Reminder Secure

Downsizing images

Steve Sadler is off-line
30 December 2016 08:53
steves
Photographer

Location
United Kingdom
West Midlands


From a non techie to all you techies out there!
Could you please explain how to reduce the size of a high resolution image (6mb) to a smaller size (2mb) in order to upload to a site where size is restricted.
Any help greatly appreciated.


redbaron is off-lineSilver Member
30 December 2016 09:54
redbaron
Photographer
redbaron
Location
United Kingdom
Buckinghamshire
Stoke Mandeville

Which editing programs are you most comfortable with Steve? Obviously there are dozens of ways to achieve this but there is little point explaining in say Photoshop to be told you only have lightroom
Photography and Studio hire www.immortaleye.co.uk


Pentti Pohjonen is off-lineSilver Member
30 December 2016 10:12
PHP_Photography
Photographer
PHP_Photography
Location
Europe
Finland
VAASA

Didn't you get an answer on the other site ?


Steven Jardine is off-linePlatinum Member
30 December 2016 12:22
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Location
United Kingdom
Buckinghamshire
Stoke Mandeville

JPGMini is a program that seems to be the in-thing at the minute for compressing images without noticeable degredation (allegedly).

Adobe Lightroom has the facility to compress images to a particular size and obviously can batch-process (this is probably the best solution, especially since it can work from the RAW files).
When you are dead, you do not know that you are dead. All of your pain is felt by others. The same thing happens when you are stupid.


Paul Riddell is off-line
03 January 2017 05:44
riddell
Photographer
riddell
Location
United Kingdom
Hertfordshire
berkhamsted

As others have said the exact actions will of course depend on what application you are using, however -

To downsize you have a to balance 2 (or 3 (or 4 things))

Size and compression

and possibly file format (and possibly sub formats)

If we take out the file format options and just look at size and compression, then its all going to matter about where it is going and how that site displays it and of course who is going to download it.

You said you have 2mb to play with, which is actually quite a lot for regular internet .jpgs. If someone gave me that brief then I'd probably just resize, with a tiny bit of compression.

2mb could be quite slow to a lot of people on slower connections, phone etc. so for most internet sites I'd lower that right down, smaller size and more compression.

Right now I'm possibly confusing you with oblique answers when all you want is numbers to type in and buttons to press and a straight answer and wondering why I am not giving one?

Simple, there is no straight answer, not with .jpgs, it all depends on your subject matter as .jpgs use some clever packing algorithms. With exactly the same settings a file will end up different sizes dependant upon the content and how much detail there is. A cityscape with loads of buildings, windows and other architectural details has way more info in it that a model in a single colour plain outfit on a white background.




www.photographybyriddell.co.uk


Jaw Imaging is off-lineSilver Member
04 January 2017 07:56
Two_stops
Photographer
Two_stops
Location
United Kingdom
Nottinghamshire
Nottingham

http://www.irfanview.com/main_download_engl.htm


One of the easiest apps to use is Irfanview, comes complete with batch processing, just go to advanced and set up the parameters you wish to use and away you go.

John


Before digital, photography consisted of only negative comments.


Matthew G is off-line
05 January 2017 17:22
MG
Photographer
MG
Location
United Kingdom
Warwickshire


Quote from riddell


You said you have 2mb to play with, which is actually quite a lot for regular internet .jpgs. If someone gave me that brief then I'd probably just resize, with a tiny bit of compression.

2mb could be quite slow to a lot of people on slower connections, phone etc. so for most internet sites I'd lower that right down, smaller size and more compression.

Right now I'm possibly confusing you with oblique answers when all you want is numbers to type in and buttons to press and a straight answer and wondering why I am not giving one?

Simple, there is no straight answer, not with .jpgs, it all depends on your subject matter as .jpgs use some clever packing algorithms. With exactly the same settings a file will end up different sizes dependant upon the content and how much detail there is. A cityscape with loads of buildings, windows and other architectural details has way more info in it that a model in a single colour plain outfit on a white background.



The site will automatically downsize the image from 2mb. The original poster has a very fair point though.... These sites should not have a limit of 2mb per image. You should be able to load far larger images and then have them automatically resized. From memory the server software to do this always used to be ioncube... Might have that wrong but its a simple thing for a site to do...


Steven Jardine is off-linePlatinum Member
06 January 2017 03:37
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Location
United Kingdom
Buckinghamshire
Stoke Mandeville

Quote from MG
These sites should not have a limit of 2mb per image. You should be able to load far larger images and then have them automatically resized. From memory the server software to do this always used to be ioncube... Might have that wrong but its a simple thing for a site to do...



If you knew the costs of leased line bandwidth, you'd fully understand the logic of forcing users to resize before uploading, especially as JPGs can often reach tens of megabytes from modern cameras nowadays.

At work we've got a 50Mb leased line that's around £11k per year to run.  The costs for running sites that can handle hundreds, if not thousands of simultaneous users and still maintain a decent bandwidth must be absolutely eye-watering.
When you are dead, you do not know that you are dead. All of your pain is felt by others. The same thing happens when you are stupid.


Paul Riddell is off-line
06 January 2017 06:38
riddell
Photographer
riddell
Location
United Kingdom
Hertfordshire
berkhamsted

Quote from MG
You should be able to load far larger images and then have them automatically resized.



Actually thats bad for 2 very good reasons.

1. Why would you want to upload a 10mb image only for it to get converted in a 100k? Uploading 100 of those is of course a gigabyte, instead of just 10mb for user resized images.

Not only is this slower for the user, it can also be a problem for people with limited usage accounts.

Plus perhaps even worse, its really bad for the people who own the websites. Its not just one person uploading the photos, its hundreds, it instantly means they need masses of extra bandwidth for both speed and usage.

2. Having a 3rd party system resize your images, means you have no control, no idea how that system is resizing them, what method its using or how its going to look. Just like everything else in photography, control is key. Automatic systems are left only to those who simply don't know what they are doing.


www.photographybyriddell.co.uk


Steve Sadler is off-line
07 January 2017 09:46
steves
Photographer

Location
United Kingdom
West Midlands


Thank you all for your help and advice. I'm now a fully fledged member of the resizing community!



5 Users currently online   Blue=Models Orange=Photographers Red=Agencies Purple=MUA/Stylists Grey=Studios Green=Moderators
jackw JohnDentonPhoto nick34eh steveh32 zzdigital