Whappeh From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 2 Posted (5 years 2 months 22 hours ago) and read 2648 times:
I just took a trip up through North Florida and Alabama. I changed a few settings on my camera, and am now shooting in all RAW instead of before. After getting all my pictures on my computer at home, I'm having a very tough time getting them down to below 1mb for upload. Its a bit confusing, as I'm using the same process I've used to get some 60 or so other pictures of mine accepted.
400 Pixel Per Inch
suddenly most of my photos are way over a 1MB limit after processing in photoshop, even after resizing them down to 1020x765 and 200 PPI.
I'm curious as to two things: With the newer Higher resolution cameras is having such a small upload limit a bit harsh?
And What gives with my weird conundrum of not getting photos below 1mb?
Jid From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 966 posts, RR: 33 Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 18 hours ago) and read 2578 times:
Whappeh, I think you are getting confused with resolution. PPI only applies when you are printing. If you have an image at physical size of 1024x683 then you have 699392 pixels in your image. If you change your print size and keep the number of pixels the same you either raise or lower the resolution.
So for internet usage only look at the actual number of pixels resolution means nothing.
I size my images 1200x800 (960000px) and never have a problem getting under the 1Mb limit.
G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX
SFO2SVO From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 396 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 13 hours ago) and read 2516 times:
Depends on the nature of image too: photos with a lot of blue sky tend to "weight" a lot less then, for example, airport shots with busy backgrounds.
I personally would like to see size limit raised - at least by a little bit.
Michlis From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 737 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 13 hours ago) and read 2498 times:
Quoting Jid (Reply 4): Depends on the nature of image too: photos with a lot of blue sky tend to "weight" a lot less then, for example, airport shots with busy backgrounds.
It also depends on how you process your photos too. For example, I prefer to directly crop my images to the acceptable size limits to avoid the degrading effects that resizing has on image quality. For standard 1024x683 I easily get under the 1MB limit. However for this shot I stcropped to 1000x1125 and it took me several attempts at cropping to get it to the 1MB limit.
Jetmatt777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2692 posts, RR: 35 Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 8 hours ago) and read 2452 times:
Quoting Michlis (Reply 7): For example, I prefer to directly crop my images to the acceptable size limits to avoid the degrading effects that resizing has on image quality
I've always been told cropping too much does more damage than resizing. So for example, for a full body shot, normally full frame at 200MM, at 3888 x 2592 (10.1MP, 3:2 ratio), you would have to take that shot at 52MM to crop in to 1024x682 to achieve the same result as shooting at 200MM and resizing to 1024.
I'm shooting with a Canon EOS 20D (1.6 crop) with a 100-400 Canon Lense. My experience (which may not be typical) is that directly cropping to size and eliminating the step of resizing spares me some of the problems that hit quality like jaggies and such (although still get the damn things when I apply too much USM.) I've never processed a full-frame photo this way.
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
Jetmatt777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2692 posts, RR: 35 Reply 10, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2329 times:
Quoting Michlis (Reply 9): I'm shooting with a Canon EOS 20D (1.6 crop) with a 100-400 Canon Lense.
My camera has a 1.6x crop factor also, but, I have always read (and experienced myself) that directly resizing improves actual quality, rather than cropping severly. If you have a slight out of focus or blurry image, and you crop in alot, you will still have a blurry image, but when you resize, some blurryness is taken away, thus improving quality, with a 100-400 L you should have absolutely no problem losing quality by resizing directly. You will get a good amount of jaggies if you resize to a crop ratio unequal to the original (i.e. 3:2 to 4:3).
When I resize an image from 3888 to 1024, I see image quality increase, blurryness decrease, and no jaggies (maybe a few spots here and there, but nothing severe enough to get a shot rejected).