Correct way to downsize an image .
Mar 9, 2014 23:23:03 #
amehta wrote:
FastStone IV has a great price: free. If you use it a lot, you can make a donation (like $20).
Hey amehta, now your talking my language! Thanks.
With 2k a month alimony payment I am on a very
tight budget. Haa.
Work arounds are a must for me.
Thanks again.
Mar 10, 2014 07:49:15 #
countrydan1 wrote:
Thanks for the advice. Here is an example of what happens when I downsize.
That looks pretty good to me. I downloaded the huge TIFF and enlarged it, and it's beautiful.
Mar 10, 2014 08:54:44 #
countrydan1 wrote:
This really drives me nuts. I have always lost quality in Photoshop Elements when I downsize an image. I have been told to do it in increments, but don't know the actual workflow to do this correctly . Sure could use some advice. I usually shoot in JPG 16MB and the file sizes are huge. Thanks.
The way we learned it in the publishing company I worked for was to choose 300 ppi (pixels per inch) at the final size, i.e. 8 x 10 in., if it's going to be printed, or 72 ppi if it's just for online. If you want "hi-res" (300 ppi), then you have to start with that from your original.
Mar 10, 2014 09:52:46 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
ChrisCat wrote:
The way we learned it in the publishing company I worked for was to choose 300 ppi (pixels per inch) at the final size, i.e. 8 x 10 in., if it's going to be printed, or 72 ppi if it's just for online. If you want "hi-res" (300 ppi), then you have to start with that from your original.
ppi, whether 300 or 72, is meaningless for digital images.
Mar 10, 2014 12:00:32 #
countrydan1 wrote:
This really drives me nuts. I have always lost quality in Photoshop Elements when I downsize an image. I have been told to do it in increments, but don't know the actual workflow to do this correctly . Sure could use some advice. I usually shoot in JPG 16MB and the file sizes are huge. Thanks.
countrydan1,
Shooting in .jpg is Okay for today's modern cameras, their jpg compression programs are very advanced and perform well.
Years ago I heard that old wives tale about downsizing in increments, too. That is all it is, old.
For your own piece of mind make a copy of the original image, and perform all editing on the copy. The copied file should be saved as a non-compression file type, a .tif is usually a non compressed file type, and your image editing software may provide its own non compression type.
The reason for using a non compression file type is to prevent degradation of image quality caused by the compression program. Even .jpg will cause degradation after a few saves, and re-saves.
Now to the main part of your question.
Once you have created a final product, save that product file in another non-compressed file type, choose a slightly different name.
Now you can begin the downsizing process.
You need to know ahead of time what you will be doing with this image; printing a large format print, posting to FaceBook, and sending in E-Mail (or web site) are different and may require different file and physical size differences. Once you know the use and destination create folder for this purpose.
For printing on large format (16 x 24 inches) contact printer for exact specifications.
For 8 x 10 inch to 11 x 14 inch, set the re-sizing values to the physical size and the print resolution to 300dpi. Save the file to the appropriate folder with minimum jpg compression.
For 4 x 6, and 5 x 7 inch, set the re-sizing values to the physical size and the print resolution to 300dpi.
For e-mail and web sites set the physical print size in inches and the printing resolutions to 72dpi.
Important! after each re-sizing use your editing program "Unsharp Mask" to sharpen the overall image. Use the minimum value possible, and yet be able to see an improvement in the preview window.
Michael G
Mar 10, 2014 12:01:53 #
Dan, here is how I do it - I am critical, and satisfied, and this is the way many recommend. In Elements, for web sending and viewing, I set the PPI to 96 and begin reducing the total side pixel count by 1/2 to 1/3 and using the "Bicubic sharper" algorithm until , in the final step I will put 1056 pixels as the long side dimension and save at level "7' or "8" JPEG compression . There is usually 3 or 4 steps involved when doing it this way. Occasionally, after the final step I will view at 100% and do a "auto sharpen" function from the drop down menu and see if I like it - if so, I keep it - if not, I edit it.
Mar 10, 2014 12:07:20 #
Mar 10, 2014 12:10:51 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
Armadillo wrote:
For e-mail and web sites set the physical print size in inches and the printing resolutions to 72dpi.
For e-mail and web sites set the physical print size in inches and the printing resolutions to 72dpi.
"youve no doubt heard it said that the correct resolution for images displayed on the web is 72 dpi... its all complete nonsense!" - Photoshop Essentials
"DPI doesnt apply to layout on the web. When someone converts an image to 72 DPI, theyre adding an extra step with no benefit. Web pages are measured in pixels, not real-world units such as inches." - Web Designer Depot
"Really, as far as SCREEN display goes, the PPI is NO MATTER." - CaptainC
"The whole 72PPI/DPI thing is an internet myth. It has nothing to do with anything." - CaptainC again
Mar 10, 2014 12:28:28 #
TheDman wrote:
ppi, whether 300 or 72, is meaningless for digital images.
Really? In desktop publishing using Photoshop, Illustrator and Quark Express, everything is digital. If an image was less than 300ppi, it printed pixilated. In fact, our program was customized so that Quark would not accept a low-res image. That's why I made the distinction for online viewing, where 72 ppi is the standard.
When sending digital images to magazines, whether online or print, they still require "hi-res." For them, and for making traditional prints, I just use the old 300ppi rule, and don't worry about any of the other measurements, and everything is fine.
Mar 10, 2014 12:31:34 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
ChrisCat wrote:
If an image was less than 300ppi, it printed pixilated.
That's a printed image. It matters to printed images, but not digital images that just sit on your computer or the web.
ChrisCat wrote:
That's why I made the distinction for online viewing, where 72 ppi is the standard.
No, this is not the standard for online viewing, and never was. This is an old misunderstanding that will not die. Read the links I provided in my last post for more info.
ChrisCat wrote:
When sending digital images to magazines, whether online or print, they still require "hi-res." For them, and for making traditional prints, I just use the old 300ppi rule
300 ppi isn't "high res", lots of pixels are high-res. I can save a 50x50 pixel image at 300dpi... does that make it high-res?
Mar 10, 2014 12:32:14 #
Most of todays current monitors are displaying at 96 + or - PPI. While there is no DIRECT correlation - there most certainly is an indirect correlation ....according to Ken Rockwell.
Mar 10, 2014 12:35:55 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
imagemeister wrote:
Most of todays current monitors are displaying at 96 + or - PPI. While there is no DIRECT correlation - there most certainly is an indirect correlation ....according to Ken Rockwell.
If Ken Rockwell believes the ppi setting of his digital images matter for anything, then he's as clueless as everyone else. Just one more reason why I can't believe anyone reads that guy's site. There is zero correlation, direct or indirect. Zero. Read this link.
Mar 10, 2014 12:42:30 #
TheDman wrote:
If Ken Rockwell believes the ppi setting of his digital images matter for anything, then he's as clueless as everyone else. Just one more reason why I can't believe anyone reads that guy's site. There is zero correlation, direct or indirect. Zero. Read this link.
You have been reading too many websites and need to OPEN your mind a little more - INDIRECTLY it does correlate - inso far as it contols your total pixel count....
Mar 10, 2014 12:43:09 #
ChrisCat wrote:
Really? In desktop publishing using Photoshop, Ill... (show quote)
ChrisCat,
You are correct on both items.
When we send an image on the internet to be viewed on a monitor we are "Printing" that image on the screen, it has been that way since day One with CRT monitors and has not changed with flat panel monitors.
This is due in part to the computer device and operating systems in popular use today. The default resolution for Mac is 72dpi, the default for Microsoft Windows is 96dpi; and when viewing the exact same image on both systems the eye cannot determine which is best.
Michael G
Mar 10, 2014 13:10:52 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
imagemeister wrote:
You have been reading too many websites and need to OPEN your mind a little more - INDIRECTLY it does correlate - inso far as it contols your total pixel count....
I need to open my mind, says the guy who won't even click the link I give him.
This isn't about opening your mind. It's just a fact. There is no room for interpretation. Video systems are arranged in pixels, not inches. There are no inches on the internet. The ppi setting of your jpg does NOT control your total pixels! This should be obvious to you, as you can edit both without changing the other.
Here are 4 different photos, each saved at a different ppi. Notice that the pixel dimensions, file size, and quality NEVER changes:
1 ppi
72 ppi
105 ppi
300 ppi
9,999 ppi
How can that be if ppi controls pixel dimensions, as you claim? Those images right there prove you wrong.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.