Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
I think the 1 step reduction = no mushiness is quite subject dependant. Focus Magic, along with a handful of other plug-ins I've tried, can do things Photoshop _can't_ do. I remember submitting a shot of a peacock to PUG where I resorted to Focus Magic to remove mushiness. Standard unmask sharpening techniques, of which I know quite a few, did not give similar results. Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hi, When the file size is reduced in one step, using Bicubic or Bicubic Sharper, there is no mushiness. It's only when reducing by steps, or increments, did the mushiness appear. Focus Magic is an interesting program, but I'd much rather use good Photoshop techniques and implement them well than to rely on plug-ins and programs to do the work for me. Since posting the original question I've learned a couple of techniques that can only improve the quality of reduced files without having to rely on outside programs or plug-ins, and which also allow for very precise local sharpening, contrast control, and the like. Thanks for your suggestion. For now, at least, I'll pass on it. Shel [Original Message] From: Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 11/15/2004 2:45:09 AM Subject: Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop Here's a neat trick: Reduce the file size in one big mushy step, then use Focus Magic. It does a very nifty job of demushing in this situation.
Re: Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] For me it's the process as much as the result, the journey as much as the destination. Sometimes, even more than... Particularly the journey to work 8-) mike - Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
i see someone rehashing the same photographic subjects over and over. Herb... - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 9:05 PM Subject: Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop You don't seem to get it, Herb. I like fiddling with Photoshop. I like doing things the slow, old fashioned way. I do value my time, and am often quite busy. Fiddling in PS is relaxing, takes my mind off other pressures.
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
Herb Chong wrote: i see someone rehashing the same photographic subjects over and over. Be nice. Some people would say the same thing about wildlife photography. S
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
Steve Jolly mused: Herb Chong wrote: i see someone rehashing the same photographic subjects over and over. Be nice. Some people would say the same thing about wildlife photography. Or motorsports ...
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
Steve Jolly mused: Herb Chong wrote: i see someone rehashing the same photographic subjects over and over. Be nice. Some people would say the same thing about wildlife photography. Or motorsports ... Or physicists!!! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
And what subjects might those be, Herb? Shel Herb Chong wrote: i see someone rehashing the same photographic subjects over and over.
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
Here's a neat trick: Reduce the file size in one big mushy step, then use Focus Magic. It does a very nifty job of demushing in this situation. Shel Belinkoff wrote: I recently heard that the best way to reduce a large file to one that's substantially smaller is by using a step-by-step process rather than just making the reduction in one step. I've numerous 4000ppi scanned BW film images of about 40mb and I want to reduce it to 100ppi with a wide dimension of 800-900 pixels. Does anyone know what the procedure is for doing a step-by-step reduction? I tried it by going from 4000ppi to 2000ppi to 1000ppi, etc., but the results were soft and mushy. Is there a better way to reduce the size and rez of such files? Shel
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
Hi, When the file size is reduced in one step, using Bicubic or Bicubic Sharper, there is no mushiness. It's only when reducing by steps, or increments, did the mushiness appear. Focus Magic is an interesting program, but I'd much rather use good Photoshop techniques and implement them well than to rely on plug-ins and programs to do the work for me. Since posting the original question I've learned a couple of techniques that can only improve the quality of reduced files without having to rely on outside programs or plug-ins, and which also allow for very precise local sharpening, contrast control, and the like. Thanks for your suggestion. For now, at least, I'll pass on it. Shel [Original Message] From: Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 11/15/2004 2:45:09 AM Subject: Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop Here's a neat trick: Reduce the file size in one big mushy step, then use Focus Magic. It does a very nifty job of demushing in this situation. Shel Belinkoff wrote: I recently heard that the best way to reduce a large file to one that's substantially smaller is by using a step-by-step process rather than just making the reduction in one step. I've numerous 4000ppi scanned BW film images of about 40mb and I want to reduce it to 100ppi with a wide dimension of 800-900 pixels. Does anyone know what the procedure is for doing a step-by-step reduction? I tried it by going from 4000ppi to 2000ppi to 1000ppi, etc., but the results were soft and mushy. Is there a better way to reduce the size and rez of such files? Shel
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
I've never really experienced a mushiness problem with downsized files. It seems that if one starts with a nice sharp, high-res image, it's hard to wreck it by making it smaller. I had to downsize some 72 meg tiffs for web use this weekend. I tried doing it with Bicubic, Bicubic Smoother, and Bicubic Sharper. The three resulting jpegs (13 inches on the long side, 72dpi) were identical to my eye, even when wearing my glasses :-). But since the consensus appears to be that Bicubic Sharper is better for downsizing, I'll continue to use it, while using Bicubic Smoother for upsizing. Paul Hi, When the file size is reduced in one step, using Bicubic or Bicubic Sharper, there is no mushiness. It's only when reducing by steps, or increments, did the mushiness appear. Focus Magic is an interesting program, but I'd much rather use good Photoshop techniques and implement them well than to rely on plug-ins and programs to do the work for me. Since posting the original question I've learned a couple of techniques that can only improve the quality of reduced files without having to rely on outside programs or plug-ins, and which also allow for very precise local sharpening, contrast control, and the like. Thanks for your suggestion. For now, at least, I'll pass on it. Shel [Original Message] From: Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 11/15/2004 2:45:09 AM Subject: Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop Here's a neat trick: Reduce the file size in one big mushy step, then use Focus Magic. It does a very nifty job of demushing in this situation. Shel Belinkoff wrote: I recently heard that the best way to reduce a large file to one that's substantially smaller is by using a step-by-step process rather than just making the reduction in one step. I've numerous 4000ppi scanned BW film images of about 40mb and I want to reduce it to 100ppi with a wide dimension of 800-900 pixels. Does anyone know what the procedure is for doing a step-by-step reduction? I tried it by going from 4000ppi to 2000ppi to 1000ppi, etc., but the results were soft and mushy. Is there a better way to reduce the size and rez of such files? Shel
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
After playing around with this a lot over the past week or so, I am not convinced that Bicubic Sharper is ~better~ than Bicubic, they just afford different results. It's quite possible - it seemst to be true based on the number of images I've experimented with - some images lend themselves to Sharper better than others. The problem with Sharper is that the user has no control over the results unless using other techniques, such as multiple layers. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 11/15/2004 9:00:06 AM Subject: Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop I've never really experienced a mushiness problem with downsized files. It seems that if one starts with a nice sharp, high-res image, it's hard to wreck it by making it smaller. I had to downsize some 72 meg tiffs for web use this weekend. I tried doing it with Bicubic, Bicubic Smoother, and Bicubic Sharper. The three resulting jpegs (13 inches on the long side, 72dpi) were identical to my eye, even when wearing my glasses :-). But since the consensus appears to be that Bicubic Sharper is better for downsizing, I'll continue to use it, while using Bicubic Smoother for upsizing. Paul Hi, When the file size is reduced in one step, using Bicubic or Bicubic Sharper, there is no mushiness. It's only when reducing by steps, or increments, did the mushiness appear. Focus Magic is an interesting program, but I'd much rather use good Photoshop techniques and implement them well than to rely on plug-ins and programs to do the work for me. Since posting the original question I've learned a couple of techniques that can only improve the quality of reduced files without having to rely on outside programs or plug-ins, and which also allow for very precise local sharpening, contrast control, and the like. Thanks for your suggestion. For now, at least, I'll pass on it. Shel [Original Message] From: Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 11/15/2004 2:45:09 AM Subject: Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop Here's a neat trick: Reduce the file size in one big mushy step, then use Focus Magic. It does a very nifty job of demushing in this situation. Shel Belinkoff wrote: I recently heard that the best way to reduce a large file to one that's substantially smaller is by using a step-by-step process rather than just making the reduction in one step. I've numerous 4000ppi scanned BW film images of about 40mb and I want to reduce it to 100ppi with a wide dimension of 800-900 pixels. Does anyone know what the procedure is for doing a step-by-step reduction? I tried it by going from 4000ppi to 2000ppi to 1000ppi, etc., but the results were soft and mushy. Is there a better way to reduce the size and rez of such files? Shel
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
Photoshop doesn't include the techniques that are in these plugins and can't be simulated by Photoshop itself no matter how much time you have. Herb - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 11:13 AM Subject: Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop Focus Magic is an interesting program, but I'd much rather use good Photoshop techniques and implement them well than to rely on plug-ins and programs to do the work for me.
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
What I said, Herb, is that I'd rather use good technique than plug-ins or programs. That means getting the photo right to begin with, and learning to use Photoshop to full advantage. I know PS doesn't include what's contained in Focus Magic. Shel [Original Message] From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 11/15/2004 4:08:04 PM Subject: Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop Photoshop doesn't include the techniques that are in these plugins and can't be simulated by Photoshop itself no matter how much time you have. Herb - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 11:13 AM Subject: Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop Focus Magic is an interesting program, but I'd much rather use good Photoshop techniques and implement them well than to rely on plug-ins and programs to do the work for me.
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
good technique won't do what Photoshop can do, get the color balance, shadows, and highlights right. just as you expect to have more than one grade of silver-based paper and to adjust developing and printing for film, you have to do the same for digital capture. otherwise, take the memory cards to the local place and be done with it. Herb... - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 8:02 PM Subject: Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop What I said, Herb, is that I'd rather use good technique than plug-ins or programs. That means getting the photo right to begin with, and learning to use Photoshop to full advantage. I know PS doesn't include what's contained in Focus Magic.
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
Who said anything about digital capture? Hey, I'm just some schmuck amateur photographer who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground and who uses film and clunky 40yo cameras. Every now and then I can get a good exposure, and if the subject happens to be in focus as well, I'm happy. Shel [Original Message] From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 11/15/2004 5:24:14 PM Subject: Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop good technique won't do what Photoshop can do, get the color balance, shadows, and highlights right. just as you expect to have more than one grade of silver-based paper and to adjust developing and printing for film, you have to do the same for digital capture. otherwise, take the memory cards to the local place and be done with it. Herb... - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 8:02 PM Subject: Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop What I said, Herb, is that I'd rather use good technique than plug-ins or programs. That means getting the photo right to begin with, and learning to use Photoshop to full advantage. I know PS doesn't include what's contained in Focus Magic.
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
you scan your images some of the time. Photoshop lets you do lots of things, but it can't do everything necessary for high quality image output without some help sometimes. Adobe recognized this a long time ago when they created the plugin interface. spending 3 or 4 hours fiddling with an image when it can be done in 30 seconds with a plugin means you don't value your time very much. i thought you wanted to take pictures. Herb... - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 8:34 PM Subject: Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop Who said anything about digital capture? Hey, I'm just some schmuck amateur photographer who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground and who uses film and clunky 40yo cameras. Every now and then I can get a good exposure, and if the subject happens to be in focus as well, I'm happy.
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
You don't seem to get it, Herb. I like fiddling with Photoshop. I like doing things the slow, old fashioned way. I do value my time, and am often quite busy. Fiddling in PS is relaxing, takes my mind off other pressures. I do many things the old fashioned way. People buy bread makers and throw some ingredients into a machine and go off to work expecting to come home to find the bread made. I sometimes make my bread by hand, mixing and kneading the dough, letting it rise a time or two while the house is filled with the wonderful smells of flour and yeast. I get my hands into it. I sometimes make pasta in a like fashion, mixing the flour water and eggs together by hand and rolling out the dough manually, trimming it with a knife. I recently refinished a table. Put the table in the back yard and spent a glorious weekend sanding it by hand, enjoying the sound of the birds, the fun of watching the cats play amongst the bushes, and reveling of the feel of the wood against my hand, and conversation with a neighbor or two as they stopped by to chat. A friend offered me the use of his orbital sander. Could have finished the job in a couple of hours, but the noise would have frightened the cats, stifled the birds, and annoyed the hell out of me. For me it's the process as much as the result, the journey as much as the destination. Shel [Original Message] From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] you scan your images some of the time. Photoshop lets you do lots of things, but it can't do everything necessary for high quality image output without some help sometimes. Adobe recognized this a long time ago when they created the plugin interface. spending 3 or 4 hours fiddling with an image when it can be done in 30 seconds with a plugin means you don't value your time very much. i thought you wanted to take pictures. Herb... - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 8:34 PM Subject: Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop Who said anything about digital capture? Hey, I'm just some schmuck amateur photographer who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground and who uses film and clunky 40yo cameras. Every now and then I can get a good exposure, and if the subject happens to be in focus as well, I'm happy.
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
On Nov 13, 2004, at 11:50 PM, David Mann wrote: . You can use ColorSync if you want, but I have heard that Adobe's CMM is better than Apple's. Perhaps, but when used with an Apple Cinema Display and the Epson 2200, Colorsynch can match the monitor image with exactitude. It may not work as well with other monitors.
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
For display you twit... (You should really keep up on these threads). Caveman wrote: Why do you want to reduce file size ? Storage space is so cheap now. It doesn't really matter. -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
LOL I wish I could be so succinct and direct Shel [Original Message] From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 11/14/2004 8:09:57 AM Subject: Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop For display you twit... (You should really keep up on these threads). Caveman wrote: Why do you want to reduce file size ? Storage space is so cheap now. It doesn't really matter.
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
That's me always the diplomat. Shel Belinkoff wrote: LOL I wish I could be so succinct and direct Shel [Original Message] From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 11/14/2004 8:09:57 AM Subject: Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop For display you twit... (You should really keep up on these threads). Caveman wrote: Why do you want to reduce file size ? Storage space is so cheap now. It doesn't really matter. -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
On Nov 15, 2004, at 2:15 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: Perhaps, but when used with an Apple Cinema Display and the Epson 2200, Colorsynch can match the monitor image with exactitude. It may not work as well with other monitors. It works perfectly with any hardware provided the profiles are accurate. I have a couple of CRTs which I calibrated profiled with a Spyder and they work very well with my Epson 2100 (which is the 2200 sold outside the USA). I'm intending to get a Cinema Display early next year :) Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
Some people on the digital darkroom forum have experimented with this and found that doing it in one step is superior to a lot of small steps. Make sure your PS preference for file size changes is set to Bicubic Smoother. That appears to be the best choice in most cases. (That's probably more important for increasing file size.) On Nov 13, 2004, at 1:58 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I recently heard that the best way to reduce a large file to one that's substantially smaller is by using a step-by-step process rather than just making the reduction in one step. I've numerous 4000ppi scanned BW film images of about 40mb and I want to reduce it to 100ppi with a wide dimension of 800-900 pixels. Does anyone know what the procedure is for doing a step-by-step reduction? I tried it by going from 4000ppi to 2000ppi to 1000ppi, etc., but the results were soft and mushy. Is there a better way to reduce the size and rez of such files? Shel
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
how does it not being Bicubic since that is the default and newbies don't even know where to go to change it? Herb... - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 7:44 AM Subject: Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop Some people on the digital darkroom forum have experimented with this and found that doing it in one step is superior to a lot of small steps. Make sure your PS preference for file size changes is set to Bicubic Smoother. That appears to be the best choice in most cases. (That's probably more important for increasing file size.)
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
The file size change preference in General Preferences. I think everyone knows how to set those. The default is Bicubic Better. Bicubic Smoother seems to give better interpolation when upsizing. I'm not certain, but I think it's irrelevant when downsizing. However, getting back to Shel's question, one step downsizing is better than a mutitude of steps. The same is reportedly true of upsizing (interpolation). On Nov 13, 2004, at 8:45 AM, Herb Chong wrote: how does it not being Bicubic since that is the default and newbies don't even know where to go to change it? Herb... - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 7:44 AM Subject: Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop Some people on the digital darkroom forum have experimented with this and found that doing it in one step is superior to a lot of small steps. Make sure your PS preference for file size changes is set to Bicubic Smoother. That appears to be the best choice in most cases. (That's probably more important for increasing file size.)
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
It's been suggested by some folks on the PS list, by Adobe, and at least a couple of PS training experts, that Bicubic Sharper is the preferred method to use when reducing file size. Bicubic smoother is suggested for making a file larger. My results have been mixed with Bicubic Sharper. Sometimes the sharpening seems to be a bit too much. The success of the approach seems to depend on the image. The best approach may be plain vanilla Bicubic with sharpening done after reduction, either globally or locally using the luminance channel and USM, or with other sharpening techniques. One method suggested last night by a PS expert on the PS list is to dupe the file and then use Bicubic Sharper on one and Bicubic on the other. Having got the two documents to the same size, drag one into the other while holding down the Shift key and then reduce the opacity of the 'oversharpened' layer. That gives a nice degree of control since one can't control the result when using Bicubic Sharper. The same technique may work when interpolating upwards using Bicubic Smoother, although I've not tried that myself. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Some people on the digital darkroom forum have experimented with this and found that doing it in one step is superior to a lot of small steps. Make sure your PS preference for file size changes is set to Bicubic Smoother. That appears to be the best choice in most cases. (That's probably more important for increasing file size.)
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
One needn't make the change only in General Preferences. Going to IMAGE IMAGE SIZE allows choices to be made on an image by image basis without effecting the settings in General Preferences. Remember, changes made in General Preferences don't take place until PS is closed and reloaded, which can be a bit of a PITA when one is in the middle of working on an image. Setting the parameters when setting the image doesn't require reloading PS, and works immediately and only on the single image that's being adjusted. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] The file size change preference in General Preferences. I think everyone knows how to set those. The default is Bicubic Better. Bicubic Smoother seems to give better interpolation when upsizing. I'm not certain, but I think it's irrelevant when downsizing. However, getting back to Shel's question, one step downsizing is better than a mutitude of steps. The same is reportedly true of upsizing (interpolation). On Nov 13, 2004, at 8:45 AM, Herb Chong wrote: how does it not being Bicubic since that is the default and newbies don't even know where to go to change it?
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
Yes, use some better algorithm than the very simple one of Photoshop. Why Photoshop, even in its latest version, doesn't offer at least Spline 36 interpolation, the superb Lanczos or even the Sinc (256) interpolation is beyond me. Anyway, you can use the freeware Irfanview which has built-in many interpolators, of which usually the best is Lanczos. It works in a way that sharpens automagically the downsampled picture. The Sinc 256 is built in Panorama Tools, a freeware opensource graphic package for (not only) panoramas. I found its interpolation among the best. I saw a test made by rotating an image several times by a fixed amount for full circle (360 degrees), and Photoshop's interpolation messed it up awfuly, while Panorama Tools Sinc 256 was almost indistinguishable from the original. for ease of use, IrfanView is the best I think. It can batchprocess entire folders with ease, and even add text to the image or do other things. Good light! fra
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
At 07:10 AM 13/11/2004 , Shel wrote: One method suggested last night by a PS expert on the PS list is to dupe the file and then use Bicubic Sharper on one and Bicubic on the other. Having got the two documents to the same size, drag one into the other while holding down the Shift key and then reduce the opacity of the 'oversharpened' layer. That gives a nice degree of control since one can't control the result when using Bicubic Sharper. With this method you can also erase portions of the top layer to give selective sharpening. Powell
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
the Mac jockeys i know tend not to look for preferences and always leave everything just the way it came. Bicubic is the default out of the box and i wonder why anyone would ever change it. Herb... - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 9:09 AM Subject: Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop The file size change preference in General Preferences. I think everyone knows how to set those. The default is Bicubic Better. Bicubic Smoother seems to give better interpolation when upsizing. I'm not certain, but I think it's irrelevant when downsizing. However, getting back to Shel's question, one step downsizing is better than a mutitude of steps. The same is reportedly true of upsizing (interpolation).
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
Really? The Mac jockeys you know must be very deluded. I can't imagine not selecting one's color space or scratch disk. For example, if you don't choose your preferences, the startup disk will be the scratch disk. To get good performance from PS on a Mac you need a firewire hard drive with a lot of empty space as your scratch disk. If you print PS documents from a Mac, you want to set up PhotoShop for ColorSynch. And as noted before, the bicubic interpolation is not always the best. I can't believe that anyone who uses a Mac for photography and has any notion of what they're doing would use all of the default preferences. On Nov 13, 2004, at 1:29 PM, Herb Chong wrote: the Mac jockeys i know tend not to look for preferences and always leave everything just the way it came. Bicubic is the default out of the box and i wonder why anyone would ever change it. Herb... - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 9:09 AM Subject: Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop The file size change preference in General Preferences. I think everyone knows how to set those. The default is Bicubic Better. Bicubic Smoother seems to give better interpolation when upsizing. I'm not certain, but I think it's irrelevant when downsizing. However, getting back to Shel's question, one step downsizing is better than a mutitude of steps. The same is reportedly true of upsizing (interpolation).
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop Really? The Mac jockeys you know must be very deluded. I can't imagine not selecting one's color space or scratch disk. For example, if you don't choose your preferences, the startup disk will be the scratch disk. To get good performance from PS on a Mac you need a firewire hard drive with a lot of empty space as your scratch disk. If you print PS documents from a Mac, you want to set up PhotoShop for ColorSynch. And as noted before, the bicubic interpolation is not always the best. I can't believe that anyone who uses a Mac for photography and has any notion of what they're doing would use all of the default preferences. Perhaps it is the Mac theory that everything in the world is wonderful, and the butterflies are always more colourful on a Mac. I am running into a fairly broad spectrum of computer users at the lab now, the Mac users, for the most part, are pretty clueless, and seem to prefer being that way. William Robb
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
On 13/11/04, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: Perhaps it is the Mac theory that everything in the world is wonderful, and the butterflies are always more colourful on a Mac. I am running into a fairly broad spectrum of computer users at the lab now, the Mac users, for the most part, are pretty clueless, and seem to prefer being that way. I'll buy that. It's how I cope with the rest if the known universe. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
On 13 Nov 2004 at 14:45, Paul Stenquist wrote: To get good performance from PS on a Mac you need a firewire hard drive with a lot of empty space as your scratch disk. Hmm, maybe you should try a pair of internal 10k RPM SATA drives in a RAID 0 configuration (with lots of empty space) as your scratch disk :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
RS The following PS plug-in looks quite good on paper too (not tried it yet), it RS offers all the current mainstream resizing algorithms. RS http://www.outdoorgrace.com/ResizeIT.htm Interesting. Given it cost 25$ it's too much for me when both Irfan (using Lanczos function) and Panorama Tools (using the Sinc with 256 source pixels) offer basically the same best methods. Although it's true this might be easier to use. One other thing - promoting a freeware which I really like - Panorama Tools can be scripted a lot. I think it would be feasible to make few scripts for common print or screen sizes. Good light! fra
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
On 13 Nov 2004 at 18:04, Frantisek wrote: for ease of use, IrfanView is the best I think. It can batchprocess entire folders with ease, and even add text to the image or do other things. The following PS plug-in looks quite good on paper too (not tried it yet), it offers all the current mainstream resizing algorithms. http://www.outdoorgrace.com/ResizeIT.htm Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
That will work even better. Although with a good 7200 rpm firewire drive as the scratch disk, PS CS will fly on a mac. What I was saying is that you DONT want PS CS to select the usually crowded startup disk as scratch. But I'm sure that10K RPM is even better On Nov 13, 2004, at 8:18 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: On 13 Nov 2004 at 14:45, Paul Stenquist wrote: To get good performance from PS on a Mac you need a firewire hard drive with a lot of empty space as your scratch disk. Hmm, maybe you should try a pair of internal 10k RPM SATA drives in a RAID 0 configuration (with lots of empty space) as your scratch disk :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
On Nov 14, 2004, at 8:45 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: For example, if you don't choose your preferences, the startup disk will be the scratch disk. To get good performance from PS on a Mac you need a firewire hard drive with a lot of empty space as your scratch disk. It doesn't have to be FireWire. I bought a second SATA drive to set up as my PS scratch disk. That reminds me, I want to price up 4Gb of RAM again :( If you print PS documents from a Mac, you want to set up PhotoShop for ColorSynch. Not necessarily. I do my colour management in Photoshop, setting the options appropriately in the print with preview window. You can use ColorSync if you want, but I have heard that Adobe's CMM is better than Apple's. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
- Original Message - From: Caveman Subject: Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop Why do you want to reduce file size ? Storage space is so cheap now. It doesn't really matter. I don't think it is a storage space issue so much as a bandwidth issue. I think Shel is trying to optimize images for internet display. I have noticed that his pictures seem to look better than most of the stuff I see on the net. William Robb
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
Bingo! and, of course, for email ... and to know how to do it better so I can teach my students the best way to present a web image. The 35mm files on my hard drive range in size from 40mb (average quality BW) to about 500mb (higher quality color scans). Thanks for the kind words Bill ... Shel [Original Message] From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Caveman Subject: Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop Why do you want to reduce file size ? Storage space is so cheap now. It doesn't really matter. I don't think it is a storage space issue so much as a bandwidth issue. I think Shel is trying to optimize images for internet display. I have noticed that his pictures seem to look better than most of the stuff I see on the net. William Robb
Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop
Why do you want to reduce file size ? Storage space is so cheap now. It doesn't really matter.
