Hi Tony, this looks to be a very nice setting and the reflective items are very colorful as well.
In review I might have posted this at the full allowable size of 720 pixels on the long side and 200k file size too.
Stating that, it is hard for me to tell if this needs to be "web sharpened" a bit. I base that on what I can make out of the BG area. Otherwise as mentioned this looks like a nice scene to work with overall.
Definitely try and take advantage of the larger size, it's really hard to judge any technical qualities at this size. But I can see that this is a very nice reflection and abstract. In fact I would go all the way with the reflection and actually crop out the "real" part of the image up top. The top is a bit too bright and I think takes away from the wonderful reflection. The colors are very nice and the slight ripples in the water create the abstract, almost impressionistic look to it. If it were mine, I would crop right to the shoreline, flip it over 180deg and I think you'll have a winner.
Thanks for the suggestions. Actually, the reflection is a red tea-house like building.
Regarding posting at the maximum size, I tried unsuccesfully. When I reduced the pixel size to 720 on the long side and then "Saved As" a jpg (Photoshoph CS4), the file size was greater than 200 Kb even with quality set to 1. I kept reducing the pixel size incrementally to get the file size under 200 with a quality of at least 8. This is the largest pixel dimension I could get. What am I doing wrong? Thanks.
Not sure what you're doing wrong without knowing your entire workflow, but here are some things to consider.
You mentioned you're working in CS4, so I'll assume that you're working with a PSD file and perhaps have some adjustment layers? You of course should flatten the file first (make sure and save the psd file) Also, discard any unneeded layers in the channels palette to try and keep the size down.
If you have found or tried Marc Adamus's web sharpening technique, I would recommend that. It might not help with file size, but it's a good thing to add to your workflow in resizing and sharpening images for the web.
Resize using bicubic resampling for 720px (you can also get away with 650, 680, 700, etc. just as long as it's large enough so people don't mention it's too small.....) As discussed on another thread, the ppi/pixels per inch doesn't matter, what matters is the pixel dimensions. In fact file size wont change if you save to 72ppi or 300ppi.
Try using "Save for web and devices" and put the dialogue box in the "2-up" view. At the bottom of the image it will estimate the size of the resulting file. Change your jpg quality until it reaches 200kb or less. Make sure you check the "sRGB" box if you haven't already set the profile. Perhaps you're saving the file in a wide color gamut like ProPhoto or something. Not sure if would make a difference though.
As you may know, some images contain much more information than others. for example, an image of just blue sky will end up being a very small file, while a tree image with tons of fine detail of leaves, bark, grasses, etc. etc. will contain much more info and subsequently be a much larger file.
Having said that, I work with 8,000+ pixel images from my 4x5 scans all the time most all of the time I can get an image below 200k. Not all the time, and sometimes I've had to go as low as a 5 or 5.5 on the quality scale. Depending onthe image and how well you do with sharpening, I've posted a number of images with that low of a quality and they still look pretty good.
Just from seeing your image, you should be able to get it at 720px and under 200k.
There you go, Tony. This works much better for viewing and it makes things much easier to help with overall suggestions. With that all said, I would try a crop as Lon first suggested as an alternative look if you want, but again, I find this second posted image very nice. With the suggested crop the image falls toward an abstractive scene where the stronger mid-day lighting actually helps a bit for viewing the details here. Otherwise I might suggest working in a little less harsh lighting.
I agree with everything previously said. The larger size is quite an improvement.
I also concur with a crop at the top. Awesome colors! Good job, Anthony, and
keep posting.
The collection of colors and shapes in the reflection is terrific. I'm all for a crop from the top as well with the focus being on the reflection. Well seen!
Discussion
10 repliesCanon 5d Mark 2
Canon 180 Macro Lens
f 4.0
1/1500
Iso 400
In review I might have posted this at the full allowable size of 720 pixels on the long side and 200k file size too.
Stating that, it is hard for me to tell if this needs to be "web sharpened" a bit. I base that on what I can make out of the BG area. Otherwise as mentioned this looks like a nice scene to work with overall.
Definitely try and take advantage of the larger size, it's really hard to judge any technical qualities at this size. But I can see that this is a very nice reflection and abstract. In fact I would go all the way with the reflection and actually crop out the "real" part of the image up top. The top is a bit too bright and I think takes away from the wonderful reflection. The colors are very nice and the slight ripples in the water create the abstract, almost impressionistic look to it. If it were mine, I would crop right to the shoreline, flip it over 180deg and I think you'll have a winner.
Lon
Regarding posting at the maximum size, I tried unsuccesfully. When I reduced the pixel size to 720 on the long side and then "Saved As" a jpg (Photoshoph CS4), the file size was greater than 200 Kb even with quality set to 1. I kept reducing the pixel size incrementally to get the file size under 200 with a quality of at least 8. This is the largest pixel dimension I could get. What am I doing wrong? Thanks.
Not sure what you're doing wrong without knowing your entire workflow, but here are some things to consider.
You mentioned you're working in CS4, so I'll assume that you're working with a PSD file and perhaps have some adjustment layers? You of course should flatten the file first (make sure and save the psd file) Also, discard any unneeded layers in the channels palette to try and keep the size down.
If you have found or tried Marc Adamus's web sharpening technique, I would recommend that. It might not help with file size, but it's a good thing to add to your workflow in resizing and sharpening images for the web.
Resize using bicubic resampling for 720px (you can also get away with 650, 680, 700, etc. just as long as it's large enough so people don't mention it's too small.....) As discussed on another thread, the ppi/pixels per inch doesn't matter, what matters is the pixel dimensions. In fact file size wont change if you save to 72ppi or 300ppi.
Try using "Save for web and devices" and put the dialogue box in the "2-up" view. At the bottom of the image it will estimate the size of the resulting file. Change your jpg quality until it reaches 200kb or less. Make sure you check the "sRGB" box if you haven't already set the profile. Perhaps you're saving the file in a wide color gamut like ProPhoto or something. Not sure if would make a difference though.
As you may know, some images contain much more information than others. for example, an image of just blue sky will end up being a very small file, while a tree image with tons of fine detail of leaves, bark, grasses, etc. etc. will contain much more info and subsequently be a much larger file.
Having said that, I work with 8,000+ pixel images from my 4x5 scans all the time most all of the time I can get an image below 200k. Not all the time, and sometimes I've had to go as low as a 5 or 5.5 on the quality scale. Depending onthe image and how well you do with sharpening, I've posted a number of images with that low of a quality and they still look pretty good.
Just from seeing your image, you should be able to get it at 720px and under 200k.
Let me know if any of this helps.
Lon
I also concur with a crop at the top. Awesome colors! Good job, Anthony, and
keep posting.