Northern New Mexico: processing of files for posting

[HCS]

Nice set of images, compelling!

I had to reduce these images unacceptably low to upload them.

How did you create them? What are the image dimensions? What are the JPEG compression and quality settings?

With this information we (i mean the ones on this forum who know) could perhaps help you.


Admin comment: I split the topic and moved the processing details to its own thread

[Peter]

Nice set of images, compelling!

How did you create them? What are the image dimensions? What are the JPEG compression and quality settings?

With this information we (i mean the ones on this forum who know) could perhaps help you.

All photos opened raw in Capture NX-D, Last image in the batch is as follows: opened raw in Capture NX-D saved Tif 4256x2715 at 123MB reduced to jpeg PS5 4256x2715 to 7.95MB I reduced again to 2.40MB to upload to this site.
I don't do much uploading to web sight's so am what am I doing wrong?
Thanks for your input.

[charlie]

The pictures you've uploaded are 4000+ pixels on the long side which is rather large for internet viewing. If you make the smaller, say 1500-2000 pixels on the long edge, you will be able to keep the quality setting higher.

I like the first picture and how the structure is just off center.

[pluton]

All photos opened raw in Capture NX-D, Last image in the batch is as follows: opened raw in Capture NX-D saved Tif 4256x2715 at 123MB reduced to jpeg PS5 4256x2715 to 7.95MB I reduced again to 2.40MB to upload to this site.
I don't do much uploading to web sight's so am what am I doing wrong?
Thanks for your input.

I like these shots.  Nice mood of dark and foreboding. Can't wait to see them on a display better than the laptop I'm currently using.
Suggestion:  See if there's a way that NX-D can make the small(er) web-appropriate JPEG directly, in one step.  By shrinking the file size 2 or 3 times, you are repeatedly applying the JPEG compression, which may be what is funking-up the fine detail.
If your TIFF rendered out of NX-D is uncompressed, then PS5 should(?) be able to create the web sized JPEG in one action, thus avoiding the multiple passes of compression.
EDIT:  I agree with Charlie that the pixel dimensions could be affecting the final image quality. I have found that limiting pixels to 1200 on the long side is often OK, but some images deserve a bit more linear resolution, and I've routinely gone to 1500, and even 2000, without incident.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

One has to understand the important difference between pixel dimension and file [storage] size.

To put it simple: if you upload a file with pixel dimension exceeding 2000 pix on the long axis, you will need to compress the jpg severely in order to keep file size (in MB) within the allowed limit. This is the wrong approach as you kill all fine detail by aiming for a much higher pixel size than can be utilised.  Besides, any resizing of your image will be left to the whims of unknown forum software. Not good for keeping any quality either.

Strike a much more optimal balance by resizing the file to be at most 2000 pix on the major axis, preferably even smaller in the case of pictures in portrait mode. You can then optimise the rendition and save the file at the higher or even maximum jpg quality levels, thus making it really shine on a web page. For a colour image it is preferable to convert the image into sRGB space as well. Adobe RGB (1998) might work to satisfaction in some browsers, but there is no guarantee the viewers will see the displayed image in the same manner as intended. Large spaces such as Prophoto will almost certainly be displayed flat and lifeles with squished colours so not a good idea at all for web pictures.

[Peter]

One has to understand the important difference between pixel dimension and file [storage] size.

To put it simple: if you upload a file with pixel dimension exceeding 2000 pix on the long axis, you will need to compress the jpg severely in order to keep file size (in MB) within the allowed limit. This is the wrong approach as you kill all fine detail by aiming for a much higher pixel size than can be utilised.  Besides, any resizing of your image will be left to the whims of unknown forum software. Not good for keeping any quality either.

Strike a much more optimal balance by resizing the file to be at most 2000 pix on the major axis, preferably even smaller in the case of pictures in portrait mode. You can then optimise the rendition and save the file at the higher or even maximum jpg quality levels, thus making it really shine on a web page. For a colour image it is preferable to convert the image into sRGB space as well. Adobe RGB (1998) might work to satisfaction in some browsers, but there is no guarantee the viewers will see the displayed image in the same manner as intended. Large spaces such as Prophoto will almost certainly be displayed flat and lifeles with squished colours so not a good idea at all for web pictures.

Bjørn,

I get it but i don't how do you adjust the major axis on PS5?
Yeah I am still new at PS functions just pick up bit's and pieces as I need them. sorry.
Doing what I did shows I increased the grain in the image as well.

Pete

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Go to  Image > Image size > set the maximum pixel dimension value to 2000 or less; either width (landscape mode) or height (portrait mode).

There should be an accelerator ('hot') key combination to take you directly there as well, look in your PS menu or Help functions (I'm using Alt+Ctrl+I on Windows, Macs probably use something similar).

Ensure the checkbox for Constrain Proportions is ticked so the resizing keeps the original aspect ratio.

[elsa hoffmann]

This is how I do it - once you have resized the images, you save it at image quality 10 - 12
This image was saved at Image quality 10, usually I save at 12 - depending on upload limitations
This image was 5.3MB, now resized to 570KB.
For normal web use I use 1024, but many people prefer 2000 pix on the long side

[Erik Lund]

Choose 'Bicubic Sharper' for keeping sharpness high when reducing pixel size.

Remember that you need to treat images differently if they are for print or for web,,,

Very nice images they look very crisp and for sure sharp maybe even too much sharpening,,, be aware for how the rendering is for instance in the sky areas,,,

[elsa hoffmann]

Thanks for the tip on Bicubic sharpner

[Erik Lund]

And do resizing in steps, works much better, never do more that half when reducing or double when enlarging.

[David H. Hartman]

I start in Nikon CaptureNX-D and move to Photoshop CS2. Then when my post processing is complete most often with no sharpening at all. I make a flat copy (no layers) for downsizing and sharpening. I do sizing in steps with mild to very minimal sharpening before each down sizing step. The last sharpening may be as slight as Basic, 5%, 0.3 pixels in PS. I often sharpen on a separate layer so I can fad the opacity to reduce sharpening. I'll also erase areas that lack texture where sharpening may create artifacts. If some edges look to sharp I'll erase those edges. I'll duplicate the background layer and then merge the sharpening layer to the dup. I end up with a layer with sharpening and the unsharpened background layer. I'm down sizing from as much as 7360 down to 1800 pixels on the long side.

Dave Hartman

[Mike G]

Sorry for asking folks but are doing the image resizing from within NX-D?

Of course if you use Lightroom you can also resize from within Lr and or Preview!

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Lots of image processing software offer options for resizing of the files.

It might be optimal to do this step in the RAW converter directly, as the program then can utilise all available data. Some programs, Photo Ninja for example, only provides fixed steps though (1:2, 1:4, ... etc.) though.

The maximum of flexibility, although perhaps not always in terms of the utmost quality, is doing the resizing as the penultimate step in Photoshop or equivalent software. Add a bespoke sharpening suited for the output size and medium and you are done.

[pluton]

And do resizing in steps, works much better, never do more that half when reducing or double when enlarging.

I have seen this recommended by various digital imaging experts over the years.  But the resizing should be in a compression-free container such as a TIF file, not JPEG... which always brings lossy compression, correct?