Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Photoshop Save for Web

  1. #1

    Default Photoshop Save for Web

    Brothers,

    I am back again, for another question haha. I recently setup my photography blog and realized that after scaling down my images to 800 x 532, 72 dpi and quality 70% using the save for web function from photoshop, my image size is still roughly around 100++ KB. For optimum result (small size yet not compromise quality too much), what percentage should I set for the quality slider? From what I read, people seem to recommend quality of 70%, below that, they say will compromise the quality a lot.

    Thanks for your help

  2. #2

    Default Re: Photoshop Save for Web

    Quote Originally Posted by wisann View Post
    Brothers,

    I am back again, for another question haha. I recently setup my photography blog and realized that after scaling down my images to 800 x 532, 72 dpi and quality 70% using the save for web function from photoshop, my image size is still roughly around 100++ KB. For optimum result (small size yet not compromise quality too much), what percentage should I set for the quality slider? From what I read, people seem to recommend quality of 70%, below that, they say will compromise the quality a lot.

    Thanks for your help
    There is no best quality settings. You have to observe your images output to see if it is good with compression. Different contents gives you different output with different amount of compression settings.

    If your image is large, I recommend that you slice it up into multiple slices for more concurrent requests, which is usually good for nowadays bandwidth available by most consumers. 100KB is not exactly large unless you have a lot of images in the same webpage.

    Should have you are trying to achieve is a photo gallery webpage, a photo gallery plugin either in flash or javascript will help to manage the cluttering of the webpage as well as giving your audience a smaller thumbnail to click on. This will means they get a catalogue of photos which is small in sizes and they choose to wait and load the ones they are interested in.

    Setting caching on your web server will also makes your website seemingly faster for revisiting users or when they revisit visited webpages. They wouldn't need to reload whatever has been loaded previously.
    Last edited by David Kwok; 10th October 2011 at 04:15 PM.
    D3S|N70-200|N24-70|N24-85|N50f1.4|N35f2|SB800|SB900|Yashica GS|S95
    www.flickr.com/photos/davidktw

  3. #3
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    3,443

    Default Re: Photoshop Save for Web

    In my opinion, with the current state of technology (as far as SG is concerned), you shouldn't be worrying about the bandwidth issue. If you have large files >300kb, you can consider doing slicing to slice up the pictures to smaller bits of 40-80kb or even smaller to help the loading of the images.
    Too many great equipments but too little quality photos. [My Flickr] | [My Blog]

  4. #4
    Senior Member edutilos-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    The Universe
    Posts
    5,991

    Default Re: Photoshop Save for Web

    Quote Originally Posted by wisann View Post
    Brothers,

    I am back again, for another question haha. I recently setup my photography blog and realized that after scaling down my images to 800 x 532, 72 dpi and quality 70% using the save for web function from photoshop, my image size is still roughly around 100++ KB. For optimum result (small size yet not compromise quality too much), what percentage should I set for the quality slider? From what I read, people seem to recommend quality of 70%, below that, they say will compromise the quality a lot.

    Thanks for your help
    It depends on the amount of detail present in the photograph.

    You have to understand how JPG compression works. A good read here: http://brycetech.daz3d.com/tutor/win...mpression.html

    If say, you have a photograph with a lot of OOF elements, e.g. portrait, it will be slightly more resilient to being packed into smaller file sizes compared to a photograph with a lot of inherent detail.

    Here's an example of a landscape at 80% quality, then 50%, then 20%. Check out the sky for the banding artefacts and degradation of detail overall (pixellation, etc).

    80% (file size: 102kb)


    50% (file size: 44kb)


    And 20% (file size: 24kb)

  5. #5
    Senior Member edutilos-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    The Universe
    Posts
    5,991

    Default Re: Photoshop Save for Web

    Compare this to a cat portrait, same order. Check out the OOF areas on the right.

    80% (66kb)


    50% (30kb)


    20% (17kb)


    Just compare the file sizes, JPG compression already packs the 80% file into a much smaller package than the landscape photo.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Photoshop Save for Web

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyStrike View Post
    In my opinion, with the current state of technology (as far as SG is concerned), you shouldn't be worrying about the bandwidth issue. If you have large files >300kb, you can consider doing slicing to slice up the pictures to smaller bits of 40-80kb or even smaller to help the loading of the images.
    Sometimes bandwidth is not really about speed, it's also related to cost when you are paying for the hosting. That being said, that must be a popular site with significant traffic and images to hit significantly.
    D3S|N70-200|N24-70|N24-85|N50f1.4|N35f2|SB800|SB900|Yashica GS|S95
    www.flickr.com/photos/davidktw

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •