Optimising for the web

Post Reply
Paintjob

Optimising for the web

Post by Paintjob »

I have a Kodak 4 megapixel camera, and sometimes post photos on a web site. I obviously re-size them and compress them to web quality, but some seem almost impossible to reduce. I used the 'select desired file size' option, which once actually increased it from the original!

I had one 2.9mb image which after resizing and compressing (6"x4" screen size) came in at 1mb and looked very pixelated. Emailed it to a friend who not only reduced it to 64kb but managed to retain a lot of the image definition.

I've browsed through the 'help' section to ensure I'm not missing anything. Generally I can reduce a photo to 640x480 and get it to less than 150kb, but it depends on the photo. Any suggestions?
sjj1805
Posts: 14383
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 7:20 am
operating_system: Windows XP Pro
System_Drive: C
32bit or 64bit: 32 Bit
motherboard: Equium P200-178
processor: Intel Pentium Dual-Core Processor T2080
ram: 2 GB
Video Card: Intel 945 Express
sound_card: Intel GMA 950
Hard_Drive_Capacity: 1160 GB
Location: Birmingham UK

Post by sjj1805 »

More important than size is format. What are you saving the pictures as
BMP, JPG, GIF, PNG ??
Paintjob

Post by Paintjob »

sjj1805 wrote:More important than size is format. What are you saving the pictures as
BMP, JPG, GIF, PNG ??
I'm naturally saving the images as JPG, the same as the original file format, which will also produce the smallest file size for a photo.
keenart

Post by keenart »

Does the JPG dump the EXIF info?
sjj1805
Posts: 14383
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 7:20 am
operating_system: Windows XP Pro
System_Drive: C
32bit or 64bit: 32 Bit
motherboard: Equium P200-178
processor: Intel Pentium Dual-Core Processor T2080
ram: 2 GB
Video Card: Intel 945 Express
sound_card: Intel GMA 950
Hard_Drive_Capacity: 1160 GB
Location: Birmingham UK

Post by sjj1805 »

This picture
Image

Measures 768x576 pixels and is 168 KB
It is a jpg saved to quality = "5"

Steve J
Paintjob

Post by Paintjob »

Impressive photo, though you didn't use PhotoImpact. Never tried Photo Explorer? Must give it a browse.
sjj1805
Posts: 14383
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 7:20 am
operating_system: Windows XP Pro
System_Drive: C
32bit or 64bit: 32 Bit
motherboard: Equium P200-178
processor: Intel Pentium Dual-Core Processor T2080
ram: 2 GB
Video Card: Intel 945 Express
sound_card: Intel GMA 950
Hard_Drive_Capacity: 1160 GB
Location: Birmingham UK

Post by sjj1805 »

Actually yes I did use PhotoImpact.

Steve J
Paintjob

Post by Paintjob »

keenart wrote:Does the JPG dump the EXIF info?
Thanks for the feedback keenart. Not as far as I know; does this make a difference? Does the new RAW patch have any bearing on this?
keenart

Post by keenart »

I remember another posting the large file size problem some time ago.

Although my Olympus C-8080 has RAW I don't need to use it, but do know the EXIF will deffinately enlarge your file size, unless you dump it.

I also don't use compression on my digital images other than what the camera utilizes. So a little ignorant on that subject. If it is still there after compression, the Browse Manager will display the info.

I am sure there are others who could elaborate more on this subject.
Post Reply