PDA

View Full Version : Photoshop not compressing right


devights
08-18-2006, 04:44 AM
Hey, I've been using photoshop for something like 5 years now and I've barely run into any problems using it, until now that is! Normally when I save stuff to submit to RP I use the Save for Web feature with a JPEG compression of about 30-40%. Now, I don't know if it's for the unusually blue skies (something you don't see in Seattle too much) but it tries to compress the sky into one or two colors, making these nasty pixely compression likes appear in the sky. The only way I can make them go away is to save the picture at 100% quality.
If RP accepted GIF images I know how to force photoshop to add extra colors to the table, but they don't.
Any ideas on how I can fix the problem?

Chris Kilroy
08-18-2006, 05:16 AM
I can't speak to your specific problem, but I always save my images at 100% quality (Level 12) in Photoshop. Sure, the filesizes are upwards of 800kb a lot of times, but we add compression at the time of upload here, which normally brings them down to about 300k after all is said and done.

I would recommend that everyone save and upload their images at the highest possible quality setting (lowest compression) that still keeps them under 1mb!

devights
08-18-2006, 06:30 AM
Ok, I wasn't sure if you guys had a script running compression or not. I'll try with 100% quality now. Thanks.

Chris Kilroy
08-18-2006, 02:40 PM
I've updated the (fairly outdated) upload guidelines and tips on the add photos page. I hope they're a bit clearer now! :)

becker
08-19-2006, 04:03 AM
We encourage creativity in our submissions. Please avoid uploading the standard 3/4 wedge shot, we would much rather see a nicely composed angle instead.

Does this mean that 3/4 wedge shots are completely banned nowadays? If so, that's surprising and very disappointing.

--Louis Becker

Chris Kilroy
08-19-2006, 04:18 AM
Does this mean that 3/4 wedge shots are completely banned nowadays? If so, that's surprising and very disappointing.

No, that text has been there for years.

Also on the page:

Roster Shots:

Properly exposed, non-front coupled roster shots are accepted and welcome. Front coupled roster shots (engine coupled to another engine or cut of cars) are not accepted unless the subject material is rare or unusual.

becker
08-19-2006, 04:24 AM
No, that text has been there for years.]

Good news.

Also on the page:

Roster Shots:

Properly exposed, non-front coupled roster shots are accepted and welcome. Front coupled roster shots (engine coupled to another engine or cut of cars) are not accepted unless the subject material is rare or unusual.

I've noticed sometimes that roster shots of units pulling trains get rejected for "bad angle". Although they do follow the guidelines that you listed. Is the 3/4 wedge prefered over the roster shot in this case?

--Louis

Ween
08-19-2006, 05:28 PM
I've noticed sometimes that roster shots of units pulling trains get rejected for "bad angle". Although they do follow the guidelines that you listed. Is the 3/4 wedge prefered over the roster shot in this case?

Here' my guess: roster shots of a train pulling cars gets rejected more than 3/4 wedge shots because:

1) The 3/4 wedge (potentially) shows more of the scenery around the subject
2) The roster of the train pulling cars shows the lead unit or two and maybe a car and that's it. By 'definition,' a good roster doesn't have anything coming out of the top of the subject, so all you are left with is sky, subject, and foreground (and a train that is cut out of the photo).

That's just my guess though...

Mustang11
08-19-2006, 08:19 PM
That sounds good to me. I have always preferred 3/4 over roster personally. They end up composed better IMO then the rosters which can look awkward with a thin train through the canter and lots of extra sky and foreground, so I can see how ending up with bad angle more often is possible. But I'm always glad to see creativity and different kinds of shots and angles.

Brian