Compressing photos for the web

I'm new to mac and iPhoto.
When I bring in photos from my camera into iPhoto,
their file size is way too big for emailing and the web.
(over 1mb)
is it possible to compress and edit photos in iPhoto?
Or do i have to use another program such as Photoshop?
thanks

teresita
If you're on a MBP then I'm going to guess that you're using iPhoto 6, not v5. (You've posted in the v5 forum).
Select the pics you want to use and go File -> Export and in the resulting dialogue you have the option to resize the pics, among other options. Then complete the export to the desktop. iPhoto will make a copy of the pics with your changes on the desktop. You can use these for emailing and uploading. After they're used, you can trash them - they are only copies.
If you're using Apple's Mail for email, you can resize the pics in the Mail window (look at the bottom right of the window. You can also create these emails from within iPhoto if you're using Mail, Entourage, AOL or Eudora.
Regards
TD

Similar Messages

Compressing video for the web

I have had people ask me to make a short 30 clip for the web say of some of there sporting shots, what is the best way to go about knowing what kind of compression you use and what type of file is best.

Bill bill bill... billy B... Will!!! Willy.... BillyWill...
Search is your friend. This comes up three to two thousand times a week.
Don't expect me to spoon feed you... but export it as a quicktime conversion and use one of the presets.
I really like Broadband High... will be in h.264 and will be roughly 3 megs a minute-- will look a whole lot better than the demo reel you have up on your site right now.
Good luck,
CaptM

Compressing movie for the web

Hello All!
Im fairly new to director but have lots of experience with flash. Hope it will become handy
I have eLearning movie that I plan to distribute over the internet but the published dcr is 22mb which is not ideal for preloading. I guess that I need to optimize all the images and audio files inside the movie. My target file size is about 3 to 5mb.
I have some questions, ill be glad to get some inputs
1. as I understand I can compress individual images using director or using external editor (like fireworks). Which way is the preferred one?
2. Since I have hundreds of images to optimize I wonder if there is any script or xtra that knows to batch the compression task?
3. Regarding to audio compression. Can I use external editor? Or I must delete the audio files and re-import them as mp4?
Im using director 11.5 on mac.
Thanks a lot
Shay

Hi again,
I investigate the dir file and I discover lots of audio files in swa format. All of them contain makeover voice. Im pretty sure they should be converted into mp3 or mp4. The big question is how do I do it?
Remind you that i'm using director 11.5 on mac which has not compress audio option in publish settings.
Thanks
Shay

Save photos for the web

This question was posted in response to the following article: http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop-elements/getting-started/save-web-friendly-format.html

If you wish to overwrite or replace else when you click Ok it will ask you to give a file name and you can save with any file name and nay location.

Can I use Adobe PS Elements to edit and export photos for the Web?

I want to change the image resolution, size and file format.

Or from the menu in Expert Mode:
Image >> Resize >> Image Size
Then save in your preferred format:
File >> Save As

Best Video Compression for the web???

I have read a number of discussions about which codec to use to compress video for the web and I’ve done my own tests and bar the longer encode time, which is not a problem to me, H.264 seems to come out as the best. I can get a superb quality, small enough for a quick download EXCEPT… this website needs to be friendly to the PC community.
What do you all suggest I do?
Go with lower quality MPEG-4 or Sorenson 3 and have my work look “not so good” or use awesome H.264 and provide a link to download the codec, which busy PC people will probably not bother to do.
This is my dilemma.
Thanks in advance for any advice.

I love the results I get when using H.264. Even low data rate files look good (even when I display them double size).
But it requires your page visitors have QuickTime 7 installed to view your QT files.
QuickTime 7 is nearly a year old and most of your Mac viewers will have it installed. It is also "bundled" with the iTunes software download that many PC users have installed.
H.264 is the only codec that requires version 7. Any other choice can be played using older versions of QuickTime.
As much as I like H.264 its installed viewer base doesn't reflect the visitors system settings for Web work. If your crowd is savvy to QuickTime they will not mind the download to upgrade. If you use tracking software on your visitors you'll be able to see if they hang around for the download.
MPEG-4 may be a better Web use choice.

How to compress photo for website

Hi,
I have a website, but the loading is quite slow. So I am trying to compress the photos to reduce the loading time. Which method would you recommend to compress my photos so that they still look good but at the same time light in size?
Thank you

The standard technic is to save your photos for the web!!!!!
What Makes a Graphic “Web-Ready?”
Resolution is 72 dpi
Color mode is RGB
Generally reduced in file size for faster loading web pages
I suggest read this tutorial for detailed explanation:
How to Use the Photoshop Save for Web Tool
http://graphicdesign.about.com/od/howto/ss/save_for_web.htm
G/L

HD video compressed for the web

I was doing some testing trying to figure out the best way to compress the HD video I get from the Sony XDCAM HD for the web (streaming). I shoot in HD (1080/30P) because it's needed for our videos. The web streaming is secondary.
I would prefer to make the web videos .flv because it works best and most easily cross-platform. In the real world, the majority of users have Windows PCs, which made me hesitant to use h.264 (.m4v) because it probably would require the average user to download things they may not wan to. Nonetheless, it has to be viewable on all computers in all browers.
So, I took three 10 second clips of steady camera video with audio from the camera that I used in all tests. I will refer to them by clip number...
Clip 1: 30P 16:9 High quality, 10sec=45mb
Clip 2: 30P 16:9 Low Quality, 10sec=24mb
Clip 3: 60i 16:9 High Quality, 10sec=45mb
First I tested making FLV is Adobe CS3 Encoder using the High Quality (700) setting.
Test 1 used size 848x480 (16:9)
Clip 1: 1.3mb
Clip 2: 1.1mb
Clip 3: 1.2mb
Comments: Looked very crisp, audio was clean, slightly darker image than original on default settings
Test 2 used size 480x270 (16:9)
Clip 1: 1.2mb
Clip 2: 1.1mb
Clip 3: 1.1mb
Comments: Looked very crisp, audio was clean, slightly darker image than original on default settings
Next, I tested making .m4v using the h.264 iPod settings in Compressor.
Test 1 used size 640x370.
Clip 1: 240kb
Clip 2: 1440kb
Clip 3: 204kb
Comments: Image wasn't quite as clean as the Flash files, but still good. Much lighter/brighter than the Flash files also. Low Quality HD video had high file size... why? I don't know, but I don't shoot on LQ for things anyway.
Test 2 used size 320x180.
Clip 1: 160kb
Clip 2: 865kb
Clip 3: 865kb
Comments: Image wasn't quite as clean as the Flash files, but still good. Much lighter/brighter than the Flash files also. Low Quality HD video had high file size... also the 60i file...why? I don't know.
In conclusion, I'm lucky that I shoot 30P since it worked well in all areas. The h264 codec provides a much smaller file size than Flash, with a good image. Amazing considering we started with a 45MB clip. What are the standards for aspect ratios for putting 16:9 video on the web? I haven't heard much set in stone like you have for 4:3 video. Nonetheless, the 640x360 or 480x270 seem to be a nice size for most uses.
I have heard that in Flash 9 you can chance the m4v extension to flv and it will work. IF that is true, that would be great because now my concern is that a base Windows PC cannot play these .m4v images without plugins/codecs. I suppose right now its a tradeoff between smaller file size/less compatibility with h264 or larger file size, great compatibility with Flash.
Any comments or suggestions to help out would be great. I typed this fast so forgive me if I left out any important info.

Hi APPLE27:
One comment from your post that immediately caught my attention was this, "Nonetheless, it has to be viewable on all computers in all browsers."
Unfortunately, it is unrealistic to expect one digital video file to be viewable on "all computers in all browsers" as there are simply too may variations in both hardware and software.
A common approach when offering digital video is to provide two formats to choose from and then within each of those two formats a few versions of the video for different bandwidths.
For example, a web site might offer Video for Windows and QuickTime. For each of these, there would be a low bandwidth Video for Windows file and QuickTime file and a high bandwidth Video for Windows file and QuickTime file (four files total). Of course, there's also Flash Video, Real Video, MPEG1, and so on.
For better or worse, YouTube.com has allowed video content creators the realistic expectation of creating a digital video file that is viewable on "most computers". But, the video is unavoidably tied to that web site.
When it comes to online distribution of video, it's still very open ended.
Also, computers are not all that's out there. Mobile devices are a huge market and you'd be hard pressed to create a single digital video file that will play on all mobile devices (iPhone, iPod Touch, Palm Treo, Sony PSP, etc.) either from local storage or from a mobile browser.
QuickTime offers a solution for creating a referencing movie - one file that links to other digital video files, but it too is imperfect at best when it comes to reaching the broadest audience possible.
With my few comments here, I'm just scratching the surface. But, it all starts where you are right now: caring about the image quality when exporting from your edited master.
-Warren

Should I deinterlase my movie before compressing to a h264 file for the web

Hi I have a movie in fcp that I want to compress for the web. I am going to compress it to a h264 file using quicktime. I was wondering if I should deinterlace the movie before compressing it
thanks sam

I have done it both ways and on computer monitors at least its always been my experience that DEINTERLACING the video looks better. Quite a bit better.
Now there are 2 main ways to do it. And I've gotten similar results both ways. You can deinterlace from within Final Cut Pro which works fine or you can set Compressor to Deinterlace. Now I've read articles on why one is better than the next, but at least with Final Cut Pro 5.1.4 in the videos I've worked on I can't tell the difference. It looks good both ways.
Hope that helps-

Problems with PSE 10 when saving for the web.

I'm having problems saving for web with PSE 10. I edit in RAW, edit in PSE 10, save as Jpeg, resize and save for the web. Results are muddled and not sharp (looks cartoonish). Also, there is no metadata when you look at the image properties. I uninstalled the program and installed again. No change.

Are you resizing the photo before save for web?
What settings are you using in the save for web dialog for the jpeg quality?
If you compress the jpeg too much (low quality settings below 60), that can make your photos look bad.
And save for the web in pse 10 automatically strips any metadata in order to keep the file sizes smaller.
Also, the save for web in pse 10 has a bad habit of not remembering your last used settings, so it's good to verify that your actually set to jpeg instead of the default GIF setting.
Message was edited by: R_Kelly

Best way to encode Quicktime file for the web?

Hello all and thanks in advance for your help with this problem.
I need to know the best way to encode a quicktime clip for the web.
This was my first try:
http://www.denmothers.net/trailer-big.htm
It works fine in safari, firefox, and ie for mac, provided they have quicktime 6 or later but it seems not to work on pc browsers. The file is encoded as an .mp4 using compressor and played with the browser's quicktime plugin. I've read that encoding files as a .mov provides greater compatibility but when i compress it as a .mov using the mpeg4 codec the file sizes are huge and when i use the photo-jpeg codec the quality is poor. h.264 looks great and has low file sizes but then my viewers have to have quicktime 7 which i think is too limiting because many will have older computers.
How should I encode my file such that it works best across browsers and platforms and has the highest quality at the lowest size?
Best,
Keegan

If you open an .mp4 file in quicktime pro you can then select File->Save-As and you are presented with two options:
Save as self-contained: This will create a .mov that is the same size as your .mp4 but is playable on any system w/ QuickTime 6 and the Mpeg-4 codec. (PC's included).
Save as reference: This will create a small (>500kb) file that will simply reference the .mp4. If they're in the same folder the .mov created will open the .mp4. Without the .mp4 the .mov in this case is useless.
For what you're trying to do I suggest going with self-contained.

Best way to save HQ video for the web?

What´s the best settings for great video-quality for the web?
I have a 5 min long clip I´d like to put on my website.
I would like it to be 480x360 and with good quality. It´s ok if the file gets 30-40 MB.
I have tryed the Expert Settings, Quicktime Movie, Broadband - High, but the movie gets "striped".
What´s wrong?
A lot Mac OS X (10.4.8)

Hi Magnus40,
I'm not sure what you are doing to create this problem. I create web movies all the time and have never had this problem, although, I never use the advanced settings cos I have never had to. When you go to the Quicktime export pane in iMovie you have the quality choices from full quality to web. When you select one of these it gives an estimate of the file size. For that length clip you should not need to use any setting besides full quality. I'd say the problem is coming from the 480x360 aspect ratio. This is what is compressing the file. Have you tried exporting it as full quality and then uploading it? The only problem you face by doing this is, it will take a long time for the movie to load on your website. For a short clip you may find that the CD ROM setting is sufficient.
Good luck.
SR

What processes are included in 'save for the web'

When I save a photo using the Photoshop CS3 'save for the web' command, I resize the photo to, for example, 800 pixels on the long side. It comes back the correct size but sometimes the colors look different (a little red usually). Is this because I was editing the original photo in RGB? Should I convert to profile, sRGB before I save for the Web? Or does Photoshop do this automatically? OR, should I convert to sRGB and then do color adjustments for the web?
Sorry, I'm a little confused about this...
Thanks,
Jody

Photoshop is color managed. However, the web is not, so when you save to web, you lose your color management. If you want to see what is going to happen after SFW, you should set the color to sRGB, as you guessed.
However, that will only set the way the color looks on your monitor. It could vary wildly on anyone else's monitor.

Save for the web colors

I was having trouble with image colors when I used 'save for the web' and I found a couple of solutions in tech notes regarding embedded color profiles but there is some thing I just don't understand.
It says:
"To ensure that colors are consistent in Photoshop, ImageReady and the Save for the Web dialog box, use an embedded color profile for display in each, or preview the image in Photoshop using the monitors RGB color space. Note that if you use an embedded color profile for display, colors may appear incorrectly if you view the image in an application that cannot read color profiles."
Can somebody give me the lowdown on what exactly a color profile is (what it does, when you should embed one etc) and some examples of the kind of application that can't read them i.e. if I send the photos via e-mail can the profile be read? put them on a web page?
Thanks for any illumination!
j.

A profile is a file that decribes to applications that can read them the color and tonal characteristics of a particular device. A profile can also be a mathematical description of a particular RGB or CMYK Lab color space. You've probably seen RGB working spaces in Photoshop referred to in terms like sRGB, Adobe RGB, ProPhoto RGB, etc. Any application that is color managed and can read and use profiles needs a minimum of two profile to to the job - a source profile and a destination profile. When you're looking at images on your computer monitor, the source is your RGB working space and the destination is your specific monitor. Photoshop uses both the working space profile and the monitor profile to display your image correctly. Most other applications in Windows do not read profile and have to assume either "Monitor RGB" or sRGB as the source for the file. If your file is not one of those, then false asumptioins are made and the image does not appear correctly. Some web browsers like Firefox 3 and Apple Safari do read profiles but not necessarily by default. You have to turn the option in FF. Some email readers are color managed, others not.
Profiles can be and usually are embedded in the document when you save it. Unless you have a good reason for not embedding a profile, it's almost always a good idea. It adds 4K to the file size and will let someone down the line who is using a color managed application see the file how you intended it. You have no control over the others, but that's life online. Currentlyl the best strategy is convert files destined for the web to sRGB and embed the profiles. That might change in the future, but it's a good place to be right now.

Save for the web and devices

Hi,
Im trying to save for the web and devices my work, but the work is not displaying at the save window.
Any ideas?
Many thanks
http://www.flickr.com/photos/92610801@N03/

Emil,
I'm not sure if I can trust my eyes, but isn't that emblem on a Template Layer which is not recognised by Save for Web?

Compressing photos for the web

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for