Test Your Posting Here

[Weird Harold]

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.

Those were done quickly with Irfanview. I could have possibly improved the multiple resample version if I too time to convert to a lossless format first and reduced it in smaller steps. For demonstration purposes, a quick series of resampling to 70% in the native JPeg from my sister's camera was sufficient.

Irfanview has a "Save for the Web" plugin available, but I don't use it -- nor would I if I downloaded the plugin. I use "Save As" to save a copy or batch conversion/resampling to make a copy of the original. That way I can always start over or do a more careful resampling for the best quality. "Save For Web" is one of those "features for idiots" that makes too many assumptions I don't agree with -- notably that pictures on the web don't have to be high-quality.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

1920x1500 6.8mb to 800x500 56k PaintShop Pro single pass

 

[Weird Harold]

1920x1500 6.8mb to 800x500 56k PaintShop Pro single pass

Looks good. How about a multi-pass comparison.

 

[mnbreastluver]

Test

View attachment 1966072

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Looks good. How about a multi-pass comparison.

Yeah, you know that's one thing I haven't learned in Paintshop. Sorry.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Paintshop has 5 different resampling schemes. Of the all, Bicubic allows you to either soften or sharpen the image from 0 to 100. At 0 the converted Image is blurred. At 100 it is pizelated. No aliasing. 50 is the best result. At the size of 800x600 they all look essentially the same, but if you Zoom in, that's where you can tell the difference.

0

50

100

This was a 785K 1920x1200 image. It's currently my screen background on my 24" monitor.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Oh the five different resample types...

Smart size
Bicubic
Bilinear
Pixel Resize
Weighted Average

As I said, only bicubic lets you choose a degree from soften to sharp.

 

[Weird Harold]

Oh the five different resample types...

Smart size
Bicubic
Bilinear
Pixel Resize
Weighted Average

As I said, only bicubic lets you choose a degree from soften to sharp.

Applying a Sharp/Blur filter isn't the same thing as a multi-stage resampling.

A multi-stage resampling is reducing an image by a percentage or specified pixel dimension larger than your final size target. For your 1920x1200 image, resize/resample to 1440x900, then repeat to 1080x675 and finally repeat down to 800x600. "Save as" a JPeG with 65-70% compression and no Meta Data.

How much better the result will be depends on a lot of factors and not every image will improve to the naked eye. However, reducing an image in stages will produce more consistently good results than a single-stage reduction in most programs; it will solve most problems people have with making a good avatar or reducing a picture for attachment at Lit.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Applying a Sharp/Blur filter isn't the same thing as a multi-stage resampling.

A multi-stage resampling is reducing an image by a percentage or specified pixel dimension larger than your final size target. For your 1920x1200 image, resize/resample to 1440x900, then repeat to 1080x675 and finally repeat down to 800x600. "Save as" a JPeG with 65-70% compression and no Meta Data.

How much better the result will be depends on a lot of factors and not every image will improve to the naked eye. However, reducing an image in stages will produce more consistently good results than a single-stage reduction in most programs; it will solve most problems people have with making a good avatar or reducing a picture for attachment at Lit.

Okay...

Your way... final image size in bytes, 31k

My way...one pass, 20% compression of a 1920x1200 1.8mb image with meta data. Final size in bytes 81k.

It would appear there isn't all that much difference in Paintshop Pro on how you do it.

ETA: There does appear to be some lose of distant objects in your way. There are many more stars in the background on the one done my way.


.

 

[Weird Harold]

Okay...

Your way... final image size in bytes, 31k

http://forum.literotica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1966364&stc=1&d=1483836300

My way...one pass, 20% compression of a 1920x1200 1.8mb image with meta data. Final size in bytes 81k.

http://forum.literotica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1966368&stc=1&d=1483836322

It would appear there isn't all that much difference in Paintshop Pro on how you do it.

ETA: There does appear to be some lose of distant objects in your way. There are many more stars in the background on the one done my way.

Compression in JPG format to get 31Kb vs compression to get 81Kb would account for the loss of detail more than a difference in resizing.

I haven't used Paintshop Pro since the last shareware version before Adobe bought it. It has always been a very good image editing program. Whatever program is used, as long as the user is satisfied with whatever results they get, then the results are good enough.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Compression in JPG format to get 31Kb vs compression to get 81Kb would account for the loss of detail more than a difference in resizing.

I haven't used Paintshop Pro since the last shareware version before Adobe bought it. It has always been a very good image editing program. Whatever program is used, as long as the user is satisfied with whatever results they get, then the results are good enough.

I realize that. I could have done 0% compression and still most likely had an image under 100K.

I have found Paintshop to be an excellent image processor. I have used Photoshop and found it to very good, but Paintshop I have found to be more intuitive and easier to learn.

I have also used IrfanView and found the resize/resample function not only confusing, but lacking in the final product.

So when the company I was working for offered us discount licenses I scooped one up. Upgrades are a lot cheaper than initial purchase prices.

 

[mtrainer]

test with square jpg

...................................

 

[dacoach44]

Geez.

I have to use IMGUR. What are other options?

 

[mtrainer]

.................

 

[InSearchofIncredible]

Just testng to see how to post

Seeing what happens

 

[yukonnights]

Seeing what happens

I don't know what you did...but my laptop is starting to smoke around the keyboard Please don't mess around with things until you know what they do

 

[yukonnights]

TEST IMAGE LINK/INSERT

Resolved

 

[yukonnights]

Test Image Link

Issue resolved....and another thanks to NightL

 

[shadowofaman]

Test

Failed, giving up.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Failed, giving up.

What failed? Maybe this will help?

To have the attachment display in the post, you must hotlink to the URL where the image resides. In this case it's here at Literotica. Click on the link, either in your post or in the dialog box when you attached the image. Then in your post click on the picture icon - the on with the mountains and the sun - paste the URL of the image into the field and click OK.

In your post you will see this code...(you could just type in the code too)

[img]http://forum.literotica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1989198&d=1490761127[/img]

And it will display like this...

 

[shadowofaman]

Test again

............

 

[shadowofaman]

What failed? Maybe this will help?

To have the attachment display in the post, you must hotlink to the URL where the image resides. In this case it's here at Literotica. Click on the link, either in your post or in the dialog box when you attached the image. Then in your post click on the picture icon - the on with the mountains and the sun - paste the URL of the image into the field and click OK.

In your post you will see this code...(you could just type in the code too)

[img]http://forum.literotica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1989198&d=1490761127[/img]

And it will display like this...

Thanks Zeb. I think I'm getting the hang of it with your helpful information.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Great. Now if you downloaded that image from the net, instead of making it an attachment, just copy the image location into the dialog box from the website you saw it at. This way you don't use up your attachment allotment here at Lit.

 

[Harrywildone]

This is a test

Now what do I do? LOL

 

[Margrethe]

.......