PDA

View Full Version : RP's photo specifications


MacTown
04-20-2007, 06:11 AM
Well i've been trying to figure this out for several days before posting on here, im having problems with my picture file size. I cant get the file size down to 1m while keeing within the allowed picture dimensions allowed on this site. Im not sure whats going on, this is probably a no brainer but im having troubles with it.

SD70MACMAN
04-20-2007, 07:01 AM
When the dimensions are around 1000x750 pixels (which is the size I personally submit) and JPEG format, I've never had it above 300kb. Is the format you're saving your images JPEG?

Bill
04-20-2007, 12:52 PM
Are you using Photoshop?
Use the 'Save for Web' option. You can set your pixel size then adjust your file size by adjusting the quality percentage.

JRMDC
04-20-2007, 01:19 PM
Are you using Photoshop?
Use the 'Save for Web' option. You can set your pixel size then adjust your file size by adjusting the quality percentage.

One issue: Save for Web does not preserve EXIF information. So I don't use it.

JRMDC
04-20-2007, 01:26 PM
Well i've been trying to figure this out for several days before posting on here, im having problems with my picture file size. I cant get the file size down to 1m while keeing within the allowed picture dimensions allowed on this site. Im not sure whats going on, this is probably a no brainer but im having troubles with it.

I am puzzled. The statement is unclear, for one. The smaller the picture, the smaller the file size. So I don't understand how you are having trouble keeping the file size DOWN while keeping WITHIN the allowed dimensions. Cutting the dimensions to get within the allowed values also cuts down the file size.

Personally, I have only on no more than two occasions had the problem of the file being over 1mb, usually it is in the 650kb to 950kb range. In those rare cases, I simply save with a quality setting of 11 instead of 12 (PS Elements; I understand PhotoShop uses the same settings).

Please tell us more about your setup - camera, size and dimensions of file coming out of the camera (and is it jpg or raw), software you are using, etc.

Warren
04-20-2007, 01:50 PM
Like SD70MACMAN says make sure it has the jpg extention. The gif or bmp extention will be quite large.

MacTown
04-20-2007, 10:29 PM
For now I am using a measly Fujifilm 3800 3.2 mega pixel, they are JPG files and when I open them up in PS(6.0) the deminsions are 2048x1536 at 9megs

Ween
04-20-2007, 10:38 PM
For now I am using a measly Fujifilm 3800 3.2 mega pixel, they are JPG files and when I open them up in PS(6.0) the deminsions are 2048x1536 at 9megs

No way! When I shoot RAW, the files are 8Mb, Large/Fine Jpgs are ~4Mb and those are both @ 3456x2304. Something's not adding up here...

MacTown
04-20-2007, 11:10 PM
Well thats what it is saying, believe it or not, im lost as to why its doing this, I dunno if im doing something wrong or if its something I can fix in PS.

JRMDC
04-20-2007, 11:43 PM
Not-so-wild guess: that is not the file size going in. Look on your hard disk using a regular file list program - windows explorer, whatever - to see the size of the file going in. Don't even open PS, just look at it when you get it off the camera and onto the computer. It isn't going to be 9mb.

I am guessing that to be the size of a file being saved out of PS, maybe in TIFF format (which gets pretty big). Or it is some measure of importance to PS, maybe amount of memory it takes up. Or actually, for each pixel, there is a red, green, and blue, so you have 2048x1536x3 = 9.44 million pieces of information. That would get you the value.

MacTown
04-20-2007, 11:52 PM
Yeah in windows explorer they are 1275KB and Jpeg files

JRMDC
04-21-2007, 01:33 AM
OK, now we are talking! Figure out how the Save As or Save For Web options work. Save as jpgs, and don't overwrite the original!

MacTown
04-21-2007, 03:14 AM
aight, i'll see what I can do

MacTown
04-21-2007, 04:25 AM
Well I dont know what the hell is going on I used the "Save for Web" I made the image smaller and its at 500k, when I open it up again in PS its size is showing over 2 megs

JRMDC
04-21-2007, 11:21 AM
Well I dont know what the hell is going on I used the "Save for Web" I made the image smaller and its at 500k, when I open it up again in PS its size is showing over 2 megs

Well, then don't open it up again! :)

Seriously, I don't know what PS is trying to tell you, but maybe you should just ignore it. [Or read the manual and figure out what it means!] What matters is the file size on the hard disk. If it is below 1mb, you are ready to submit to RP.

MacTown
04-21-2007, 09:09 PM
OK I am able to submit photos, PS makes the file size bigger for some reason so it was throwing me off, I am now ignoring the size it gives me JRMDC, windows explorer is giving me the size it really is. Let the rejections procede again :)

socalrailfan
04-22-2007, 01:48 AM
There's no way just opening an image in PS will alter your image in anyway, including file size. I've been using PS since PS - BCPC (before computers PC), just kidding since 3.0 or so and never seen or heard of that. I really think your default ":save as" may be the problem. You should be able to do just a save as" and not open save to web. Buit what do I know! :roll:

MacTown
04-22-2007, 03:41 AM
Well im just going to have to mess around with it some more and I might figure it out, just got a couple photos rejected for poor lighting, I assume because the side of the locomotives are too dark. I was expecting that for the second picture
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=363801
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=363767

JRMDC
04-22-2007, 11:44 AM
just got a couple photos rejected for poor lighting, I assume because the side of the locomotives are too dark.

correct, in my opinion

MacTown
04-23-2007, 01:53 AM
Ok I have one more for you guys and then im done :) Its pretty obvious that its grainy. Is the original too grainy as well, or if I edit it right, might have a chance?
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=364337

Bill
04-23-2007, 05:12 PM
Ok I have one more for you guys and then im done :) Its pretty obvious that its grainy. Is the original too grainy as well, or if I edit it right, might have a chance?

Try NeatImage.

Good luck...

JRMDC
04-23-2007, 06:00 PM
Show us what it looks like after neat image, and maybe after giving it your best shot in software. As of now, the overall image quality looks poor. The numberboards look wierd. The ballast and rails look soft.

It may be simply that, in doing a major crop of the original (which didn't look terrific itself, although that may be due to compression to a smaller size for posting), you do so much "digital zoom" that you can't save it.

Carl Becker
04-23-2007, 09:03 PM
Well i've been trying to figure this out for several days before posting on here, im having problems with my picture file size. I cant get the file size down to 1m while keeing within the allowed picture dimensions allowed on this site. Im not sure whats going on, this is probably a no brainer but im having troubles with it.

I usually submit at 800X600 and on occasion 1024X768 and have never come close to having too large of a file size. I use the 6 MP Canon Powershot A540 camera and IRFanView 3.99 for photoshop.

Personally, I like 800X600 best, especially when having to rotate an image. At 1024X768, sometimes, after rotating, there isn't a happy medium for sharpening. Either it's undersharpened, or the quality isn't good enough. At 800X600, it turns out much better and I can get it in without problems.

JRMDC
04-23-2007, 09:42 PM
I usually submit at 800X600 and on occasion 1024X768 and have never come close to having too large of a file size. I use the 6 MP Canon Powershot A540 camera and IRFanView 3.99 for photoshop.

Personally, I like 800X600 best, especially when having to rotate an image. At 1024X768, sometimes, after rotating, there isn't a happy medium for sharpening. Either it's undersharpened, or the quality isn't good enough. At 800X600, it turns out much better and I can get it in without problems.

This is a bit confusing to me. I presume by rotating you mean leveling the image. I've never had a problem with a 6mp file in rotating the full size file a few degrees and eventually sharpening and saving as 1024x768 or 1024x673. The key is to rotate before downsizing. If you mean rotating 90 degrees to go vertical, well, same thing, I've never had a problem. I generally submit my verticals at 900 or 950 in the vertical dimension.

Now, if I am taking a vertical crop out of the middle of a horizontal original, sometimes it certainly helps to go only 800 vertical as depending on the extent of the "digital zoom" the image may not be able to look good at 950.

MacTown
04-24-2007, 12:27 AM
I am not an experianced editor of photos, but so far the sky has been too grainy on my attempts to make it better,Some good news I just found out my sister has a canon powershot S3 IS 6MP, 12 optical zoom, im sure she'll let me take it when I go out to get shots, would be nice so I dont have to spend my money on a new camera right now :-)

Ween
04-24-2007, 01:09 AM
This is a bit confusing to me. I presume by rotating you mean leveling the image. I've never had a problem with a 6mp file in rotating the full size file a few degrees and eventually sharpening and saving as 1024x768 or 1024x673. The key is to rotate before downsizing. If you mean rotating 90 degrees to go vertical, well, same thing, I've never had a problem. I generally submit my verticals at 900 or 950 in the vertical dimension.

Now, if I am taking a vertical crop out of the middle of a horizontal original, sometimes it certainly helps to go only 800 vertical as depending on the extent of the "digital zoom" the image may not be able to look good at 950.

I think he shoots with an in-camera image size of ~1024 pixels. Not sure why, but I remember an older thread discussing the same thing...

Carl Becker
04-24-2007, 03:41 AM
I think he shoots with an in-camera image size of ~1024 pixels. Not sure why, but I remember an older thread discussing the same thing...

No, that was Louis, not me, and we shoot at full size now. It was some issue with our old photo editor that we don't use anymore. I can't remember exactly what was wrong at the second.