Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How Are You Dealing With The 1 Meg Upload Limit?  
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9607 posts, RR: 69
Posted (11 years 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3403 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

The past few days I have experienced some disappointment as I have tried some post-processing on some late evening shots (ie lots of color) and my finished product is coming out at more then 1 meg in file size, which is a bummer.

Is there any way around this, other than smaller finished image size or less image quality?

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSerge From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1989 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (11 years 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3378 times:

I've had the same problem on occasion so I've had to save them at 98 quality on the save to web function in photoshop.. can't even tell the difference really... Of course it all depends how far over 1MB your shot is though....

User currently offlinePlanephoto From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 54 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (11 years 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3317 times:

I have had that problem as well... many of my shots have been 1.3 to 1.6 mb and I have had to cut them down, one shot all the way to 80% quality @ 1600 pix (D100 using RAW format). The only other way I could get below the file size is to upload at a size of 1024 pix @ 100%, that particular shot was rejected for bad quality...

The other way to keep the 1600pix and 100% I found is to crop the image a little differently than you did the first time.

I would think this will become more of an issue when future D-SLR's in the 10-20 mp range are in use but I am just guessing...



[ blog - http://www.scottfillmer.com ] | [ gallery - http://www.auburnimages.com ]
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (11 years 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3312 times:

Why the big images? I don't understand this. I think 1024px is plenty big enough to get the feel of the image.

Remember, for every person who is using a monitor/resolution who can see the whole of a 1600px image, you've got maybe 10 others who will have to scroll around to see the image - or worse, have it resized for them by their browser - either way, they get a less than optimum experience!

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlinePlanephoto From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 54 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (11 years 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3297 times:

Using a laptop I have to resize a 1024 image size... but I always try to upload in the highest size they accept as a general rule for myself... maybe I should lower it to 1024...


[ blog - http://www.scottfillmer.com ] | [ gallery - http://www.auburnimages.com ]
User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 weeks ago) and read 3285 times:

Why should have 10-20mp cameras make any difference? The only thing that changes is the size of the image produced, when you resize it to 1600x.. the filesize won't be much different.



User currently offlineContinental From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5511 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (11 years 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3270 times:

I agree with Colin. I honestly dislike the 1600x images. I love to see the image without having to scroll over, then up to see it!

co


User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 7, posted (11 years 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3266 times:

I don't mind 1600x... images when they are really good quality and show lots of detail, but quite often that isn't the case and its just annoying..

User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9607 posts, RR: 69
Reply 8, posted (11 years 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3237 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

well, this is the image I wanted:

http://www.clickhappy.com/to_home/dsc_5190_n785ax_002.jpg

and here is what I ended up with

http://www.clickhappy.com/to_home/dsc_5190_n785ax_resize.jpg


User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 9, posted (11 years 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3234 times:

Why did you not just crop out all of that space on the left? There is nothing there that needs to be in the picture.

User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9607 posts, RR: 69
Reply 10, posted (11 years 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3224 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Why did you not just crop out all of that space on the left? There is nothing there that needs to be in the picture.

Sad that you would have to ask that question.

Let me guess, you would reject it for badcenter


User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (11 years 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3220 times:

Well at least in the smaller version the sensor dust marks aren't so obvious!  Nuts

Andy


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9607 posts, RR: 69
Reply 12, posted (11 years 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3218 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

I know! Time to give this thing a good cleaning....when I stop down my 24-85 G I get dirt galore.

User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 13, posted (11 years 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3200 times:

Let me guess, you would reject it for badcenter

Well yes, a couple of small buildings far in the distance don't exactly enhance a picture of an airplane!!


User currently offlineCraigy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 1118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (11 years 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3188 times:

To me, the 1024 looks a lot better. When I opened up the 1024 pic, I immediately thought "Wow - nice perspective". When I open the larger version and scroll around it, the impact is lost.

Craig.


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 15, posted (11 years 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3131 times:

Well yes, a couple of small buildings far in the distance don't exactly enhance a picture of an airplane!!

OK, an interesting study in composition - crop the left side down, and the picture looses all balance ... big plane/little plane, the weight is all to one side. The two buildings and extra space give a bit more balance to the shot.

But there's more - we've got lots of converging horizontal lines giving the shot a nice perspective - these lines guide the eye along the photo right to the tall buildings which act like a sort of full stop - attention is being drawn to the use of perspective, which is what this shot is all about.

The buildings may have nothing to do with airplanes, but everything to do with photography  Smile

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9607 posts, RR: 69
Reply 16, posted (11 years 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3128 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

yeah, what he said.

Thanks Colin


User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (11 years 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3108 times:

OK, an interesting study in composition - crop the left side down, and the picture looses all balance ... big plane/little plane, the weight is all to one side. The two buildings and extra space give a bit more balance to the shot.

But there's more - we've got lots of converging horizontal lines giving the shot a nice perspective - these lines guide the eye along the photo right to the tall buildings which act like a sort of full stop - attention is being drawn to the use of perspective, which is what this shot is all about.


And that, of course, is just what clickhappy was thinking when he took the photo!  Nuts Yeah right!

----

To get back to the point, can't you just save the larger image at slightly less than maximum quality - I've just tried saving it at 90% and its down to 636k and I really can't see any loss in quality.

Andy


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9607 posts, RR: 69
Reply 18, posted (11 years 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3085 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

actually that is what I was thinking, which is why I choose that vantage point.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Can You Help With The Registration? posted Sat May 6 2006 20:42:26 by LGW
Do You Agree With The 24/48 Hours List? posted Mon Aug 2 2004 12:37:51 by Pepef
Could You Help With The Quality Of This One? posted Sat Nov 9 2002 20:19:23 by Airplanenut
How Do You Deal With Perfecting A Photo? posted Thu Jan 10 2002 05:45:50 by Serge
How To Get A Monitor With The Correct Settings? posted Sun Dec 23 2001 07:34:59 by Ghost77
How Do You Upload Airport Overview Photos? posted Mon Jul 10 2006 18:40:10 by UALDUDE
Why The Screeners Are So Picky With Our Photos. posted Mon Apr 17 2006 05:09:25 by CallMeCapt
How Do You Reduce The Megapixels posted Sat Jan 7 2006 06:42:23 by ZKSUJ
Are You Kidding Or What...? Badmotiv The 2nd posted Wed Jun 22 2005 22:30:48 by Tom3
Need Some Help With The Upload Features... posted Thu Dec 2 2004 13:03:45 by Thom@s