Editing photos??

[Turkeygirl]

Ok, so I'm playing around with my new camera...love the Easy Share system with the Kodak. I've wondered this before though about making photos, once you download them to the computer, smaller. Is it better to crop them like I can do on the EasyShare software, or scale them down, like I can do in the GIMP program on our computer? On the GIMP program I've scaled some down to 1024 pixels and some to 1350 pixels in width. On the EasyShare system I tried cropping a few down to 4" X 6" and 5" X 7". Just want to know what's a good size for either posting online like on Realtree and what's a good size for like printing and yet you still maintain decent quality? Also since we have dial-up, it seems the smaller I make the picture, whether cropping or scaling down, the faster it loads, but then sometimes I lose picture quality? Can anyone help me out?? Explains things? Thanks!

And one other thing...why is it the photos show up clear and great when just on the computer...but if I download them to like Realtree and post them on the forums...they show up slightly blurry, not crisp...yet if I view them say from a different computer like my laptop, they are fine?

[wtnhunt]

Ruth, I use microsoft office picture manager to resize, it keeps things in pretty well same as original condition without losing quality. Cropping will only cut out part of the pic, and is ok if that is what you want to do, but will not really reduce the file size like resizing will. There are some resizing tools available online if you do not have office, might try a search on google.

but if I download them to like Realtree and post them on the forums...they show up slightly blurry, not crisp.

Paint for resizing will also cause this. What you are likely seeing is a result of the software for the server automatically resizing your photos and when that is done quality will be lost. Best bet is to upload the photos at the size they will be viewed on the site, 640X480 is standard. I usually upload at 800X600 or 640X480 to photobucket. Think 800X600 is the max allowed at photobucket, jesshunting is also bad about distorting pics uploaded at higher mp sizes than the standard allowed.

Hope that helps.

[Leo]

Don't forget to put your photo quality set at max before saving a resized photo in jpeg format.

[LifeNRA]

Just want to know what's a good size for either posting online like on Realtree and what's a good size for like printing and yet you still maintain decent quality? Also since we have dial-up, it seems the smaller I make the picture, whether cropping or scaling down, the faster it loads, but then sometimes I lose picture quality? Can anyone help me out?? Explains things? Thanks!

And one other thing...why is it the photos show up clear and great when just on the computer...but if I download them to like Realtree and post them on the forums...they show up slightly blurry, not crisp...yet if I view them say from a different computer like my laptop, they are fine?

A 5x7 picture is about max RT wants on here, but a 4x6 is still plenty big enough to show off what you want. Also making sure you keep the resolution at 72 DPI max as well. This will help the people on dail-up load the web page faster.

If your printing pictures at a lab, dont resize anything! Their machines and software will take care of this after you pick the size photo you want. All you need to do is take the memory card to the lab. I get pictures printed all the time in 4x6.

I cant say why they get blurry, I use Photobucket and have no problems.

[wtnhunt]

I cant say why they get blurry, I use Photobucket and have no problems.

Photobucket has a 800X600 limit on pics for free accounts. Not sure if the RT site currently has file limits or not, but I am pretty sure that if you load a file bigger than 800X600 on jesseshunting, it will automatically be resized, and when it is resized, it does lose quality. If the RT site is using software that resizes hosted photos similarly to some other sites, it may work the same way.

I use photobucket most of the time myself.

[Turkeygirl]

I did photobucket also and did the same thing...wondering if maybe it's the resolution on the computer itself? Although photos are fine until they go online

[Leo]

There are a few things anyone who uploads resized photos to an internet photo server need to know.

1. What pixel x pixel size they enforce.

2. What photo file size they enforce.

This is crucial because if you don't upload your photos in a format at or below their maximums they will make the changes for you. That's not a good thing. Your chances of getting blurry or ugly results are almost guaranteed.

The key is you simply must create a copy of your photo that meets the web servers requirements BEFORE you upload.

There is TONS of misinformation on the subject of resizing photos. Most of it is due to the fact there are several ways resizing is accomplished and many programs do not reveal what method they are using.

1. Cropping to the desired photo pixel x pixel size is the most straightforward. This method simply cuts out a window in the picture you want the size you want.

2. A pure resize simply ignores a certain number of pixels (like every other one to get half size). Sometimes this works but in photos that have any straight lines in them (ie. Buildings) this method can really cause goofy results.

3. A resample resize runs the photo through an algorithm that accounts for the values of the neighboring pixels. There are several different algorithms out there. Certain ones work better for different photos.

And finally JPG format is a compressive format. JPG compresses by discarding bits of detail. It is not a lossless compression. Once the detail is compressed out, it's gone forever. So always save an unedited original. The quality setting on your editing software is crucial to controlling the amount of compression that occurs when saving an edited photo. Ignore this setting at your own peril.

The best practice is to resample with different filters at the highest quality setting until you get the desired results. Then use the quality setting on the editor to get your file size right.

[wtnhunt]

This is crucial because if you don't upload your photos in a format at or below their maximums they will make the changes for you. That's not a good thing. Your chances of getting blurry or ugly results are almost guaranteed.

Basically the same thing I have been saying. You want to upload at or below the max allowable size to your hosting site. Using photobucket, try uploading at 800X600, that is their max. If you upload the photo above that it will either be rejected or will be resized with a loss of quality.

[Leo]

I realize I was repeating some of the advice you already gave. The point I'm trying to drive home is how you go about resizing/re-sampling is what finally makes the difference.

Here's the thing an awful lot of "upgrading" digital camera customers are finding out in a nutshell.

More Megapixels means the photo is more difficult to resize to "internet" size. A 2832 × 2128 (6MP) image has 95% more information in it than a 640x480 (0.3MP) image. In other words the resized photo contains only 5% of the photos original detail when you resize it from 6mp to 0.3mp. No surprise, you can absolutely see the difference. Different re-sampling algorithms do a much better job at throwing away detail than others. When you are faced with such an enormous disparity of sizes it takes a lot of experimentation with different re-sampling filters to get right. Photo servers typically use the quickest and not necessarily the most appropriate methods for resize. As you pointed out, the only way to prevent them from running their "auto" functions on a picture is to only upload stuff that meets their guidelines. However, if you blindly auto resize letting your photo software apply default algorithms only to your stuff before you upload it, your own personal results may be no better than if they did it.

Resizing a quality large MP photo to a substantially smaller MP size is not an automatic thing. It can be extremely frustrating. Going from 2mp to 0.3mp isn't so tough. Heck, that's what most of us started with so why should 6mp be anything but easier? The truth is it's not easier, it's actually many times harder. On 2mp photos almost all the time the "auto" results are just fine. 6mp to 0.3mp is a different story. Auto settings can and do end up giving you garbage. Honestly, if you're taking pictures you know will only be email and internet share pictures. Change the settings on the camera and save yourself a lot of grief. Set the camera to take 1200x900 photos and have fun. Those pictures will resize the easiest and still look great after undergoing almost any resize process. Yeah, you're making a 6MP camera take 1.1MP pictures but trust me, that's by far the easiest route. The bigger MP photos can be a whole lot tougher to resize to much smaller sizes correctly, and that's the truth.

[wtnhunt]

Leo is right to some degree Ruth in that you can take pics at smaller settings and they do not have to be reduced as far, however if you plan to work with the pic at all, you cannot have too many mp's. Reducing pics can be done without losing much quality with the right software. I usually shoot my camera in the fine setting, but on the setting for medium sized images. I do occasionally shoot raw and jpeg format on large and fine, but that eats up a lot of space on a card and in a hurry.