Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / April 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

JPG compression question

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Lombardi - 04 Apr 2006 20:47 GMT
Canon 350D
PSP X  02
RSP 2006

  New to digital so will need a little help along if  help posting are not
off topic in this NG.
     My camera is set to L+Raw but have decided to cancel the L & just
shoot in raw then convert to tiff or jpeg.I need to know what the best
compression rate is for jpg's.I will be Emailing most of them but need  good
quality to be sent.I open psp > choose my raw file> save copy as> save as
(jpg)> options> save options window (need best settings here).If choose  jpg
opttimizer (I need best settings here)
  Hope this is to long & rambling.
Thanks for help
Mike G. - 04 Apr 2006 21:43 GMT
> Canon 350D
> PSP X  02
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>    Hope this is to long & rambling.
> Thanks for help

There are actually a couple of thing you need to consider here.  At the
end of the day, to email a photo, you want to have a reasonably sized
file, say about 50-150 kbytes as a crude target.  But you need to
consider what type of connection the receiving party has.  If dial-up,
shoot for really small files, while if DSL or Cable, they can be bigger,
like maybe 300-500 kb.  But how many are you going to attach?  My email
service starts choking at around 2 mb of total attachments.

Next, what is the purpose of the files, from the receiving party's
perspective?  If they are to be viewed on-screen, you should resize them
to smaller pixel dimensions.  I don't know the (pixel) size of files
from your camera, but would guess them to be about 2000 x 3000 pixels,
giving about 6 megapixels.  Many people would consider 1024 x 768 to be
an average size screen, with some running at 800 x 600.  Depending on
whether your shots are landscape or portrait, you should resize them
(use the highest quality algorithm your program offers) so they fit on
the screen.

If they are to be printed, at what size?  Ideally, you would want around
300 pixels per inch (ppi) for the highest quality print, so a 4 x 6
print would need 1200 x 1800 pixels, but 250 ppi will usually give a
decent print, and even 150 - 200 ppi is OK for snapshot quality.

As far as jpg quality, it's a balancing act.  Use the highest quality
you can to get the file size you need to get to, after you've resized
the pixel dimensions, per your intended use.  How's that for vague?
Sorry, but there's not just one right answer.  However, be aware that in
any case, you cannot significantly reduce a file size by only cutting
jpg quality without resizing it smaller first.  If you do, you will see
noticeable damage:loss of quality and gross artifacts - sometimes
banding in the sky, or other areas with little detail.

One final thought:  If your files have an embedded profile of Adobe RGB
1998 (this would result from a setting in your camera), convert them to
sRGB before sending them out for general use and viewing.  If you don't,
they will look dull and lifeless when viewed in any application (most of
them) that doesn't support color management.

So essentially, your steps are:

1:  Convert to sRGB, if necessary.

2:  Resize to pixel dimensions depending on intended use.

3:  Save at highest jpg quality possible to get the size file you can
reasonably send.  If the file will not be resaved multiple times, even a
quality of about 40-50% of max (don't know what type of scale your
progam uses) - can be reasonable.

As a final thought, since you're new to digital, get into the mindset of
thinking in pixel dimensions.  Inches are meaningless for the most part,
until you go to print.  At that point, use the 300 ppi (or 250, or ...)
 x paper dimensions, but for everything else, just think in total
pixels.  Every program I've ever seen gets all hung up in meaningless
dimension hell.  Is a screen 72ppi?  96?  My 4x6 file looks too big, or
too small:  is it at 72ppi, 120, 300, 89,352.43???  Who cares, and so
what.  Just think in total pixels and don't get lost in the other stuff.
 It just doesn't matter.  Hope this helps.

Good luck.
Mike
C J Southern - 05 Apr 2006 00:32 GMT
> There are actually a couple of thing you need to consider here.  At the
> end of the day, to email a photo, you want to have a reasonably sized
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> like maybe 300-500 kb.  But how many are you going to attach?  My email
> service starts choking at around 2 mb of total attachments.

Bit of a "side bar" here ...

If you need to "email" files (or file collections) of ANY size then take a
look at www.sendthisfile.com - an entry level account is free, and I suspect
in most cases, will be all that you ever need (it was in my case).

I really can't fault the service.

Whilst I'm here, a quick comment on the previous posters advise re:
resolutions ...

My Epson 7800 will do up to 2880 DPI, but in reality anything over 240 is
indistinguishable. Even 1/2 that is difficult to see without looking really
closely.

Cheers,

Colin
Ed Ruf  (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) - 05 Apr 2006 00:55 GMT
>My Epson 7800 will do up to 2880 DPI, but in reality anything over 240 is
>indistinguishable. Even 1/2 that is difficult to see without looking really
>closely.

You seem to be mixing up the concepts of printer DPI and printed image PPI,
quite different things.
--
Ed Ruf    Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com
C J Southern - 05 Apr 2006 02:15 GMT
> >My Epson 7800 will do up to 2880 DPI, but in reality anything over 240 is
> >indistinguishable. Even 1/2 that is difficult to see without looking really
> >closely.
>
> You seem to be mixing up the concepts of printer DPI and printed image PPI,
> quite different things.

I worded it too loosely, and for that I apologise - not that anyone would
try to render a full frame to 2880ppi, I'm sure.

How's this ...

"With the image sized correctly in Photoshop, any resolutions over 240
pixels per inch are unlikely to produce discernable results - with
resolutions around 120 pixels per inch still producings very good results"
Siggy - 05 Apr 2006 15:52 GMT
> I worded it too loosely, and for that I apologise - not that anyone would
> try to render a full frame to 2880ppi, I'm sure.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> pixels per inch are unlikely to produce discernable results - with
> resolutions around 120 pixels per inch still producings very good results"

I believe Epson printers (used to?) render better quality output if the
printed image ppi resolution is set to correspond with its native resolution
of 720dpi. If that is undesirable for file size reasons, then it should be
reduced by amounts of 50% exactly. i.e. Choose 360ppi or 180ppi instead.

Nigel

Signature

I have no evidence for stating the above, but this is usenet, so I don't
need any.

Ed Ruf  (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) - 05 Apr 2006 21:53 GMT
>> I worded it too loosely, and for that I apologise - not that anyone would
>> try to render a full frame to 2880ppi, I'm sure.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>> pixels per inch are unlikely to produce discernable results - with
>> resolutions around 120 pixels per inch still producings very good results"

Better. Though as stated by Nigel it's best to give the printer driver the
native resolution if wants, otherwise it will resample the image itself.

>I believe Epson printers (used to?) render better quality output if the
>printed image ppi resolution is set to correspond with its native resolution
>of 720dpi. If that is undesirable for file size reasons, then it should be
>reduced by amounts of 50% exactly. i.e. Choose 360ppi or 180ppi instead.

This came up a while ago. It would seem the consumer grade printers want
720 ppi, whilst the professional printer want 360.
--
Ed Ruf    Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com
C J Southern - 05 Apr 2006 23:51 GMT
> >I believe Epson printers (used to?) render better quality output if the
> >printed image ppi resolution is set to correspond with its native resolution
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> This came up a while ago. It would seem the consumer grade printers want
> 720 ppi, whilst the professional printer want 360.

I have to wonder if this is more theory than practice. From my experience
the output is so damned good I'd be hard-pressed to recognise anything that
was better.
Ed Ruf  (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) - 06 Apr 2006 00:05 GMT
>> >I believe Epson printers (used to?) render better quality output if the
>> >printed image ppi resolution is set to correspond with its native
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>the output is so damned good I'd be hard-pressed to recognise anything that
>was better.

Possibly true, but one might ask why leave it up to chance? Some folks use
Qimage to print, which automatically gives the printer driver it's native
resolution.

--
Ed Ruf    Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Andrew Haley - 06 Apr 2006 11:39 GMT
>>> I worded it too loosely, and for that I apologise - not that anyone would
>>> try to render a full frame to 2880ppi, I'm sure.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>>> pixels per inch are unlikely to produce discernable results - with
>>> resolutions around 120 pixels per inch still producings very good results"

> Better. Though as stated by Nigel it's best to give the printer driver the
> native resolution if wants, otherwise it will resample the image itself.

>>I believe Epson printers (used to?) render better quality output if the
>>printed image ppi resolution is set to correspond with its native resolution
>>of 720dpi. If that is undesirable for file size reasons, then it should be
>>reduced by amounts of 50% exactly. i.e. Choose 360ppi or 180ppi instead.

> This came up a while ago. It would seem the consumer grade printers want
> 720 ppi, whilst the professional printer want 360.

This is something of an urban legend that never seems to die.  

I did the experiment myself.  The professional printers work at 720
ppi too.  See

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.photo.digital/msg/23167b787a6e4fff?hl=en&

You can try for yourself at http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/quality/.

Andrew.
Ed Ruf  (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) - 06 Apr 2006 22:07 GMT
>This is something of an urban legend that never seems to die.  
>
>I did the experiment myself.  The professional printers work at 720
>ppi too.  See

No one said they didn't work.

>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.photo.digital/msg/23167b787a6e4fff?hl=en&

And I have no idea what you're trying to tell me here. OK, you printed an
image at 720 ppi, so? This doesn't prove the driver does not natively want
360 ppi, which Bill Hilton stated here a while ago when we went through
this.

>You can try for yourself at http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/quality/.

As I only own an R800, how to propose I do that?
--
Ed Ruf    Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Andrew Haley - 07 Apr 2006 12:58 GMT
>>This is something of an urban legend that never seems to die.  
>>
>>I did the experiment myself.  The professional printers work at 720
>>ppi too.  See

> No one said they didn't work.

Well, what does "It would seem the consumer grade printers want 720
ppi, whilst the professional printer want 360."  mean, exactly?  I
take it to mean that the native resolution of the professional
printers is 360 dpi, and therefore higher resolutions can't be
printed.

>>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.photo.digital/msg/23167b787a6e4fff?hl=en&
> And I have no idea what you're trying to tell me here. OK, you
> printed an image at 720 ppi, so?

It rather proves that the driver will print at 720 ppi.

> This doesn't prove the driver does not natively want 360 ppi, which
> Bill Hilton stated here a while ago when we went through this.

The native driver is switchable between 360 and 720 ppi, and the
switch is called "finest detail".

Bill Hilton was wrong when he wrote

> The Epson wide formats have a native rez of 360 ppi

and I explained why at the time.  In fact, the native driver is
switchable between 360 and 720 ppi, and the switch is called "finest
detail".  As I also said at the time, anybody who has one can do the
experiment.

Andrew.
Paul Furman - 07 Apr 2006 17:45 GMT
At 720dpi a 6MP photo is onlt 4 inches wide. On a large 36-inch wide
print, the image would have to be upsampled almost 10x.

>>>This is something of an urban legend that never seems to die.  
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>
> Andrew.
Thomas T. Veldhouse - 10 Apr 2006 21:42 GMT
> At 720dpi a 6MP photo is onlt 4 inches wide. On a large 36-inch wide
> print, the image would have to be upsampled almost 10x.

Since when does somebody print, or otherwise display an image at 720dpi?  My
point is that your upsampling quite is wrong.  If you want to print at 200
dpi, then you are talking about a 2x up sample based upon a 3000 pixel width
for a 6MP sensor.

Signature

Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE  34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Thomas T. Veldhouse - 10 Apr 2006 21:46 GMT
>> At 720dpi a 6MP photo is onlt 4 inches wide. On a large 36-inch wide
>> print, the image would have to be upsampled almost 10x.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> dpi, then you are talking about a 2x up sample based upon a 3000 pixel width
> for a 6MP sensor.

My apologies ... I took this out of context ... the printer would upsample
back to 720dpi or 360dpi, depending upon the argument.

Signature

Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE  34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Ed Ruf  (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) - 10 Apr 2006 10:23 GMT
>Well, what does "It would seem the consumer grade printers want 720
>ppi, whilst the professional printer want 360."  mean, exactly?  I
>take it to mean that the native resolution of the professional
>printers is 360 dpi, and therefore higher resolutions can't be
>printed.

That the driver would resample the image to it's native resolution and
print the image.

>The native driver is switchable between 360 and 720 ppi, and the
>switch is called "finest detail".
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>switchable between 360 and 720 ppi, and the switch is called "finest
>detail".

Ok, I stand corrected. Thanks.
--
Ed Ruf    Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Mike G. - 05 Apr 2006 03:18 GMT
> If you need to "email" files (or file collections) of ANY size then take a
> look at www.sendthisfile.com - an entry level account is free, and I suspect
> in most cases, will be all that you ever need (it was in my case).

Thanks for the sendthisfile.com link.  Looks really useful.

Mike
C J Southern - 05 Apr 2006 03:35 GMT
> > If you need to "email" files (or file collections) of ANY size then take a
> > look at www.sendthisfile.com - an entry level account is free, and I suspect
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Mike

You're welcome - I've been using it a bit and I really can't fault the
service.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.