# [Wet Thumb Forum]-sizing pics for the net



## imported_aquaverde (May 5, 2003)

If this has been asked before, please point me to the discussion. Couldn't find it in a search. I have to take photos for documentation purposes at work. There is a "photo size" option where I can downsize a large photo to 640x480 and it will save to about 60-70kb jpeg automatically. Don't have the same software at home, and have been trying to work with what I have to get the same results, but I only end up with something thumbnail size or awful looking resolution. Can anyone give me some pointers on how to size photos for the net that end up around 65k or so that retain decent resolution and size?

James


----------



## Roger Miller (Jun 19, 2004)

What software do you have to work with?

Most image editing software lets you scale images to any size you like. A long standing guideline is that you should assume your viewers have an 800x600 screen. I usually limit images to a maximum dimension of 600 or so. When an image is down-sized it often gets a little blurry, so you usually need to sharpen the image after scaling it in order to return it to its original appearance.

When an image is saved as a jpeg file it is possible to trade off the amount of compression used to save the file against the quality of the image. High compression gives a small file but a poorer quality image. Low compression gives a larger file but a better image. You have to pick where you want to be in that spectrum.

Different software differs on how those options are presented. In gimp, for instance, you select the quality of the saved image from 0 to 100% and it shows you the size of the file that would result. It defaults to 75% quality and that gives reasonable results. I set it up to 87% for images where I want better results.

Roger Miller

------------
_"The indispensible first step to getting the things you want out of life is this: Decide what you want" -- Ben Stein_


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2003)

For those purposes I use FireWorks by Macromedia

-------------
Regards,
Jay Luto


----------



## imported_aquaverde (May 5, 2003)

I have an old version of Corel PhotoHouse (2.1)that came with my word processing package. What I use at work is PhotoDeluxe Home Ed 3.

What sparked this is I just purchased a used Olympus C-3040Z. It comes with Camedia software, which looks pretty limited. I know it's going to be difficult for me to learn even one new software for this because _I'm_ limited, time-wise and otherwise, but I started looking for something powerful and inexpensive. Gimp for Windows was my first shot (can't beat the price), but after installing it opened in 5 windows counting the photo, so looks like the learning curve is going to be long on this. I have Paint Shop Pro on a CD that came with some hardware somewhere that I never really used yet.

I'm figuring I already have the software that can do what I need. At work, downsizing using photo size to 640x480 at 96 ppi gives me about 65k or so, once I save it. Don't have a clue what it does, but the image is very small in kb but nice and sharp. I've played around trying to do that with PrintHouse, and even at smaller ppi the resulting saved file is hundreds of k at 640x480. I believe it's just something simple I'm missing, but so far once I get the pic within the kb size limitation, it really looks bad. I'm going to keep playing around with this.

James


----------



## perrush (Feb 24, 2003)

easy, small program : http://users.pandora.be/perrush/aqua/PhotoResizer.exe 
(on my own webspace, so virus free)

other option : ifran view, also freeware
http://www.irfanview.com/

but myself use photoshop and the "save for web" function

--
English isn't my native language, but I guess you already noticed that ))
--

Perrush


----------



## BobAlston (Jan 23, 2004)

That PhotoResizer program is a nice little gem!

Thanks.

Bob

High Pressure CO2 sources, needle valves, information:
http://members.cox.net/tulsaalstons/AquaticPlants.htm#High%20Pressure%20CO2


----------



## imported_aquaverde (May 5, 2003)

Agreed! Thanks, Perrush!


----------

