Astronomy, Photography and Weather
April 20, 2024, 09:08:00 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: IAA lecture programme continues alternate Wednesdays from September - an excellent programme of lectures- Queens University Belfast - Bell Lecture Theatre. Also keep an eye out for the Summer Events
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

Sunset and a Cathedral

Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
Author Topic: Sunset and a Cathedral  (Read 1206 times)
brianb
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1228



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: December 18, 2008, 10:24:07 pm »

Quote
I think sRGB is probably better than Adobe.
Adobe RGB has a wider gamut than sRGB (i.e. it can represent more of the colour hue/saturation space) but since very few monitors can display anything close to the full Adobe gamut it's a moot point, until you go to a professional printing setup. What is certain is that an image with the Adobe profile will look weak & washy if displayed on a monitor configured with a sRGB profile (as most are, by default). Some image display/editing programs, including one browser (Firefox version 3) will display an image tagged with an Adobe profile correctly but most don't.
Report Spam   Logged
JohnC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1631

Gloucester : UK


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: December 18, 2008, 10:48:30 pm »

Quote
I can only export from Lightroom Library to a folder  and input the size according to the required size that a forum accepts. I'm sizing at 800 (w) x 535 (h). Infact when I input 800 the other value automatically shows because of the way it' set up at this stage.  Maybe it's the process through Tinypic.  Is that yet another compression ?
There are two aspects here, the size in pixels and the compression factor. When exporting to web images I use Irfanview because I know & trust it and don't have Lightroom, which like most Adobe products is very bloated, Irfanview is small & lightning in comparison, though it certainly does not have all the features of Lightroom it is very useful for quick & dirty manipulation.

Irfanview's resize option is very effective & using the Lanczos interpolation method the effects are very good. I'm guessing the 535 in Lightroom comes from 2/3 of 800, Irfanview will also keep the aspect ratio constant when resizing, unless you want it to do something different.

When you "save as JPEG" in Irfanview there is a slider to adjust the quality. I usually leave it set at 80 when exporting to web, the output file size depends on the amount of detail in the image but is usually considerably less than 100,000 bytes for a 640x427 image. You get a larger image file with smoother detail by moving the slider up, and a smaller image file but with more "blocky" effects by moving the slider down. This has nothing to do with the pixel count (size on the page e.g. 800x533) which is what you've already resized the image to.

Your cathedral image is ~60KB which is perhaps a little on the low side for an 800x533 image. I'm pretty sure you could increase the quality when saving images as JPEG in Lightroom but I don't know exactly how to do it. Worth a try anyway.

Another point with JPEG images - don't input, edit, save, input, edit, save more than you can help, you lose detail every time you save as JPEG. Set your camera to save as RAW or TIFF; if you make edits & want to preserve them, save as TIFF raher than JPEG; the files are (much) bigger but you don't lose detail by doing that. Save as JPEG only when you've finished working with the file.

Hope that helps.

I've just gone through your advice - at first a couple of the technical phrases threw me and I was pressed for time too  and thought it best to come back later when I could read it thoroughly. Not so daunting after all -Lol..I saw the word interpolation !! What is interpolation , I thought,  I'm going to have to have time to take this in but  having gone through it  again I  see it's pretty straight forward.  John asked a straightforward question  about the quality setting so I was able to dash off a quick reply but this is about the same thing.  I've now moved the 'quality' up to 80 from 44. Not long ago I had a problem uploading a photo to keep it to a certain size and ,I think I should have decreased the resolution. As you see from my last post it's at 72. I was told to leave it at 72. I have no idea why other than it affects the file size and thus keeps the KB down. I was told that 50 was fine for quality. This is a problem sometimes - I hear and read one thing and then another.  RAW. There's another thing. I read of a professional photographer who wins competitions and awards with his photos and he uses top quality Jpeg. I use the top quality Jpeg. Some say RAW some say Jpeg.The debate goes on and on. On my US tour I was advised  to shoot top quality Jpeg except if I thought I was going to get a special shot. I got a special shot of lightning  in Jpeg and was asked if had got it in RAW. I had actually been shooting in RAW  but the 7-10 second and bulb settings  trying to catch the lightning  used a couple of cards quite quickly  even though I have 2 & 4 GB cards  so by the time that Cg lightning came along I was back in  Jpeg.

I'll now  save in Tiff. I edit 95% in Lightroom- I have Lightroom 2 now and the only reason I send it into CS2 is to put  in text ,a border and I find the sharpening is  better  in Photoshop. I don't do layers there etc. I keep the editing simple.  When the image is returned to Lightroom as a PSD file it's then sent to an 'edited' folder via 'export'  and conversion to Jpeg, at this 800 x 535 and when I want to upload to this forum for instance I just take the image from there so once it's been edited,that's it.I save the originals in a folder because when you edit in Lightroom it stays edited but there is, I've just discovered,  an option if  someone wanted an original to have the original. I've bookmarked Irfanview,I see it's a free download.

So, all in all it seems I just needed a couple of changes. You ended your post with 'hope this helps'. It certainly has -  much appreciated too .Thanks.

John..thanks for your help too ,it looks like it's been sorted..until next time and something else  of course.Lol.  I don't know what Lightroom Mogrify is. I haven't heard of it before. How come you got such a sharp second image with the racing car ? I assume the different settings  you used were with this LR Mogrify ?
  
Report Spam   Logged
JohnC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1631

Gloucester : UK


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: December 18, 2008, 10:52:25 pm »

Quote
I think sRGB is probably better than Adobe.
Adobe RGB has a wider gamut than sRGB (i.e. it can represent more of the colour hue/saturation space) but since very few monitors can display anything close to the full Adobe gamut it's a moot point, until you go to a professional printing setup. What is certain is that an image with the Adobe profile will look weak & washy if displayed on a monitor configured with a sRGB profile (as most are, by default). Some image display/editing programs, including one browser (Firefox version 3) will display an image tagged with an Adobe profile correctly but most don't.

Our posts have  just crossed here, Brian. I was completing mine when you posted this one. I'll change to sRGB then - thanks.
Report Spam   Logged
brianb
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1228



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: December 18, 2008, 11:02:46 pm »

Quote
I saw the word interpolation !! What is interpolation , I thought,
You don't need to know - but, when you resize an image, the pixels for the new image will be a combination of the pixels neighbouring the position in the original, that combination is called "interpolation"; there are lots of different ways of doing the combination, the Lanczos method is one which generally works very convincingly.
Report Spam   Logged
jgs001
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1280


Horsham, Sussex, UK


View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 19, 2008, 12:09:23 am »

John, LR/Mogrify is what I used to put the border on, write the EXIF in the border, resize and sharpen (it'll do USM) during export from Lightroom.  A very cool bit of addon. As for the car (it was only edited in LR, which saves hugely on disk space as the tif and PSD are huge), the sharp image is what I looked at on screen and I was expecting to get. The carp image is the one I ended up with after exporting with duff settings, that's the jpg compression artefacts killing it. I had a batch of about 100 images from Goodwood that looked great on screen in LR and utter tosh after exporting.
Report Spam   Logged

John
Canon 450d, EF-S 18-55 IS, 55-250 IS, Raynox DCR250
HQE5 + C80ED & Vista 80s. NexStar Skymax 102 SLT.

*** My Astro Blog ***


Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy