Image size reduction

HI
my camera creates gi -huge files from it's 12mb sensor.
In photoshop to reduce the size its flow is reduce the size and re sample and then sharpen.  I have 60 + images to do for a web site. I could create an  action but fireworks has it's batch option, Does this re interpolate and sharpen and is it as good or better than Photoshop?
thanks
Ian

What are the pixel dimensions of these images? download a few to the desktop using image Capture (in your applications folder) and report the pixel dimensions of the originals
Basically the answer is going to be that iPhoto makes no changes of any sort to the original - it makes a bit for bit copy - so we need more information to figure out what is going on - it is NOT iPhoto reducing the image size
LN

Similar Messages

  • Optimize JPG image size reduction by reduced compression quality vs. reduced pixels?

    I have many images of slides scanned at high res (4800 DPI, maximum pixels 5214x3592).   Although I will be saving these as lossless TIFs, I also wish to make JPGs from them that I wish to be just less than 5 MB in file size.  Aside from cropping, I know I can achieve such a reduction of JPG file size by a combination of saving to lower quality JPG compression or reducing image size.  My question is, what is theoretically or practically better, achieving this mostly by reducing image total pixels or by reducing  JPG compression quality.  Thank you

    Thank you Doug.  The comments on extensive uniform blue sky vs. marked variation in color seem well taken, I'll keep this method of choosing in mind.  My goal is to create a JPG family photo archive of the highest quality images that I can make for future use by non-technical descendants (thus it will supplement the TIF archive that holds the best quality versions of the same images but that may not be usable to novices).  As I cannot anticipate exactly how the JPGs will be used, I just want them to be the best possible, while still being of a size that can be uploaded to, say, Costco (5 MB size limit) for making enlargements. 
    In general, I am often left curious as to how exactly Photoshop carries out its algorithms and how different factors influence the outcome.  So often, one read "just try different techniques and see what looks the best".  But I am always left wondering, what is the theory behind this and has it been systematically studied and worked out and published.  In so many disciplines, such as medicine, the methods of optimization has been evaluated, systematized, and fully described.  I have not yet explored what may be found in technical journals, but I'm sure much of this good stuff must be available somewhere. It would be nice to have a "How Things Work" that actually explains what Photoshop is doing under the hood.
    Thanks again.

  • Image Size reduction and gain resolution... Help?

    I have searched the forums and seen plenty of talk of Image Size and resolutions but havent stumbled upon what I need.
    Hopefully someone will be nice enough to help me or to link me to help?
    I have a large photo (3456x2304) but it is at 72ppi.
    I am trying to use it as a very small image (200px or so) but I need it at 300ppi.
    I keep going into Image Size and reducing its dimensions to the size I need and marking 300dpi.
    Problem is when it resizes it gets horribly pixelated!!!
    I cant figure out how to use the image size and/or crop tool in order to reduce the dimensions and not lose quality.
    Best work around I have found is to reduce it to about 750px 72ppi and then in illustrator contract the image to the actual print size while gaining resolution...
    Any help would be greatly appreciated.

    There is a relationship between image size and ppi (resolution)  that can not be changed.  Here is an example from the web titled "understanding resolution".
    Let's say you have an image that is 9 inches wide and 6 inches high with a resolution of 240 pixels/ per inch (8.9mb file).  If you change one of the values the other two will change (resample image turned off).  In this example if you changed the width to 6 inches the height would become 4 inches and the resolution would become 360 ppi.
    So if you are taking a large image and reducing the size the ppi has to go up.  There are the same number of pixels in the picture, they are compressed into a smaller space.  The article says this is because a digital image has no absolute size or resolution.  All it has is a certain number of pixels in each dimension.
    Hope this helps.

  • Image size reduction without losing resolution

    I am creating marketing materials and product labels for my company using Elements 9. I am not a Photoshop expert but I have a reasonable knowledge of the program. I need to resize certain assets such as logos and paste them onto various documents. The problem I am having is that no matter what method I use to resize, they always lose resolution and appear pixelated and/or blurry in the final printed version.
    Normally I receive the assets in a hi-res image. It could be a jpeg or bitmap or any other number of format. I will open it in Elements, select it and remove the background via the Magic Wand>Layer Via Cut, and delete the background layer.
    From there, I have tried everything from the simple select, grab the corner and manually drag inwards method, to using Image>Resize>Image Size and filling in the fields. When I performed the latter, I typed in 300dpi, made sure Constrain Proportions was turned on, checked Resample, and selected Bicubic Sharper, and entered the size in inches. Then I copy/paste into the document, and it looks fine. I save, which normally opens up Reader and I print from there. The printed image looks great except for any logos I resized, which look awful. I also tried printing from within Elements, but it won't do it without giving me a message first saying that the document will print at less than 200dpi, which is obviously not desirable.
    One I paste the image onto the document, the Image Size>Resize becomes unusable because I can't seem to select just the logo - even with the bounding box clearly visable around the logo, resizing causes the entire document to be affected.
    I have tried many combinations of selecting/deselecting every option I can find, including Alias/Anti-Alias (which for some reason sometimes doesn't seem selectable at all). I've scoured forums and tutorials for help on this, and have tried every method I could find. In the end, nothing has worked. There has got to be a way to do this. Our 30 day trial is almost over and we went ahead and purchased the program without knowing whether we could resolve this issue - if we can't, it will be pretty much useless to us. Please help me so I can tell my boss he didn't just waste company money on this program!
    In short, my question is, what is the correct (or best) method for reducing image size? Please be detailed - and thank you! 

    Thanks for the reply Jon, but unfortunately I ended up with the same result as MTSTUNER said (using the Crop Tool).
    MTSTUNER, that definitely helped. The problem must have been in pasting, which as you said brings a "non-smart" image over. I was even able to resize a bit on the new document without losing any clarity whatsoever. Very helpful - THANK YOU!

  • Image size reduction is doing new and unwelcome things to my PNGs

    I've recently upgraded to Photoshop 6 from 5.5. My work involves taking large (1500-3000 pixels square) and reducing them to 256 or below. Upon upgrading to Photoshop 6 I started to notice that the images were looking a little harsher and less blended at the small sizes. I've attached a comparison of the image once it's been resized down to 192x in both programs. The original image can be found here: Image. As you can see, there is definitely a different style of blending going on that leads to a higher contrast at the borders between colors and lines.
    These images are used in a game, and the new CS6 images look worse on the iphone than the old ones. Does anyone recognize what's going on here and how to either fix or mitigate the issue? Any help or insight is much appreciated.

    Hi,
    How are you reducing the image size, i.e. Image>Image Size?
    If your using Image>Image Size, what method under Resample Image is choosen?

  • Transparent edge bug in image size reduction using bicubic

    I'm using Photoshop CS6 (64-bit) and ACR 7.1, all patched to the latest version today (13 June), and running Windows 7 64-bit. When I reduce the image size of an originally smart object using bicubic, the edges will be somewhat transparent, creating an ugly border around the image.
    Step 1: Open a raw file. ACR 7.1 will pop up. The raw file is a CR2 file produced by Canon EOS 7D. Workflow option: sRGB, 16 bit, 3888x2592.
    Step 2: Press shift+click the Open button to open it as smart object.
    Step 3. Right click the layer and choose rasterize layer. When you zoom the image, there is nothing wrong in the edges.
    Step 4: Resize the image (CTRL+ALT+I) for example to 300x200 using Bicubic resampling (bicubic auto, whatever).
    The edges (outermost 1 pixel) will be transparent! See attached image.
    This doesn't happen:
    * in photoshop cs5
    * if I use bilinear or other resampling
    * if I import the file from ACR to PS as a normal bitmap (not using shift+click)
    Anyone know what's going on here? My workflow involves opening files from Camera Raw as smart object, so if there is any workaround until the next patch I will be very glad.

    >> Are you sure?
    Yeah. I'm sorry, but why do you think I would write it if I didn't try it? I tried bilinear and nearest neighbor and they all work fine.
    And well considering the algorithms average neighboring pixels, with a naive implementation a transparent edge is expected i guess, but I expect photoshop cs6 to be just a little bit smarter than that.

  • Photo image : size reduction software

    HI !
    I want to reduce sizes of photo images i.e. jpeg, gif files of few GB's into less than 100KB. Need free / paid software compatible to MAC OS X 10.6.8.

    Do you really mean image files of a few Gigabites? I doubt there are many apps that can handle that size of an image file and the machine would have to have many GBs of memory to even consider using it? Was that a type and you mean a few MBs?
    Going from 2 GB down to 100 KB or less is nearly impossible and still get a decent image.  This is an 4.3 MB file compressed to 100 KB with no reduction in the image (pixels) size.
    This is the original file:
    Click on them to see what they look like full sized.  The edited version is showing pixelation in the sky and other areas.
    This was done with iResize at 15% quality (jpeg compression) level. It was the only file resize I had that would get it down below 300 KB.  Even Photoshop CS3 couldn't get it down below 230 KB.

  • Image size when sharing portrait orientation in CC

    Is there any way to over ride the behavior of CC when sharing images with a portrait orientation? By default it fits the image to the height of the browser window, even when it's expanded to full page. The result is a REDUCTION in image size if you want to share an image that is taller than it is wide.

    Usually Images display "fit to screen" by default in my browser. If I click on an over-sized image, it goes to actual size.
    There I can scroll around. So I'm guessing you want a 100% or "fit width" default?
    Anyway it is the Image > Image Size command that resizes or changes pixel dimensions in Photoshop.
    If you send your images to other users, they can zoom in and out to view no matter the size.
    Gene

  • Image Size Question

    In Photoshop CS6 two of the options in the 'Image Size' dialog box are 'Bicubic Smoother (best for enlargement) and Bicubic Sharper (best for reduction). I have assumed this referred to a reduction or enlargement in the height and width of the image but do these options also refer to an enlargement or reduction of the image resolution?
    I often keep the height and width of an image the same but change its resolution up or down, so should I apply 'Bicubic Smoother' and 'Bicubic Sharper' when I changing only the resolution? Many thanks for your help.

    Hello,
    The Bicubic choices refer to if you are changing the number of pixels. If you are adding pixels, that is considered "enlargement" even if the print size stays the same. Look at the top numbers (Width and Height of Pixel Dimensions) in the Image Size Dialog. That shows you any real resizing taking place. Print Size and PPI are meaningless individually. They are just two factors whose product is the Pixel Dimension.
    If you are reducing number of pixels, you can choose Bicubic Sharper, but many feel that down-sample algorithm can over sharpen. New in CS6 is Bicubic Automatic, which will apply Bicubic Smoother or Sharper depending if you are up-sampling or down-sampling the image.

  • Does photo size reduction for e-mailing degrade photos?

    In using iPhoto to send photos by e-mail one has the option of reducing the size of these photos from actual size to small, medium, or large size in order to transmit them more quickly, but what effect does this size reduction have on the quality of the photos?
    I suspect that the size reduction degrades the images, but I have not been able to obtain any sort of definitive information on this subject, even when I contacted Apple tech help. Is there some knowledgeable person on board who can give us the story on this issue?
    I like the idea of transmitting photos as fast as possible, but not if it means degrading the images by reducing their size to speed up the e-mail process.
    Bob

    Smtr,
    Thanks for your helpful reply. I wasn’t concerned about the original photo retained in my library, but only about the reduced-size copy transmitted by e-mail.
    I’m amazed at how much one can reduce the photo size for transmitting by e-mail. I just randomly selected a 3.3 MB JPEG image which can be squeezed down to only 63 KB by selecting the Small size in the Mail Photo window. I calculate that the reduced size photo would be only 1/52 the size of the original. I assume that the 63 KB image would be a very poor candidate for producing a print! I also assume that the 63 KB image, when viewed by the recipient on his monitor, would be a lot smaller than it would be if I sent him a copy at Actual Size.
    Suppose the the recipient’s e-mail system could not handle the Actual Size 3.3 MB photo, so I send him a Large copy (414 KB) or a Medium copy (122 KB). Would either of those reduced-size photos produce a decent print as small as 4 X 6? I am trying to get a feel for how far I could squeeze down the size of one of my photos for e-mail transmittal before it becomes unsuitable for producing even a small print.
    Comments?
    Bob

  • IOS 7 Apple camera app - image size vs other camera app's image size

    Is there a way to change the image size on the IOS 7 Apple camera app.  On the iPhone 5s the image is 2448x3264, correct, and the image size was 1.96Mb.  The Camera+ is 3.63Mb and CameraAwesome was 1.57Mb.  I can adjust the image size with Camera+ and did so.  If the Apple Camera app is not adjustable then it looks like there is significant reduction in the resolution of images, at least compared to C+. 

    You probably want to post this in the Developer Forums. This is the general user forum.
    Best of luck.

  • RE: File Size Reduction by Hiding Layers

    I've come across the trick of hiding layers to reduce file size, however am wondering exactly what is happening.
    Here's my situation.
    20.6mb PSD
    Hiding the layers reduces the file to 13.1mb
    I've been told that the file reduction is because preview images are no longer being generated.
    Could preview images really be accounting for nearly 40% of the file size?
    To test this I saved this file as a JPG at 100% quality (not for web) and yielded a 1.34mb file.
    This leaves me with roughly 6.6mb of file reduction unaccounted for.
    Is something else being siltently compressed/compatibility settings not included/other info being excluded from the file when layers are hidden?
    NOTE:
    I need to make sure my files have maximum compatibility for opening them in Lightroom and other programs that open PSDs like Painter - so compatibility settings are important.
    I need to make sure that everything will still be setup properly for print and no compression is ocurring.
    Could some please tell me what exactly is excluded from a file to lower the file size 40% when hiding layers?
    Thanks!

    Similar, yes... but that still doesn't answer my question
    2400x1600px image
    only a background layer
    RGB 8bits/channel 72dpi
    19.2mb
    ...hide layer = 9.91mb
    .. white layer on top = 10.1mb (similar results as you said)
    DIFFERENCE: 9.29mb
    So, back to the question. Is it REALLY just the thumbnail/preview image taking up 50% of the file size in this case? Seriously? I would think that Adobe would be a bit more efficient with saving preview images. So...back to my earlier test to try and get a comparison of what a full size/full quality preview image would weigh, I've saved this image as:
    high res JPG (not for web) = 1.55mb
    compressed (layered) PNG = 3.64mb
    compressed (layered) TIFF = 3.99mb
    I also tried saving different combinations of layered/compressed versions of the PNG and TIFF files (although I think JPGs would be a more accurate representation of preview image file size). Uncompressed PNGs and TIFFs were far too large for the 9.29mb difference.
    These don't even come within a couple of mb of the file size reduction from hiding the layers....
    So, my question:
    If hiding a layer is reducing the file size by supposedely rendering less pixel data to the preview images, then
    - why don't any of these "mock" preview image situations come close to accounting for the size in reduction?
      Even a layered lossless compressed TIFF still leaves an unexplained 5mb+  (9.29mb total file size reduction - 3.99mb TIFF)
    I'm curious and need this for a specific (yet reocurring) situation at the workplace.
    It really seems like there's something else that is happening when you save a file with layers hidden.
    Is there any other possible scenarios (generating mutliple thumbnail sizes/sets, metadata based on pixel data, other information based on pixel data, silent compression, settings changing, etc) that could possibly explain this?

  • Reducing image size with Preview?

    I notice that Preview's "adjust size" option can considerably reduce the size of some images i got from internet. For instance, with a 366 KB JPEG image, after clicking on adjust size, there would be a line at the bottom of the window that says: 101 KB (was 366 KB). And i know this new smaller sized image has the same quality as the original because when i compare both images at maximum zoom, i see no difference in the size, color or position of the pixels. So, does anyone know how this size reduction method can be applied simultaneously to many images or to an entire folder? Or do you know any software (preferably free) that does something similar without quality loss?
    Thanks in advance

    Then change the subsampling rate or turn it off in the PDF Optimizer.  But realize that in doing so you trade the quality for a larger size.

  • Amazingly inefficient file size reduction

    I have some Texinfo documents that are regularly updated and from which HTML and PDF documentation is then produced. The PDF as it comes from Texinfo is about 850 pages, contains a lot of small graphics, and is about ~50Mb in size. When I use Acrobat (v9.5.1 running on Windows 7 x64) to reduce the file size, the process takes in excess of 12 hours to complete, and when I look at processes in Task Manager when the file size reduction has completed, I can see that the acrobat.exe process has read 61Gb and written 11Gb. At the end of the process, the PDf has been reduced from 50Mb to around 30Mb.
    The machine on which Acrobat is running is not at all underpowered - it has an Intel core i7 CPU and 12Gb of RAM. Any suggestions on possibilities for speeding up the file size reduction. The excessively long processing time is not a one-off aberration - I've run the file size reduction half a dozen times now over a few months, and it takes this long to reduce the file size on every occasion.

    Hi jamesfb,
    You can do so by resizing your image. It will be under the More (&) menu> image size

  • New Image Size and Resolution in CC

    Hi there.
    Ok, maybe i'm missing something, but how do i reduce the ppi's of a given image in the Photoshop CC? Changing it in the image size, in the Resolution field, it acomplish nothing. It logs an entry in the History panel, but nothing changes in the picture. Did Adobe changed how this works, or it's just a bug?
    Thank you.

    Try setting to real-world measurement, like inches or cm.
    Hi Charles, i think that change in cm/mm/in it's the only way to change the image ppi (in my case save/resample it to 108ppi). Can you confirm that this is correct?
    Anyway when i go to image size (new panel of CC) the w/h are:
    1) grey and always set in pixel with resample flagged.
    2) always set in inches with resample NON-flagged (also if my ruler unit is in Pixel).
    (and actually that is not new behavior. CS6 behaved same way when width and height were set to percent)
    In CS6 and CC i never seen w/h in percent  - where is my error?
    Many thanks!

Maybe you are looking for