Re: Ideal jpeg size/quality for the book?

2012-02-03 Thread Tim Bray
What Miserere said. Also, there was a quantitative study published on the Web somewhere in 2010, after which I set the LightRoom export quality slider to 75 and have left it there. -T On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Miserere wrote: > > On 1 February 2012 02:37, Larry Colen wrote: > > > > On J

Re: Ideal jpeg size/quality for the book?

2012-02-02 Thread Mark Roberts
Miserere wrote: >When I first started using Photoshop in 2005 I took one of my photos >with plenty of detail and colours and saved it as a JPEG in all >quality settings up to 12. I then pixel-peeped the hell out of them >and came to the conclusion that the differences between 10 and 12 were >as

Re: Ideal jpeg size/quality for the book?

2012-02-02 Thread Larry Colen
On Feb 2, 2012, at 11:55 AM, Miserere wrote: > > > When I first started using Photoshop in 2005 I took one of my photos > with plenty of detail and colours and saved it as a JPEG in all > quality settings up to 12. I then pixel-peeped the hell out of them > and came to the conclusion that the di

Re: Ideal jpeg size/quality for the book?

2012-02-02 Thread Miserere
On 1 February 2012 02:37, Larry Colen wrote: > > On Jan 31, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > >> Larry Colen wrote: >> >>> Mark, >>> >>> I can't do a K-5 photo at full resolution 100% JPEG quality and fit the >>> maximum file size for submitting to the annual. >>> That means I need to eithe

Re: Ideal jpeg size/quality for the book?

2012-02-01 Thread Matthew Hunt
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:37 AM, Larry Colen wrote: > Interesting.  Being ever so slightly aspy, or OCD, or an engineer, I had to > find the  best JPEG quality for each photo that met the size requirements.   > It turns out that at some point, there is a huge, nonlinear drop, from just > over 4.

Re: Ideal jpeg size/quality for the book?

2012-01-31 Thread Larry Colen
On Jan 31, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > Larry Colen wrote: > >> Mark, >> >> I can't do a K-5 photo at full resolution 100% JPEG quality and fit the >> maximum file size for submitting to the annual. >> That means I need to either make it smaller in pixels, or compress it more >> i

Re: Ideal jpeg size/quality for the book?

2012-01-31 Thread Larry Colen
On Jan 31, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > Larry Colen wrote: > >> Mark, >> >> I can't do a K-5 photo at full resolution 100% JPEG quality and fit the >> maximum file size for submitting to the annual. >> That means I need to either make it smaller in pixels, or compress it more >> i

Re: Ideal jpeg size/quality for the book?

2012-01-31 Thread Mark Roberts
Larry Colen wrote: >Mark, > >I can't do a K-5 photo at full resolution 100% JPEG quality and fit the >maximum file size for submitting to the annual. >That means I need to either make it smaller in pixels, or compress it more in >JPEG quality. > >I could do full resolution at about 80% quality

Ideal jpeg size/quality for the book?

2012-01-31 Thread Larry Colen
Mark, I can't do a K-5 photo at full resolution 100% JPEG quality and fit the maximum file size for submitting to the annual. That means I need to either make it smaller in pixels, or compress it more in JPEG quality. I could do full resolution at about 80% quality or about 3200x2800 at 100%