Jeez for the last month my photo sizes have been a lot bigger than they usually used to be. I size my photo's down to 640X480 and then do an unsharpen mask on them and they end up around 570K for the max and when I take them down to 150K I can see some compression and it sucks. Then I tried it without sharpening I'm getting a max size of 400K. I know people have talked about this in the past, but can we do 200k to 250k sizes, that might help some keep less compression.
ok I'm all better now. Just had to get that out. :)
Jeez for the last month my photo sizes have been a lot bigger than they usually used to be. I size my photo's down to 640X480 and then do an unsharpen mask on them and they end up around 570K for the max and when I take them down to 150K I can see some compression and it sucks. Then I tried it without sharpening I'm getting a max size of 400K. I know people have talked about this in the past, but can we do 200k to 250k sizes, that might help some keep less compression.
ok I'm all better now. Just had to get that out. :)
Yeah, I really don't get the 150K size limit. It really limits the quality. Does anyone know the reasoning on this?
I think the intention was so that users with cameras that can only do 640x480 at a fixed compression level arent disadvantaged, since everyone has to size their photos down to this (effectively lowest common denominator) level.
I'm sure there are reasons beyond evening the playing field for users with lower end cameras. Primarily, I'm sure storage and bandwidth are significant issues for the cost of running this site. In addition, bandwidth is very significant for modem users. Waiting a full 60 seconds for each entry to finish loading would really put a damper on the enjoyment of the contest. Us cable modem users might be perfectly willing to wait the extra 2 seconds it would take to download the extra 100K per photo, but it's a little harder for a modem user to write off an extra 30 seconds for each shot.
In my experience 150kB mostly is good enough. Many people don't even max that out.
Jubei, can you post some examples? Maybe your image editor behaves weird.
Yeah, I really don't get the 150K size limit. It really limits the quality. Does anyone know the reasoning on this?
The 150k file size limit is to take into account the needs of people with dialup Internet connections. If the file sizes get much larger it becomes impractical for dialup users to vote.
In my experience 150kB mostly is good enough. Many people don't even max that out.
Jubei, can you post some examples? Maybe your image editor behaves weird.
No my PS7.0 is probly not behaving weird. I'm the one being wierd. I just can see the little flaws around a couple of the edges. It isn't nothing too bad. I was just complaining last night.
If you "save for web" in photoshop, there is a function called "Optimize to File Size". If you enter 149 in that field (or even 150, depending slightly on how DPChallenges' servers are configured, and what OS you are using), you get the biggest possible pictures.
150 KB should give you MORE than plenty to work with, to be honest.
If you "save for web" in photoshop, there is a function called "Optimize to File Size". If you enter 149 in that field (or even 150, depending slightly on how DPChallenges' servers are configured, and what OS you are using), you get the biggest possible pictures.
150 KB should give you MORE than plenty to work with, to be honest.
acctaully several of my pics that have had to be saved at a lower quality have suffered in the votes... when I am required to save at 90% quality to get to 150k, voters tend to make comments about things being out of focus or grainy... it definately affects things
If you have photoshop 7, which I guess you do (PS) go to file-> save for web... there you ALWAYS want to save it as a .JPG... and just move the slider untill you hit 150kb... if your saving it any other way from photoshop it will look VERY bad...
from uncompressed 5mp tiff files that are 12mb, i can save 100-150kb files that look fine. i use optimized/ progressive (5 scan)in ps7. we should have higher resolution photos, but limited to the same size (800X600). that would help. my monitor is set at 1600X1200, and the 640X480 pics require me to look very closely. if your pic is really grainy, i suggest Neat Image (www.neatimage.com)
also, i have dial up and the pics take forever to dl even at 150. i am hopefully upgrading to dsl soon though.
from uncompressed 5mp tiff files that are 12mb, i can save 100-150kb files that look fine. i use optimized/ progressive (5 scan)in ps7. we should have higher resolution photos, but limited to the same size (800X600). that would help. my monitor is set at 1600X1200, and the 640X480 pics require me to look very closely. if your pic is really grainy, i suggest Neat Image (www.neatimage.com)
also, i have dial up and the pics take forever to dl even at 150. i am hopefully upgrading to dsl soon though.
I think the 150k limit is fine. I was just ranting last night. The photo's I have are acceptable at 150k so I'm not going to worry about it. I have just started to shoot in RAW and some of the images I was using are about 35 to 40 megs uncompressed. Things are totally fine, I'm happy with my image for this week.
