Re-sizing

A question for you all regarding re-sizing images.

I usually shoor RAW and create JPEG files in pp. I usually resize them during pp to 1080 pixels on the tall side because that equates to my monitor resolution. This means that any pictures I use as a screensaver will display correctly and also keeps the overall file sizes not too large.

My understanding has always been that it is best to resize for the screen the picture is to be viewed on, then apply output sharpening (USM). Am i right in thinking that if I left the original pixel dimensions (7360/4912) that when viewed on a screen the image would lose some sharpness as the computer software would be drastically reducing the image for viewing ? From doing some tests this is what I think happens.

The reason I am asking is I am doing some portraits of a friends dog. most of the images will be viewed on her monitor/ipad and uploaded to facebook etc. But she also will want to use an image or two to have some physical artwork made up (poster style). I assume that for the latter keeping a large pixel resolution image would be best.

So do i supply all the images at full size, or supply all the images at a sensibly reduced pixel size (say 1080 tall or a bit bigger to account for most monitors) , and then supply full size images for only those ones she wants to have artwork made out of.

I guess what I am asking is what a professional photographer would supply a client in this circumstance, although there is no commercial arrangement in my case.

Interesting question Peter.
I must confess to never re-sizing for screen size or for sites, such as this one, which have a size limit.
I just process them and save a smaller mb file size, under 2.4mbs usually covers most sites.
Would be interested to see side to side comparisons.

I reduce my photos to 70%, using the PS "save for web" process. I also use the quality setting to output a file size of approx 700kb. I have found from experience that this is the lower limit that usually avoids any artifacts such as banding on blue skies.

Certainly at these size and quality settings there is never any apparent loss of visual quality on any web based outlet.

There doesn't seem to be any point or advantage to setting specific image dimensions to suit a particular website. ... They all do things automatically regardless.

For printing I output a full sized jpeg and max quality (12) .... This generally produces a file around 7-10mb from the K7, again plenty enough for large prints using online services.

Yea Nigel, that's the same process more or less as I use.

You will hear the occasional complaint about large file sizes being uploaded to forums, eg more than 1.5 mb ..... This can slow things down for those without decent broadband, and is a significant issue for users of mobile data. I have often had to give up trying to view someone's photos when out and about because my phone or iPad can't load up the page. So I give up.

I think it is a good idea to carry out quality reduction for web display, just to ensure that everyone who we would like to see the photos can have easy access to them. I think there is nothing to be gained with files any larger about 600-800 kilobytes.

With out high resolution cameras now it also makes sense to chop the images down in size for the web also, as this simply helps the process of getting smaller files without huge compression. As I said, I chop to 70% with my K7 shots ....a K1user might be looking at around 40% .....

Hadn't considered some of those points, might revisit my saving process to see if i can see any difference, if not then I might give it a go.

Well worth saving a set at 1024 pixels wide so that they can be seen on most monitors without the viewing program needing to re-size them. Windows own built in viewer makes a mess of resizing. Viewers should also sharpen the image they reduce but rarely do.

Photographers are rarely interested in what photographs look like..... Photography nowdays is all about buying equipment and ticking comparison lists

Resize Magic is very good and can do batches. The standalone version is small and FREE ...

http://www.fsoft.it/Imaging/en/Default.htm

--

Presumably you are producing around 14 megapixel images (assuming uncropped) from the K-7 so, just as a point of interest, how large do you go, Nigel? (So far, I haven't printed bigger than A3.)

Philip

But that is not much use to someone with a 1920x1080 monitor. I like to see pictures fill the screen.

Hi Philip, I have "poster prints" from Foto.com that are 100 x 70 cm. Looked at closely they are indistinquishable from the same shot printed at 5' x 7'.

I assume there is some kind of fancy software used to make that enlargement. When ordering online and choosing the size, the website indicates the suitability of the file .... It shows "optimum" until you choose a size too big, then it indicates " borderline" . The 100 x 70 cm size is the biggest I can go before it changes from "optimal".

Algi, yes that's right, sharpening has to he considered too. All too often we see good photos that are simply soft looking, due to lack of attention at the output stage. I have often had comments from people, things along the lines that they are surprised at how "sharp" the K7 is ..... If they took the trouble to sharpen appropriately at Capture and Output stages then everyone's cameras would be just as sharp!

I have read that the correct setting to use when reducing and compressing for the web is " bi-cubic sharper" ...... So I set that, without really understanding the underlying process, but it seems to work well.

Then buy a 1024 wide Monitor

--

10 is the maximum quality 11 and 12 just produce bloated files see....

https://petapixel.com/2011/08/26/a-higher-quality-setting-in-photoshop-sometimes...

"the quality values go from 1-12 instead of the standard 1-10. They say it’s because the maximum value people are expected to use is 10. For the values 11 and 12 (included for “experimental reasons”), you don’t actually get much noticeable change in image quality, but file size balloons like crazy!"

--

I keep the main processed file at the pixel size it was taken at (will vary depending if an cropping has been applied) and use that for any printing. For general web use resize it to circa 750-1000 pixels for its longest side depending on destination. For screen backdrops it certainly makes sense matching the image size to the screen size.

I have one...it's called a telephone

Algi, I've got a K7 !! ..... I need all the bloating I can get