Test Your Posting Here

[Zeb_Carter]

/41.media.tumblr.com/a3c00d93be0939d9563b785f4da081a4/tumblr_mx8082PlnO1qfhkuuo1_r1_500.png

Remove the backslash at the beginning of the url and add http://

quote my post to see the img coding.

 

[Skankstar]

Trying to see if I can link to the attachment so the picture comes up in the thread. Not sure if it can be done or if others have another way of doing it. If that makes sense.
Anyway doing it the old fashioned way.

 

[Skankstar]

Woohoo! Thanks for the place to experiment. Seems that the little mountain picture isn't the way to go for me. Hope you's enjoy my picture choice.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

When I first came here back in '06 you couldn't hot link attachments. Somewhere along the line, disk space and bandwidth got cheap and then you could.

 

[italiansexylady]

Test

----------

 

[Skankstar]

 

[sircumvent]

test...

 

[Eyjafjalla]

The test thread is more interesting than initially expected...

 

[yukonnights]

Image Test

Testing image size,resolution, etc... so far, I'm finding my file sizes to be difficult to get down to 100kb. I shoot in RAW and then work in PSD file formats...then reduce to small jpeg. Seems to be too much file data to maintain a decent size for viewing at 100kb

 

[LauraP]

yukonnights - you could try using the following sites to get your file size down. I've done it before when posting to tumblr and they all seem to get a 1mb picture down to around 50/60kb without losing any quality!

https://tinypng.com/
https://compressor.io/ (Probably the best one)

 

[Weird Harold]

Testing image size,resolution, etc... so far, I'm finding my file sizes to be difficult to get down to 100kb. I shoot in RAW and then work in PSD file formats...then reduce to small jpeg. Seems to be too much file data to maintain a decent size for viewing at 100kb

Check out www.irfanview.com

Irfanview is an image management program that recognizes virtually every image format and can convert to nearly all of them from any of them. It has a batch mode that will convert, resize and compress an entire directory into a size and format compatible with Lit's attachment or avatar limits. (usually JPeg at 70% compression.)

It also leaves the original directory unchanged so you still have the original lossless image.

 

[yukonnights]

yukonnights - you could try using the following sites to get your file size down. I've done it before when posting to tumblr and they all seem to get a 1mb picture down to around 50/60kb without losing any quality!

https://tinypng.com/
https://compressor.io/ (Probably the best one)

Check out www.irfanview.com

Irfanview is an image management program that recognizes virtually every image format and can convert to nearly all of them from any of them. It has a batch mode that will convert, resize and compress an entire directory into a size and format compatible with Lit's attachment or avatar limits. (usually JPeg at 70% compression.)

It also leaves the original directory unchanged so you still have the original lossless image.

Thanks to both of you for the suggestions. I use an older version of Adobe-Photoshop (CS3), and it has both a standard Image Sizing tool and a Save For Web tool as well as Batch Resizing. I have been reading a lot of online tutorials and these are the only techniques I have read about for PhotoShop. I've been puttering around for a couple of days now and have such mixed results doing the same task/path it has me quite confused as to just what is the problem. Really a bummer though, I have tons of interesting shots and now can't share them

By the end of today, I had just accepted that I won't be sharing any photos online. I really do appreciate the advice and will check out what you have suggested.

 

[Weird Harold]

I've been puttering around for a couple of days now and have such mixed results doing the same task/path it has me quite confused as to just what is the problem. Really a bummer though, I have tons of interesting shots and now can't share them

I've found that to get a decent JPeG compressed image from multi-megapixel originals you can't reduce the size by more than 50% in one pass; use one of the resample algorithms to reduce the image in a lossless format (like RAW) by 30-50% and repeat as necessary to get down to Lit's pixel limits. Then convert to JPeG at "70% quality" to reduce filesize to Lit's limit.

No matter what you do to reduce the size, you're going to lose quality going from a large RAW image to an 800x600 JPeG. An alternative is to host the images online and hotlink the large images unmodified. If you go that route, warn people about the large images because not everyone has the connection or data allowance to deal with them.

 

[NightL]

Testing image size,resolution, etc... so far, I'm finding my file sizes to be difficult to get down to 100kb. I shoot in RAW and then work in PSD file formats...then reduce to small jpeg. Seems to be too much file data to maintain a decent size for viewing at 100kb

I took note you have PS CS3 - and that is perfectly fine

To be honest it does not matter if you start with a RAW file - actually the higher quality you start with the better.

First you will have to reduce the dimensions and image resolution

I can't give you exact dimensions - but you can experiment around a little.

1. With the image open in Photoshop go to the top menu and select Image/Image size
2. In the Image Size box set resolution to 72 pixels/inch - do this first (when you use save to the web it will end up at 72 ppi anyway in CS3)
3. At the top of the Image Size box set the Pixel Dimensions to perhaps no more than 600 pixels wide - to ultimately get under 100Kb with reasonable quality you may have to experiment around here - it may not be big though. You may get a lot bigger - depends on detail and colour variation in the image.
4. In the bottom drop down box select Bicubic Sharper (best for reduction) - assuming the original was bigger in dimensions and of higher res.
5. Click OK
6. do what ever edits you want
7. File/Save for Web
8. Select jpg for output. You could play around with quality 60% - 50% whatever - but since you are wanting to target nothing bigger than 100kb go to top right of Save for Web box and you will see a small dropdown settings arrow - click that and select Optimize to file size - following box enter 100kb for desired size.

The follow image started at W 2736px x H 3648px, 300ppi
reduced via Image/Image size to Reslotion 72 Pixels/Inch, W 600px x H 800px
File/Save for web - jpg - Quality 80%
Final file size 49.5kb

To upload and insert to post
I first used the Paper Clip in the Message box to upload the image - once uploaded I Right Clicked the uploaded file name and selected Copy Image Address
then used the Image Icon in the menu to embed that image in the post.

_______________________
I have just tested this before final submit - looks like Literotica compresses the file further on upload so my 49.5kb ended up being 16.4kb. So if you are aiming for quality I would load up on or just under the 100kb limit as the Lit compression will deteriorate the image further.

So you should get perfectly good quality large dimension photos up.

 

[yukonnights]

I've found that to get a decent JPeG compressed image from multi-megapixel originals you can't reduce the size by more than 50% in one pass; use one of the resample algorithms to reduce the image in a lossless format (like RAW) by 30-50% and repeat as necessary to get down to Lit's pixel limits. Then convert to JPeG at "70% quality" to reduce filesize to Lit's limit.

No matter what you do to reduce the size, you're going to lose quality going from a large RAW image to an 800x600 JPeG. An alternative is to host the images online and hotlink the large images unmodified. If you go that route, warn people about the large images because not everyone has the connection or data allowance to deal with them.

WH, Thanks again for this suggestion. I have been trying to do it all at one pass. I also looked at all the suggested image compression options mentioned yesterday. I like the one you mentioned as it allows for batch resizing and can reside on my computer where I do photo work. I'll give this suggestion a try first, as it seems even an older version of PS should be able to produce a decent compression...your time/effort is much appreciated!

 

[yukonnights]

I took note you have PS CS3 - and that is perfectly fine

To be honest it does not matter if you start with a RAW file - actually the higher quality you start with the better.

First you will have to reduce the dimensions and image resolution

I can't give you exact dimensions - but you can experiment around a little.

1. With the image open in Photoshop go to the top menu and select Image/Image size
2. In the Image Size box set resolution to 72 pixels/inch - do this first (when you use save to the web it will end up at 72 ppi anyway in CS3)
3. At the top of the Image Size box set the Pixel Dimensions to perhaps no more than 600 pixels wide - to ultimately get under 100Kb with reasonable quality you may have to experiment around here - it may not be big though. You may get a lot bigger - depends on detail and colour variation in the image.
4. In the bottom drop down box select Bicubic Sharper (best for reduction) - assuming the original was bigger in dimensions and of higher res.
5. Click OK
6. do what ever edits you want
7. File/Save for Web
8. Select jpg for output. You could play around with quality 60% - 50% whatever - but since you are wanting to target nothing bigger than 100kb go to top right of Save for Web box and you will see a small dropdown settings arrow - click that and select Optimize to file size - following box enter 100kb for desired size.

The follow image started at W 2736px x H 3648px, 300ppi
reduced via Image/Image size to Reslotion 72 Pixels/Inch, W 600px x H 800px
File/Save for web - jpg - Quality 80%
Final file size 49.5kb

To upload and insert to post
I first used the Paper Clip in the Message box to upload the image - once uploaded I Right Clicked the uploaded file name and selected Copy Image Address
then used the Image Icon in the menu to embed that image in the post.

_______________________
I have just tested this before final submit - looks like Literotica compresses the file further on upload so my 49.5kb ended up being 16.4kb. So if you are aiming for quality I would load up on or just under the 100kb limit as the Lit compression will deteriorate the image further.

So you should get perfectly good quality large dimension photos up.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

NL, I want to thank you too for the time it took to detail the steps. These are the steps I have been following. It's really the only way I can see to do this is PhotoShop, but I don't think I combined it with the multi-pass compression mentioned above. I've never really tried to post anything online, so I had little reason to care about file size before.

Oh well, I'm not as discouraged after a good nights sleep...so will attack the problem again later. I'm glad you posted this step-by-step because I'm sure others will benefit. (It took me a couple of days of reading + trial and error to figure out what you just wrote!...my question now is; why didn't you answer my question before I asked?)

 

[Weird Harold]

WH, Thanks again for this suggestion. I have been trying to do it all at one pass. I also looked at all the suggested image compression options mentioned yesterday. I like the one you mentioned as it allows for batch resizing and can reside on my computer where I do photo work. I'll give this suggestion a try first, as it seems even an older version of PS should be able to produce a decent compression...your time/effort is much appreciated!

I like Irfanview because it is fast, reasonably accurate, and does take a tone of memory so it can handle larger images. Unfortunately it doesn't work on Apple products. I've been told that GIMP does work on Apple products or Windows but is a much more graphic oriented interface.

Photoshop should be able to handle the same process, as can most image editors. but very few can reduce a huge image to 800x600 pixels x 100Kb in one pass. (I suppose there must be at least one program that can, I've just never heard of it. )

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Painshop Pro X7 can handle it. I routinely take large format photos down to 800x600 x 100kb in one pass.

 

[yukonnights]

Photo Test 2

Thanks for all the help...it now works

 

[yukonnights]

I like Irfanview because it is fast, reasonably accurate, and does take a tone of memory so it can handle larger images. Unfortunately it doesn't work on Apple products. I've been told that GIMP does work on Apple products or Windows but is a much more graphic oriented interface.

Photoshop should be able to handle the same process, as can most image editors. but very few can reduce a huge image to 800x600 pixels x 100Kb in one pass. (I suppose there must be at least one program that can, I've just never heard of it. )

I'm kinda in the same boat, I use Mac for everything but the Photo-Shop program is on an old Windows XP. The old combo does way more than I can, but in running through a few trials today, the Save For Web function started freezing up! Only way to escape was to kill the power...I think I better get serious about backing up the last decade's worth of images

So, the IrFanview would be fine for my use. (at least until the old HP bites the dust)

Again, thanks to all who offered some advice.

Edit to add; While on the IrFanview site, I'm sure I recall seeing a download for Mac. I may be mistaken, but worth a look-see. It may have also been something I saw in the FAQ list.

 

[yukonnights]

Painshop Pro X7 can handle it. I routinely take large format photos down to 800x600 x 100kb in one pass.

If I have to get a new program due to the eventual death of my current old HP/Windows XP, I'll definitely give the Paintshop Pro a close look. The multi-pass isn't too cumbersome, but I'm sure it could be easier and better.

 

[NightL]

If I have to get a new program due to the eventual death of my current old HP/Windows XP, I'll definitely give the Paintshop Pro a close look. The multi-pass isn't too cumbersome, but I'm sure it could be easier and better.

To be honest, all a multi pass in pshop will do is just compress to the same extent as just using a lower Quality percentage on one pass. The degradation of quality will ultimately be the same.

jpg is a lossy codec - it discards information (hopefully that the human eye can not distinguish if not compressed too hard).

The other thing to remember is that the end viewer does not have reference to the original - so does the end result suit the purpose it is intended for? Put the pre and post compressed images side by side, as in the 2-up view in Save for web, and sure you can probably spot the differences if you look hard - but does it matter for the end viewer? It is all about compromise.

If you just can't get the files size down while maintaining good quality then output at lower dimensions.

 

[Weird Harold]

To be honest, all a multi pass in pshop will do is just compress to the same extent as just using a lower Quality percentage on one pass. The degradation of quality will ultimately be the same.

Not true in my experience. A single pass resampling has to average too many pixels down into each pixel of the smaller image. That can cause some very noticeable errors, even without reference to the original -- strange colors, blurred lines. and the like. Errors bad enough even my failing eyesight can see the problems.

For comparison: From 4608x3456 x4.7 Mb to 800x600x >100Kb

Note: To get down to >100Kb I had to remove all metadata from the files and decrease JPeg quality to 30%, 45% and 65% respectively.

 

[NightL]

Thanks Harold

to be honest I don't post pics here or any where with a size limitation. These days I am not so concerned as during the dial-up days. Most of my web work where I want to display high quality images will be in the form of a smaller version opening to a lightbox gallery - and that is 99% in Wordpress environment where the larger images access size variations based on the screen dimensions.

Well I learnt something new

I can see that being useful for those full-screen back-ground shots which has become a fashion in recent years of opening screens with WP templates - a fashion I personally hope will fade soon as I prefer "get me to the info - NOW!"

Cheers

edit
re. "to be honest I don't post pics here or any where with a size limitation." - actually I do with various social media platforms. In combating imposed upload compression for FB, Linkedin & G+ banners, that can kill a jpeg I will often save out as a png 24 and run it through www.tinypng.com - I know it knocks out the meta and drops it to png 8 (yet maintaining graduated transparencies) - but the quality seems to be superior with a lower file size than if I try to go through that process within pshop.

Offering back a hint - to whomever - if you keep the longest dimension/side of an image (W or H) to at least 2048px, FB will treat it as an intended high-res and put less auto compression on during the upload.

 

[NightL]

I have not read up on Adobe deprecating Save For The Web in CC for their newer Export process (which you can't batch with - grrr) - so I don't know the end quality difference/benefit (I just use it) - but your demonstration is so obvious I am astounded this has not been incorporated in the functionality of pshop. Is there a third party plugin that caters to this? - I was using Save for the web as a plugin two years before Adobe bought that provider out.