09-26-2010, 08:49 PM
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1285508133' post='3249']
Thanks a lot Rainer and Serkan!! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> This should help me get going. I must admit I am a little overwhelmed some times by all the things you have to master in the digital world. But then it is lots of fun when you get there. Thanks again. Kindly Vieux Loup <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
[/quote]
If you don't mind, and Markus and Serkan neither, I'll add my comments and experience.
First of all, sizing: personally I use jpeg quality 10, and resize to 1000 pixels for the largest size, either width for landscape view, or height for portrait view. That works well for me, and gives me image sizes of anywhere between 300 K and 500 K. By reducing the quality further, you generally get a lot smaller files.
I was quite dissatisfied in the beginning when resizing files, and after some research and experimenting I actually found a way to get around the problems when viewing files on the web. Rather than reduce in one go, I do this in steps of approximately 2/3 of the previous size, and I use bicubic sharpen, every second reduction step as a general rule. 2/3 the original size or slightly bigger, like 0.7X, makes the software work harder by it having to regenerate and interpolate an entirely new image. The danger with downsizing in larger steps, especially steps of 0.5X and smaller, may make it simpler and faster for the software, because it may only have to throw away pixels, but I find the results not as good. I do get artefacts I find when I use the faster step downs.
The bicubic sharpen steps are required because the interpolation makes the images softer. Now, how often you have to do this depends to a degree on the camera used, the lens used, aperture and shutter speed, and exactness of focus achieved. IOW, it may depend on image parameters which are controlled at the point the image was taken. As I mentioned, it also depends on the lens used, and I find there is a pattern emerging here, for me anyway. F.e., images taken with the TS-E 17L require very little sharpening I find, if not no sharpening, or even smoothing over (bicubic smoother), as just sizing it down may add sharpening artefacts.
Before I forget: all of this I only do after I have created the for me perfect 16-bit full size image, i.e., I convert Raw to 16-bit tiff with minimal changes, only exposure and white balance corrections, and some curves. I then proceed to work on the 16-bit tiff until I have a good result (sharpening, contrast, colour, brightness, whatever is required to create what I had in mind when taking the shot; no different than in my analog days <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />). The final tiff file then gets downsized to the required size for the web, and only then converted to 8-bit and saved as jpeg. That way it'll look the same for me both in 16-bit and in 8-bit formats, and following the steps outlined above for downsizing, gives me results I am generally happy with.
Kind regards, Wim
P.S.: I only do these for shots I really like. It takes as much time to do this in digital as it used to with film <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.
Thanks a lot Rainer and Serkan!! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> This should help me get going. I must admit I am a little overwhelmed some times by all the things you have to master in the digital world. But then it is lots of fun when you get there. Thanks again. Kindly Vieux Loup <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />[/quote]
If you don't mind, and Markus and Serkan neither, I'll add my comments and experience.
First of all, sizing: personally I use jpeg quality 10, and resize to 1000 pixels for the largest size, either width for landscape view, or height for portrait view. That works well for me, and gives me image sizes of anywhere between 300 K and 500 K. By reducing the quality further, you generally get a lot smaller files.
I was quite dissatisfied in the beginning when resizing files, and after some research and experimenting I actually found a way to get around the problems when viewing files on the web. Rather than reduce in one go, I do this in steps of approximately 2/3 of the previous size, and I use bicubic sharpen, every second reduction step as a general rule. 2/3 the original size or slightly bigger, like 0.7X, makes the software work harder by it having to regenerate and interpolate an entirely new image. The danger with downsizing in larger steps, especially steps of 0.5X and smaller, may make it simpler and faster for the software, because it may only have to throw away pixels, but I find the results not as good. I do get artefacts I find when I use the faster step downs.
The bicubic sharpen steps are required because the interpolation makes the images softer. Now, how often you have to do this depends to a degree on the camera used, the lens used, aperture and shutter speed, and exactness of focus achieved. IOW, it may depend on image parameters which are controlled at the point the image was taken. As I mentioned, it also depends on the lens used, and I find there is a pattern emerging here, for me anyway. F.e., images taken with the TS-E 17L require very little sharpening I find, if not no sharpening, or even smoothing over (bicubic smoother), as just sizing it down may add sharpening artefacts.
Before I forget: all of this I only do after I have created the for me perfect 16-bit full size image, i.e., I convert Raw to 16-bit tiff with minimal changes, only exposure and white balance corrections, and some curves. I then proceed to work on the 16-bit tiff until I have a good result (sharpening, contrast, colour, brightness, whatever is required to create what I had in mind when taking the shot; no different than in my analog days <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />). The final tiff file then gets downsized to the required size for the web, and only then converted to 8-bit and saved as jpeg. That way it'll look the same for me both in 16-bit and in 8-bit formats, and following the steps outlined above for downsizing, gives me results I am generally happy with.Kind regards, Wim
P.S.: I only do these for shots I really like. It takes as much time to do this in digital as it used to with film <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....