mjgbtv From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 939 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6195 times:
I resize to 1024 or 1200 px wide with a 4:3 or 3:2 aspect ratio. 1000 x 667 is the minimum.
The conventional wisdom is that any flaws will be less apparent at a smaller size. However, I sometimes find that I get a less 'jaggy' image at 1200 than 1024/1000.
I do not use PS, but from a search of other threads the advice seemed to be about equally mixed in favor of bicubic sharper or 'normal bicubic'. I did not see bicubic smoother mentioned, so I do not know if that is a third option or if normal=smoother. I'd say try both and see what gives you better results.
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 12136 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 6163 times:
Depending on the quality of the original image, I typically resize to 1100, 1200, 1280, or 1400 (very occasionally 1024 or 1600). As mjgbtv stated, the minimum size is 1000x667, and the maximum is 1600x1200. I generally use just normal Bicubic (neither Sharper nor Smoother) for A.net shots, as I prefer to do all the sharpening myself.
As for 3:2 versus 4:3 aspect ratio, it all depends on what looks best for the image. But don't change the aspect ratio while you're resizing; that will shrink or stretch the photo in one dimension. My very basic workflow goes:
1.) Level the photo.
3.) Adjust exposure/contrast/color.
4.) Noise reduction if necessary.
7.) Selective noise reduction if necessary.
Quoting mjgbtv (Reply 1): The conventional wisdom is that any flaws will be less apparent at a smaller size. However, I sometimes find that I get a less 'jaggy' image at 1200 than 1024/1000.
I actually feel similar. I find I can accurately sharpen much easier at 1200, or even 1100, than I can at 1000/1024.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".