and the site receives a small commission
-
Important: the Server Hamster is in need of a bit of TLC so the site will be off line for a while on Friday morning, the 17th
Reducing photo sizes
- Thread starter Old Stu
- Start date
- Messages
- 3,536
- Name
- Spike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Where it says file name just put something in there that donates the pics like flowers are aircraft etc.
you are selecting a folder to save them ttoo at the very top f that box??
what i do is set up a new folser on my desk top and then press browse and select that folder
you are selecting a folder to save them ttoo at the very top f that box??
what i do is set up a new folser on my desk top and then press browse and select that folder
Nod
Tootles
- Messages
- 45,707
- Name
- Nod (UK)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As far as file size goes, altering the output resolution will have no effect, all it'll do is change the output resolution. To reduce file sizes you need to either reduce the pixel dimensions or increase the compression. You can generally get away with a little more compression (assuming that the original JPEG was saved with minimal compression) without too much of a drop in quality. I use PSE for most of my resizing and file size reduction and when saving, it gives a slider for quality (0-12). With the preview box ticked, it displays the file size.
Another option could be more weeding - binning a few more images; duplicates, soft images, poor composition etc.
- Messages
- 1,998
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- No
Personally I'd stick the pics on a DVD. Is there any reason it HAS to be a CD?
- Messages
- 586
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I would do either what Pete says above or use 2 CDs. You could always try a reduction in size of the images in Photoshop, do a batch orgaise thing, for example save them as 11 quality not 12 or make them a bit smaller. Do 30 at a time or something, make sure you keep the originals thou
Also make sure they are all "keepers" there might be some you really dont need
Also make sure they are all "keepers" there might be some you really dont need
- Messages
- 1,076
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So many ways to do this, and the answer really does depend on why you are putting them on CD.
For archive / back-up:
I would leave the files as un-processed as possible, and personally stick them on DVD
If I didn't have a DVD writer, then next preferred option would be to split the batch and use two CD's Third call to start thinking compression.
For archive; you have compression such as Windows back-up; or batch compression such as RAR files or ZIP that 'pack' the entire folder of data-files into one new compressed one.
Can pack a lot of Mb down, but you have to unpack the lot to get at one file.
Better for back-up or bulk transport, than archive where you may want to review and pull a single picture.
For Transport / Photo-Sharing....
Depends who is going to open the CD, and on what....
900Mb of files between 300 pictures works out about 30Mb a pic.... that is RATHER very large.... I can only presume that they are camera RAW files, to be so big.
Anyway....."Always remember the Viewer"
Who's going to look at the pics?
If they are going to a pro or for commercial work; eg, they are pictures for a brochure or stills for a presentation; then I would be asking the recipient what thier preffered file format and medium is, and go with that. If they are going to further process them, then they will likely want as high a quality file as possible, probably same as for a personal archive; so two-discs or DVD.
If they are going to your Sister-in-Law, so she can have a laugh at what your missus looked like on the beach last summer (or whatever)... then again... how are they going to view them? No point sending them a CD disc full of RAW files if they have no way to look at them! In fact, may not be much point sending them a CD if they dont have a computer! But, if they have a DVD player? Your CD burning software is likely to have a 'Make Photo-CD' option, and that, very likely will re-size and recompress the pictures to suit display on TV, and pack them down to CD size.
But, presuming they have a Computer; then default, and most easily viewed file format is jpeg, its what most cameras make, and what windows happily pre-views in Windows Picture & Fax viewer. Converting to jpeg is likely to reduce file size significantly to start with; but reducing pixel count, can bring it down even more dramatically, then saving with compression even more.
For photo-sharing, with family & freinds, I will re-size my pictures to about 800x600 pixels. That used to be about the max many internet forums of photo-hosts would accept in years past. Many will now accept higher resolutions, 1024 on the long side being a common size suggestion, but even that is 1/6 the pixels my kids compact camera's make! Yet, more than adequete for general 'display', and brings the file size in compressed jpeg down to about 50Kb! You get a lot of pictures on a disc at this sort of resolution & compression, and they dont clog up the computer, especially if its an older one; they open or copy from CD much faster, you can click through them with less lag. They upload to file-hosting more reliably, and generally are easier to handle in every way. And at the normal screen resolution of about 1000 or 1200 pixels wide, they will hapily fill the screen without looking pixilated.
So... having decided what's going to happen to them... then question fo how you get them there, and whether you can use any smart software to convert or compress as a batch.
Personally, though, I do it frame by frame in my photo-editor. I ditch duffers; do any exposure compensation or minor touches, crop and then size and save to compressed jpeg; then copy to disc or upload to photo-host.
For archive / back-up:
I would leave the files as un-processed as possible, and personally stick them on DVD
If I didn't have a DVD writer, then next preferred option would be to split the batch and use two CD's Third call to start thinking compression.
For archive; you have compression such as Windows back-up; or batch compression such as RAR files or ZIP that 'pack' the entire folder of data-files into one new compressed one.
Can pack a lot of Mb down, but you have to unpack the lot to get at one file.
Better for back-up or bulk transport, than archive where you may want to review and pull a single picture.
For Transport / Photo-Sharing....
Depends who is going to open the CD, and on what....
900Mb of files between 300 pictures works out about 30Mb a pic.... that is RATHER very large.... I can only presume that they are camera RAW files, to be so big.
Anyway....."Always remember the Viewer"
Who's going to look at the pics?
If they are going to a pro or for commercial work; eg, they are pictures for a brochure or stills for a presentation; then I would be asking the recipient what thier preffered file format and medium is, and go with that. If they are going to further process them, then they will likely want as high a quality file as possible, probably same as for a personal archive; so two-discs or DVD.
If they are going to your Sister-in-Law, so she can have a laugh at what your missus looked like on the beach last summer (or whatever)... then again... how are they going to view them? No point sending them a CD disc full of RAW files if they have no way to look at them! In fact, may not be much point sending them a CD if they dont have a computer! But, if they have a DVD player? Your CD burning software is likely to have a 'Make Photo-CD' option, and that, very likely will re-size and recompress the pictures to suit display on TV, and pack them down to CD size.
But, presuming they have a Computer; then default, and most easily viewed file format is jpeg, its what most cameras make, and what windows happily pre-views in Windows Picture & Fax viewer. Converting to jpeg is likely to reduce file size significantly to start with; but reducing pixel count, can bring it down even more dramatically, then saving with compression even more.
For photo-sharing, with family & freinds, I will re-size my pictures to about 800x600 pixels. That used to be about the max many internet forums of photo-hosts would accept in years past. Many will now accept higher resolutions, 1024 on the long side being a common size suggestion, but even that is 1/6 the pixels my kids compact camera's make! Yet, more than adequete for general 'display', and brings the file size in compressed jpeg down to about 50Kb! You get a lot of pictures on a disc at this sort of resolution & compression, and they dont clog up the computer, especially if its an older one; they open or copy from CD much faster, you can click through them with less lag. They upload to file-hosting more reliably, and generally are easier to handle in every way. And at the normal screen resolution of about 1000 or 1200 pixels wide, they will hapily fill the screen without looking pixilated.
So... having decided what's going to happen to them... then question fo how you get them there, and whether you can use any smart software to convert or compress as a batch.
Personally, though, I do it frame by frame in my photo-editor. I ditch duffers; do any exposure compensation or minor touches, crop and then size and save to compressed jpeg; then copy to disc or upload to photo-host.