise, Jul 28, 2003.

  1. louise

    louise Guest

    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, Jul 28, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. louise

    Jeff Guest

    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
     
    Jeff, Jul 28, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. louise

    Mxsmanic Guest

    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.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 28, 2003
    #3
  4. 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.
     
    Hans-Georg Michna, Jul 28, 2003
    #4
  5. 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
     
    Jason O'Rourke, Jul 28, 2003
    #5
  6. louise

    HRosita Guest

    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, Jul 28, 2003
    #6
  7. louise

    Mxsmanic Guest

    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, Jul 28, 2003
    #7
  8. louise

    B. Flowers Guest

    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, Jul 28, 2003
    #8
  9. louise

    Mxsmanic Guest

    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.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 28, 2003
    #9
  10. louise

    Ken Kahn Guest

    "Hans-Georg Michna" <> 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
     
    Ken Kahn, Jul 28, 2003
    #10
  11. Ken Kahn <> wrote:
    >"Hans-Georg Michna" <> wrote in message
    >> very good hint, the cropping. In fact I often do this, but
    >> forgot to mention it in my preceding message.


    I generally prefer the wider 6x4 aspect ratio, so I'll crop a bit and for
    the web pic, resize to 750x500. A bit more likely to fit in the window
    too.

    >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.


    I believe most are running at 1024 wide now, don't worry so much about
    the vertical. Scrolling down is easy for the user to do - whereas scrolling
    across is a pain. IE will of course resize the image so those running
    in the tiny resolutions will get something.

    --
    Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
     
    Jason O'Rourke, Jul 28, 2003
    #11
  12. louise

    louise Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > 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.
    >
    >

    Thanks everyone - all your info will help a lot.

    Louise
     
    louise, Jul 29, 2003
    #12
  13. (Jason O'Rourke) wrote:

    >IE will of course resize the image so those running
    >in the tiny resolutions will get something


    Jason,

    yes, that's a nice feature. However, it does this only when you
    have the picture alone, not when it is embedded in a HTML page.

    I now regularly write stories with thumbnail pictures, so
    readers can click on the pictures to get each one alone in the
    browser. Example: http://www.michna.com/kenya2003/.

    Hans-Georg

    --
    No mail, please.
     
    Hans-Georg Michna, Jul 29, 2003
    #13
  14. louise

    Charlie D Guest

    Hans-Georg Michna <> wrote:

    > I now regularly write stories with thumbnail pictures, so
    > readers can click on the pictures to get each one alone in the
    > browser. Example: http://www.michna.com/kenya2003/.



    Wonderful story and pictures.
    I envy you.

    --
    Charlie Dilks
    Newark, DE USA
     
    Charlie D, Jul 29, 2003
    #14
    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. Sseaott

    Outlook 2003 - Viewing pics IN the mail!

    Sseaott, Jul 6, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    407
    Sseaott
    Jul 6, 2004
  2. Ray Donzdorf

    PC Viewing vs DVD Player Viewing - MP3 play very fast

    Ray Donzdorf, Dec 11, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    766
    Ray Donzdorf
    Dec 11, 2004
  3. Bill Kean

    Viewing pics

    Bill Kean, Oct 15, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    652
    gangle
    Oct 16, 2005
  4. PEmpson181

    Is There Device for Viewing Pics on TV?

    PEmpson181, Sep 7, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    408
    Jerry Dycus
    Sep 10, 2003
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,245
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page