Jpeg optimization

I am working on a graphic image in Fireworks (Macromedia MX)
and since I am using gradient colors, I have optimized it as a jpeg
(80-better quality). The image itself is approx. 740 x 425 pixels
and I have been working with the optimization to get the file as
small as possible but still retain the clarity of the image. Is
there a way to show the size of the file in Fireworks as I play
with the optimization? What file size should I limit this image to
for dialup/broadband? Also, as I said, this is a jpeg but when I
edit my button symbols, I notice that it says they are .gifs. Do
the buttons display on a webpage as a gif or jpeg, or does the
entire image display as a jpeg. Another question I have is to find
out if there is a way to optimize different areas of my image in
different optimization levels and if so, how is this done? Sorry
for so many questions. Please help. Thanks.

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 00:55:18 +0300, P-C-Surgeonz
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I am working on a graphic image in Fireworks (Macromedia
MX) and since I
> am
> using gradient colors, I have optimized it as a jpeg
(80-better
> quality). The
> image itself is approx. 740 x 425 pixels and I have been
working with the
> optimization to get the file as small as possible but
still retain the
> clarity
> of the image. Is there a way to show the size of the
file in Fireworks
> as I
> play with the optimization?
You may switch to "Preview" tab (right next to "Original" at
the top of
your image). File size will be shown at the top right area
above the image.
> dialup/broadband? Also, as I said, this is a jpeg but
when I edit my
> button
> symbols, I notice that it says they are .gifs. Do the
buttons display on
> a
> webpage as a gif or jpeg, or does the entire image
display as a jpeg.
FW shows sizes for slices separately. Maybe you have slices
set to be
exported as GIF, once you switch to them, their particular
size and type
is shown. Or maybe there's something else going on that I
can't figure out
from your explanation :-)
> Another
> question I have is to find out if there is a way to
optimize different
> areas of
> my image in different optimization levels and if so, how
is this done?
Modify -> Selective JPEG. Here you will be able to define
an area to be
exported with JPEG compression setting different from that
for the rest of
the image.
Ilya Razmanov
http://photoshop.msk.ru -
Photoshop plug-in filters

Similar Messages

Placement of 2 background images

I want a background image for the body of my site like the one used here;
https://www.fortnumandmason.com/
The image they used is here;
https://www.fortnumandmason.com/Common/images/Global/bodyBkg015.jpg
They have used a big image, 100k i think. This seems wasteful. Is there a way of achieving the same thing but using smaller images and probably more divs?
I was thinking of adding a div around my container and setting it to be the pages's width and height, so in effect I could add CSS to 2 body tags. I could then have a background image for one aligned to the right, and background image to another aligned to the left.
The problem with that method is that as the window is resized, the background image will be moved and wont always touch the container div. Can I somehow set a background image to sit next to the container div? I think I could do this if the entire layout was in a 3 column table, but id rather find a CSS solution.
Thanks

I like the idea of a background image on the whole page. The difficulty with that is that you can't stretch a background image. But if you make the image large enough to cover and perhaps fade it into a color (or cleverly make the edges splice, so you can safely tile it...), you'll have all situations covered.
Take advantage of your graphics program...Fireworks, for example...to optimize the image to the most efficient size. If you need certain areas to be very clear, you can do selective jpeg optimization, where a selected area (need not be rectangular) is optimized to a higher percentage than the rest of the image.
I really don't like the slice and dice approach. The chance for breaking is very high. You have no way to control a viewer's penchant for enlarging the page or the text, and throwing the whole into disarray. The simpler, the better.
Keep in mind the image of nailing jello to a wall. Yeah, it slides down into a puddle.
Beth

Photoshop to PDF Text Problem

I created a report in Photoshop consisting of 9 pages.
I'm using the PDF Presentation feature to create a PDF file from these 9 pages.
Everything works out find other than that most of the text is not selectable... it becomes an image.
How can I make all the text selectable?
I'm using CS2 and all the text is on layers seperate from the background. There are also images, but on seperate layers.
Thank you :-)

The font I use is Arial (Regular) with "Smoothing."
Size: 11pt
Kerning: Optical
Leading: 15pt
Some text is in bold.
PDF setting are:
Compatibility: Acrobat 8
Image Quality: Maximum
Compression: JPEG
Optimize for Fast Web Preview
Embed Page Thumbnails
And that's basically it.
Thanks for your help Mylenium :-)

Cropping and Post-Document Size

Hi,
I need to crop my images at 500x500 pixels for a project. I do a Save For Web & Devices and use JPEG, optimize at 80%. When I open up the new JPEG file, the pixel size says 500x500, but the document size says 6.944x6.944 inches at 72 resoultion, instead of 5x5 inches at 100 resolution. I've been doing the same process for months and it was correct in pixel and document size until recently, but I haven't changed any settings or my process. Does anyone know why this is happening?
Thank you,
Jennifer

Thanks, that all makes sense. I'm just curious though, why would Photoshop display the document size differently, one as 5"x5" at 100ppi (files I did months ago) and then recently it seems to have just decided that it wanted to display the document size at the 6.944"x6.944" at 72ppi? We've always done a "Save for Web" and not "Save As." Other than that, thank you for your responses, I understand.

Simple patch for makepkg: Optimize PNG/JPEG images losslessly

Hello there! I've written a (rather simple) patch for Makepkg that makes use of the tools jpegoptim and optipng, using more or less the same method that the current code for using UPX works.
These two utilities use a handful of methods for producing more efficiently optimized image files, while not losing or altering the image given by decompression.
47c47
< packaging_options=('strip' 'docs' 'libtool' 'emptydirs' 'zipman' 'purge' 'upx')
> packaging_options=('strip' 'docs' 'libtool' 'emptydirs' 'zipman' 'purge' 'upx' 'img')
1055c1055
< find . -type f -perm -u+w 2>/dev/null | while read binary ; do
> find . -type f -iname "*.png" 2>/dev/null | while read binary ; do
1061a1062,1075
> if [[ $(check_option img) = "y" ]]; then
> msg2 "$(gettext "Compressing images...")"
> local image
> find . -type f 2>/dev/null | while read image ; do
> if [[ $(file -bi "$image") = *'image/png'* ]]; then
> optipng "$image" &>/dev/null ||
> warning "$(gettext "Could not compress image : %s")" "${image/$pkgdir\//}"
> fi
> if [[ $(file -bi "$image") = *'image/jpeg'* ]]; then
> jpegoptim "$image" &>/dev/null ||
> warning "$(gettext "Could not compress image : %s")" "${image/$pkgdir\//}"
> fi
> done
> fi
1647a1662,1669
> ret=1
> fi
> fi
>
> # img - image compression
> if [[ $(check_option img) == 'y' ]]; then
> if ! type -p jpegoptim >/dev/null; then
> error "$(gettext "Cannot find the %s binary required for compressing images.")" "jpegoptim"
Save as makepkg.patch, patch /usr/bin/makepkg makepkg.patch, then add 'img' to your OPTIONS in /etc/makepkg.conf.
On most files this gives a 5-10% space optimization, but with smaller files or files which were badly compressed in the first place it can get 30-50%.
Obviously some things could be more elegant, there's no method given here to pass options to either program, but implementing that would be trivial.
Anyone interested?

You should ask about this on the [pacman-dev] mailing list. It is nice that you are sharing it here. But if you really think this is a superior way of handling it, then submitting it upstream for review is probably the better thing to do.

JPEG exports - "optimize to file size"

just saw this tucked away in somebody's lengthy post, but i think it merits its own thread.
it would be very useful, and isnt very difficult, to implement a jpeg export option for auto-setting the quality slider based on "desired file size".
for instance, my web products need jpegs w/ a max of 800k. in PS, i have to dork around w/ the preview sliders to get this. in LR, there isnt a way. preferred for both would be UI for inputting the desired size and let the cpu do its job.
this would rock.
thanks
matt

Yes. Generally speaking, would be nice to know the exported file size in terms of MB / KB, in addition to pixel dimensions which are already there.
Gilles.

Hi. Did I have to optimize my already optimized jpeg again after coloring it on photoshop CS4??

I only optimized (click on the file part on photoshop CS4 and on web and devices thing) my drawing once into a jpeg, and then I just colored it and saved it on 'save' or 'save as', and I sent it to the video game guys to process into a video game. Am I okay?? Will it still come out ok?? It looked like it came out ok from my email as it was downloadable from it.

Basically, never save your master files in jpeg (unless it's the top quality setting, where you only have -in theory- invisible degradation.
Prefer PSD or TIFF that can save the individual layers, and do not compress the images destructively.
See, for instance: http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/file-formats/

Using 'save as...' and the options panel to optimize

When I take a JPG and use "save as..." then select 'options' I can't seem to change the file size manually. When the options window opens after I do save as, I go through the regular process of using the slider to change the percentage of quality. I can see in the upper right-hand corner the file size changes. I click 'OK' and then save in the next window and I wind up with the file in the same original size, as if I hadn't changed the percentage. Am I forgetting something...I know 'save as...' in Lion/Mountain Lion is not a default setting, but Export doesn't give me the options I want. Also renaming the file, moving it to another place, none of those things enable to me to save a file with the reduced file size.
Thanks in advance!

I think you're running into a known Fireworks bug, where options specified by a user within the Save As options dialog are overridden by settings already specified within the Optimize panel or Image Preview dialog. This is typically only a problem when the files being saved/exported are of the same type—e.g., using Save As to create a JPEG from an existing JPEG, or a PNG with transparency from an existing PNG.
Have a look at this forum post and thread for more info:
http://forums.adobe.com/message/4701484#4701484
You should have better luck if you Export the file using File > Image Preview. This brings up the same dialog as the Save As options, but your settings, in this case, will be honored.
You can submit your own bug report on this issue here: https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform

How can I optimize for the Web...at 96 dpi?

It is a truth universally acknowledged that Microsoft is the spawn of Satan. Here's the latest ridiculousness I'm trying to work around: Outlook considers 96 dpi to be the right and proper resolution for images. So it just goes about its merry way enlarging 72 dpi images and generally uglifying all of my e-mail templates. It's especially fun that it makes the enlargement every time the message is forwarded!
The workaround (discovered by my trust IT guy) is to save all images at 96 dpi. Outlook will be happy, and other e-mail platforms will actually read my code and render the images at the absolute size specified. Aye, here's the rub: When I create the images in Photoshop (CS3), I optimize using "Save for Web and Devices," which automatically sets the resolution at 72 dpi. If I save another way, or open and resave the optimized file, the file size increases dramatically.
Is there some other way to optimize at 96 dpi?
Thanks!
~Valerie

It's been seen that some Microsoft software has taken turns for the worse since Bill Gates stopped directing technical activity, actually. This seems to show that geeks mean well more rather often than business tycoons mean well.
Please try this, Valerie:
1. In Photoshop, File - New, say 400 x 400 pixels at 96 pixels/inch.
2. Draw or paste something into that image (e.g., a screen grab) that will make it obvious if resizing has occurred.
3. File - Save As, a JPEG.
4. In Outlook, create a new message then Insert - Picture from File, the image you saved in step 3.
Is it full-sized?
If so, a workaround for you would be to set up your image size in Photoshop to 96 ppi, then use File - Save As (instead of Save for Web & Devices).
You'll want to make sure you've sized your image and put it in the proper color space yourself, of course.
-Noel

Reducing file size #2...Preview, Quartz Filter vs Adobe Pro Optimize

Questions on reducing a pages to pdf file…I will post each question seperatly.
2) I read that you can reduce file size of a pdf in preview with a quartz filter. I created my own filer and it worked as expected. But, I also have Adobe Acrobat Pro, with save as PDF Optimized. The pro seems to have much more capability than the quartz filters.
Is one better that the other to use? The adobe optimize (standard settings) took it from 20 to 6 megs.
THanks, Bob

The Adobe Acrobat settings you chose are probably using .jpeg to reduce the file size.
.jpegs are lossy. ie You lose detail and sharpness the more you compress the image.
The Quartz filters are usually of very high quality, but they are a black box and you need to understand what the settings are in each one. Quartz filters are extremely powerful, fast and as I said usually high quality but I suggest you experiment and see if they meet your needs.
Peter

Firefox 3.6.8 causing all JPEG images to be compressed like AOL 9.0

System Setup:
Windows 7 Home Premium x64
NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GT (newest drivers installed)
Aero is running, switched it off to troubleshoot. Problem persisted.
Steps to Create the Problem:
1.) Updated to 3.6.8 from 3.5.11.
2.) Loaded up my website: http://www.columbuswebseo.com
3.) I noticed that the background image looks compressed (where it has a gradient around the blurred light specks in top right corner) . Like a highly compressed JPEG image from AOL days (to speed up page load times).
4.) Messed with all FireFox, Windows 7, NVIDIA, physical Dell LCD monitor color settings. Even did research on my RoadRunner connection to see if they implemented an accelerator of some sort. Disabled Add-ons one by one re-testing the issue along the way. Problem persisted.

It's not your graphics card. It's not your OS. It's not your browser.
It's your internet. I had a broadband card, and I figured out that my ISP (Internet Service Provider) was actually downgrading my image quality to make my internet faster. It's called Network Optimization. Look in the options menu of your broadband connection application (Like if you have T-Mobile or whatever, look in the part the application that connects you to the internet) and see if you can change your Optimization Settings. This should clear things up for you.
Also, if your internet is really that slow, like mine was, I would suggest getting another provider. It's the best option. Hope that helps. :)

Printing problem linked to EXIF time data for JPEG images.

For some years I have been using Photoshop Elements 8.0 with no problems of any kind. My computer runs on XP Professional with a system comfortably in excess of the minimum requirements to run Elements 8.0. I load my images into Elements from a card reader which is the same one since I got this version of Elements. I shoot mostly in JPEG with a Nikon D300. I print to one of 2 Epson printers, an SX100 and a PX700W. I don't use the wireless feature of the PX700W, connecting it via USB.
About a year ago I suddenly began to experience printing problems. If I tried to print an image Elements crashed just at the point where printing would begin. By trial & error I discovered that if I adjusted the time in the EXIF data of the image in Elements, whether by advancing or retarding it by hours or days and then adjusted it back to the original time I had no problems printing that image thereafter.
I also discoveredc that where I had shot in RAW I could print direct from the RAW image in Elements or from the JPEG I saved from an edited in RAW and had no problems.
I saw the forum discussions about the issues about the date/time in EXIF having been changed following the import into Elements. For those images I still had on my memory cards I checked the EXIF data in Elements and compared it what was on the image on the card. They were the same. I also checked the time zone and time settings of the camera and they were correct.
I backed up my catalog, re-formatted the computer to bring it back to its ex-factoy status, re-installed Elements and restored my catalog. I imported new images, tried to print them and the problem was still there.
Before I might upgrade to Photoshop Elements 10 I'm hoping someone else may tell me they have had the same problem and, hopefully, be able to tell me how they fixed it. I know the workaround will bypass the problem but it really annoys me that it suddenly appeared and I seem to be stuck with it. I'm also concerned that, given I totally re-formatted my computer but the problem is still with me, that the problem may be imbedded in my catalog and simply gets backed up to,\and restored from, my backup.
I'd be grateful for any ideas.

Hi Miceal,
Though I'm not sure, but see if Catalog repair and optimize helps resolve the issue.
For doing this, click File >> Catalog and selec your catalog and then click "repair' button.
Tick the checkbox for rebuilding indices in the repair workflow.
Now perform the optimize operation on the catalog similarly.
Let me know if that helps.
Thanks
andaleeb

Lightroom 3 Export to JPEG issue ( please help) (photo attached)

Hello,
I have been going crazy trying to solve this issue and can't find a solution. I am using Lightroom 3.4.1 on a Mac running 10.6.7. In Lightroom I am editing raw images from a Canon 7D. I tweak and adjust the images to my liking but when I export them as a JPEG at full quality using color space sRGB my jpegs do not look like my adjusted photos in Lightroom. The biggest missing factor is all my "detail" adjustments. Sharpening ect. The colors are slightly less vibrant but the huge issue is the sharpening I do that disappears. Can anyone help me with this? I will supply an example below. On the left is the jpeg and on the right is the grab from Lightroom. I am viewing the jpegs in preview and don't have photoshop. Thanks in advance for any help!

When you export from Lightroom and you do not select the resize option, you will get the full resolution from your original image. This contains far more pixels than your screen can display as displays are very low resolution devices (typically only around 100 ppi). When you open the resultant jpeg in an image viewer, it will have to downscale from that. Usually many times. This necessarily introduces blur and the result will strongly depend on the chosen scaling algorithm. Lightroom uses a fairly good one to downscale and it shows you a preview of a properly output sharpened image at the size you are looking at. Preview uses a particularly bad one. In preview if you want the screen pixels to correspond to the image pixels, you need to hit apple-0 (or use the view menu and select "actual size"). In Safari and Firefox, you need to click on the image to zoom in to actual pixels.
Your comment also makes me realize that you do not really understand the sharpening in Lightroom. The detail tools in Develop are meant to optimize what is called capture sharpening. These should NOT be used to optimize sharpness at the fit view level, but only at the 1:1 view level. They operate basically on the image to correct for image blur that comes from the sensor's antialias filter and for a small amount of lens blur (say when you are diffraction limited owing to use of large f-numbers). Do not zoom out and play with the detail setting. Zoom into 1:1 on certain areas and optimize the sharpening. There are many tutorials on the web that explain this. Then when you go to output your image, you need to apply another sharpening, called output sharpening, at the final size, in order to correct for blur introduced by the output medium such as a printer or a display and by rescaling the image. The print panel has this built in. In the export panel, the options are in the lower tabs. You need to rescale the image to your final size (for example, a 533x800 pixel image is typical for a good web sized image). Then also apply the correct output sharpening in the tab below it. Typical would be to sharpen for screen at a standard amount. I showed some comparisons on this around the LR 2 timeframe here: http://lagemaat.blogspot.com/2008/08/on-output-sharpening.html The output sharpening has improved by quite a bit by now from those examples, but they show the general idea.
Hope this helps.
Jao

Convert catalog from PSE 6 to 10, is it necessary to include the jpegs?

Hello
I am testing PSE 10 (from PSE 6) and have copied the catalog to a test XP box (but not the jpegs). The catalog refuses to convert with an unspecic error: "Catalog conversion failed" see "Catalog Conversion Errors" for more details.
PSE 6 can find no problems with the existing catalog and I have worked trhough eg http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/515/cpsid_51525.html .
If the conversion process requires the jpegs etc. then that will certainly cause a problem, they are not visible to this PC! On the other hand, if it is simply a matter of converting the catalog without reference to the source files then there should be no problem.
I am reluctant to allow a conversion process to break a very considerable investment in effort in the PSE6 catalog and want to see it work (and have useful benefit to me) before committing the original.
Some rough statistics: 45,000 images, 140GB data, catalog is around 1.5GB. It takes about 3 mins for 'repair' to run (having forced a 'repair anyway') and under 10 mins for 'optimize'.
I should add that I have run the psedbtool and while it finds that two drives are missing (E: and F:), there are no missing files. E: and F: are USB backup drives and are not connected, nor would I expect them to be. All photos are in one (top level that is) folder on one drive. If the convertor can only run when the backup drives are connected, that seems a little odd.
If the only option is to restore the backed up PSE 6 archive into PSE 10, that is do-able, but I was trying to avoid doing that.
Perhaps the more pertinant question is "what does PSE 10 offer that I haven't got in PSE 6?". So far I have not found any really useful function, maybe a couple of the irritating bugs have been fixed? (Mostly the date orderby bug) I have lived with the multi-core hang since PSE 6 came out and don't use PSE to catalog my raw files, so that fix has no benefit to me.

Well after an all day effort, I have a working W7 64 bit with a spare 1TB drive and all the updates done (about a 2GB download). That has taken about eight hours. Then recover the PSE 6 created backup files into PSE 10, (took about three hours) and for good measure forced a repair and optimize on the catalog. No errors at any point.
PSE 10 crashes when in slide show view. Sometimes it gets through about two images, sometimes 100 or so, but always it crashes. So I am ready to give up, PSE 6 is stable at least (though I have yet to try PSE 6 under W7 64bit, my standard PC is W XP 32 bit).
One possible benefit of W7 is the color fidelity is better (I have color calibration too). The management of the twin screen is not better though, PSE keeps vanishing from view (this is not related to the crash) and has to be coaxed back onto the secondary screen. PSE 6 under XP gets this right.
I checked the arm chair arm image again, it is the wooden arm of a director's portable chair seen from the side, no matter how I try I can't see a face in it. I realise now that the 'obvious' faces that get missed are when the eyes are not horizontal, even a small turning of the head results in the face being missed.

Which Approach?---Scan into JPEGs and then save as PDF or scan into PDF?

I am now learning to use my Canon Pixma MX870. I installed the full suite of Canon printing, scanning, faxing and whatever else software they provide for this all-in-one.
There are several different ways you can approach things with this machine which makes it a little confusing. You can do things with a one touch kind of method or you can delve deeper into the menus and adjust lots of settings.
Right now I am working on scanning documents into PDFs. The Canon software lets me create multipage PDFs which is something I've been wanting to do. My question is, is it best to scan images as JPEGs and then save them as a multipage PDF or is it best to scan into PDF directly (which the scanner seems to offer as well) and then save as a multipage PDF? I'm thinking in terms of the best optimization of file size vs. image quality and things like that.
Is the scanner actually doing anything differently when scanning into JPEG vs. PDF? Or is the scanning all the same and it's just the saving of the file that is different?
In general what dpi setting is usually sufficient to use to scan a basic text document without taking up too much file space?
Thanks!
Regards,
Steve M.

Steve M. wrote:
I installed the full suite of Canon printing, scanning, faxing and whatever else software they provide for this all-in-one.
Maybe you don't need that. I prefer using Apple's Image Capture for scanning.
Right now I am working on scanning documents into PDFs. The Canon software lets me create multipage PDFs which is something I've been wanting to do. My question is, is it best to scan images as JPEGs and then save them as a multipage PDF or is it best to scan into PDF directly (which the scanner seems to offer as well) and then save as a multipage PDF? I'm thinking in terms of the best optimization of file size vs. image quality and things like that.
Let the software do it for you. That will be fewer steps for you. Image-based PDFs are going to be large. There is no way around that. If they are too large, you can use Preview's Save As feature and play around with the Quartz Filter.
Is the scanner actually doing anything differently when scanning into JPEG vs. PDF? Or is the scanning all the same and it's just the saving of the file that is different?
Scans are scans. The JPEG file format is lossly and will look worse than other types. If you are scanning in photographs, the JPEGs will look good. If you are scanning in crisp text, JPEGS will have lots of artifacts and look bad.
In general what dpi setting is usually sufficient to use to scan a basic text document without taking up too much file space?
I pretty much always keep it at 300 unless I need something special or when the original is really small and I intend to blow it up.

Jpeg optimization

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for