This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Computer Graphics with Photoshop > March 2006 > I'm loosing my pixels!
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
I'm loosing my pixels!
|
|
|
| Is there any way to reduce an image from, say, 1260 pix wide, to 400
pix wide, without loosing image quality? It sounds impossible, but I
thought I'd ask anyway.
I'm trying to make beautiful thumbnails for my website.
| |
|
| roxy wrote:
> Is there any way to reduce an image from, say, 1260 pix wide, to 400
> pix wide, without loosing image quality? It sounds impossible, but I
> thought I'd ask anyway.
> I'm trying to make beautiful thumbnails for my website.
>
No. By definition fewer pixels equals lower image quality. If you're
saving jpegs Save for Web at a high quality setting. That's about the
best you can do for the web.
--
Comic book sketches and artwork:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/edjh.html
Comics art for sale:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/batsale.html
| |
| Bill Hilton 2006-03-26, 6:15 pm |
| > roxy writes ...
>
> Is there any way to reduce an image from, say, 1260 pix wide, to
> 400 pix wide, without loosing image quality?
Sure ... Image - Image Size, check resample and use 'bicubic sharper'
....
> I'm trying to make beautiful thumbnails for my website
After you re-size it then do convert-to-profile to sRGB if it's in some
other working space, then do 'Save for web' with '2 up' and adjust the
quality setting for jpegs to balance the file size in Kbytes with the
quality you see in the preview window.
Bill
| |
| Flo Nelson 2006-03-26, 6:15 pm |
|
"roxy" <rwhite1967@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1143393252.303012.234900@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Is there any way to reduce an image from, say, 1260 pix wide, to 400
> pix wide, without loosing image quality? It sounds impossible, but I
> thought I'd ask anyway.
> I'm trying to make beautiful thumbnails for my website.
I've found pics come out better when reducing them this much if I first
halve them - say to 600 px, sharpen lightly and then save to the smaller
size. I find the smaller sizes usually benefit from increasing saturation a
little and then resharpening (again lightly).
hth,
Flo
| |
|
| Thank you for these great ideas.
Bill, where do I find "convert-to-profile", and the '2-up' option?
Also, I'd like to understand the ramifications of using different
compressions for jpegs. I understand that it controls file size, and
thus the download time, is that right? Is there more? My little (and
larger) images look so much better with less compression. Why not save
them save them at the maximum compression quality?
Roxy
| |
| Bill Hilton 2006-03-26, 6:15 pm |
| > roxy writes ...
>
>Bill, where do I find "convert-to-profile", and the '2-up' option?
To convert do Image - Mode - Convert to Profile and pick sRGB as the
destination space. This is for CS, I gather it's moved in CS 2. This
minimizes problems with saturated colors looking dull when viewed with
non-color managed apps like most web browsers.
Then do File - 'save for web' to open ImageReady and at the top you'll
see tabs for 'original' ... '2 up' etc ... make sure it's set for jpegs
instead of GIF or PNG or WBMP formats ... for many images 40-50-60%
'quality' setting gives good enough results for the web ... you can see
the projected size of the jpeg at the bottom-left of the right window,
50-60 KB will download quickly for dial-up guys so that's a reasonable
target. If you've sharpened the files much the jpeg sizes are
typically larger so don't over-sharpen.
>Also, I'd like to understand the ramifications of using different
>compressions for jpegs. I understand that it controls file size, and
>thus the download time, is that right? Is there more?
You are trading file size for quality ... that's what I like about '2
up', you can see the effects of the compression side-by-side with the
original.
> My little (and larger) images look so much better with
>less compression
Here are some of my recent images from a trip to Africa (click a
thumbnail to see the big ones ... I recommend the lions or cheetahs :)
.... most were 40-50% compression and look OK to me and even at sizes up
to 800 pixels are fairly small ...
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/tanzania_2006/
> Why not save them save them at the maximum compression
> quality?
Then they would be too big for the web for dial-up users ... if you
have digital camera images try this ... run a light USM on the
original, say 300% amt, 0.3 radius, 0 threshold (this is Canon's
recommended preliminary USM for their pro cameras which I use), then
make your edits, then reduce in size with bicubic sharper, then make
several jpegs at different compression settings from 100% to 40% and
compare to see how much difference you see. For typical 700 x 500
pixel web images I doubt you'll notice the difference in quality
between 100% and say 60%, but the file size will be much smaller. At
any rate, with 2-up you can see the effects before you commit.
Bill
| |
|
| AWESOME website! Amazing photos! I have a 20" monitor (oh,lucky me) and
that leopard dripping blood from his/her mouth is crispy sharp, and
just a little scary.
Most of my images are created in photoshop from scratch, which may
account for my woes. I usually start with a canvas of around 2100 px at
a 300 resolution. My digital camera downloads photos at 180 res and
2500 px wide. This seems like a larger file to me; when I change the
res to 300, the pixels multiply to a much larger number. So if I start
my canvas at a res of 180 and 2500 px, will I have a better quality
jpeg?
I found the convert and 2up tab, thank you. Very useful tab, this 2-up.
Thanks to Flo for your suggestions too, I tried it and it really made a
difference.
Roxy
| |
| Mike Russell 2006-03-26, 6:15 pm |
| "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1143403828.070527.193300@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
....
> Here are some of my recent images from a trip to Africa (click a
> thumbnail to see the big ones ... I recommend the lions or cheetahs :)
> ... most were 40-50% compression and look OK to me and even at sizes up
> to 800 pixels are fairly small ...
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/tanzania_2006/
These are dynamite pictures, Bill. And bravo for overexposing the
background for that one cheetah image! Now all it needs is a little touch
of curves ...
--
Mike Russell
www.mike.russell-home.net
| |
| Harry Limey 2006-03-26, 6:15 pm |
|
"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1143403828.070527.193300@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Here are some of my recent images from a trip to Africa (click a
> thumbnail to see the big ones ... I recommend the lions or cheetahs :)
> ... most were 40-50% compression and look OK to me and even at sizes up
> to 800 pixels are fairly small ...
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/tanzania_2006/
>
> Bill
>
Excellent images, I note you say you use a Canon pro camera?, I wonder if
you would mind expanding on the equipment you used for those shots?
including the lenses.
Harry
| |
| Bill Hilton 2006-03-26, 6:15 pm |
| > roxy writes ...
>
>AWESOME website! Amazing photos!
Thanks ... we were really happy with the Lilac-breasted roller,
elephant, cheetah and lion pics ...
> Most of my images are created in photoshop from scratch, which
> may account for my woes
In that case you may be better off saving as a GIF instead of JPEG, if
you have a limited number of colors ... maybe you could post a sample
image? For a lot of non-photos GIF is better ...
>My digital camera downloads photos at 180 res and
>2500 px wide. This seems like a larger file to me; when I change
>the res to 300, the pixels multiply to a much larger number
The "res" value only matters when you print, the 180 number is
basically just a placeholder that you can change to anything you like
.... you can avoid the "pixels multiply" problem by unchecking 'resample
image' when you do Image - Image Size ... this keeps your original
pixel dimensions and lets you change the res ...
> So if I start my canvas at a res of 180 and 2500 px, will I
> have a better quality jpeg?
The res ONLY matters if you are printing it ... on the web it will show
as 100%, ie, actual pixels ... in other words a 90 ppi 600x800 pixel
jpeg on the web will look identical to a 360 ppi 600x800 pixel image on
the web, whereas if you PRINTED them the 90 ppi image would look 4x
larger in each direction. I think some of your problems might be
caused by resampling when you don't need to ...
For what you are describing I'd just use an initial canvas of the size
of the final image and work on that. Then if you need a smaller jpeg
for the web later do the resize with 'resample' on using 'bicubic
sharper' (the res won't matter).
Bill
| |
|
| Thank you, you've clarified a lot for me.
Roxy
| |
| tacit 2006-03-26, 10:15 pm |
| In article <1143393252.303012.234900@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
"roxy" <rwhite1967@charter.net> wrote:
> Is there any way to reduce an image from, say, 1260 pix wide, to 400
> pix wide, without loosing image quality?
No. You are removing pixels; ergo, you are removing information.
Now, there are things you can do to make that loss as unnoticable as
possible. You can downsample the image using Bicubic Sharper, and you
can sharpen the image after you reduce it. But you cannot reduce the
image in size without reducing quality.
--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
| |
| tacit 2006-03-26, 10:15 pm |
| In article <1143402616.284899.144690@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"roxy" <rwhite1967@charter.net> wrote:
> Also, I'd like to understand the ramifications of using different
> compressions for jpegs. I understand that it controls file size, and
> thus the download time, is that right? Is there more? My little (and
> larger) images look so much better with less compression. Why not save
> them save them at the maximum compression quality?
When you compress using JPEG, the image is degraded in quality. The JPEG
format always reduces image quality; it makes the file smaller on disk
by removing information from it and degrading its quality. JPEG was a
file format invented for use in situations, such as the Web, where file
size is critical and image quality is not important.
When you set the image quality in a JPEG, what you're doing is telling
the computer how much to degrade the image. The more you degrade the
image, the more artifacts (such as blurring and banding) you see, and
the smaller the file is on disk.
--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
| |
| Bill Hilton 2006-03-26, 10:15 pm |
| >> Here are some of my recent images from a trip to Africa ...
[color=darkred]
>Harry Limey asks ...
>
>Excellent images, I note you say you use a Canon pro camera?, I wonder
>if you would mind expanding on the equipment you used for those shots?
>including the lenses.
The short answer is two Canon 1D Mark II's and a Canon 1Ds, mostly with
the 500 f/4 L IS ... I got asked about the gear and other details so
many times I made a separate FAQ web page ...
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/t...ital_safari.htm ...
probably more than you really wanted to know :) Glad you liked the
shots, we're going back soon for a bargain-priced "rainy season safari"
that could be fantastic or could be a disaster, depending on how hard
it rains.
Bill
| |
| Kulvinder Singh Matharu 2006-03-27, 6:18 pm |
| On 26 Mar 2006 09:14:12 -0800, "roxy" <rwhite1967@charter.net> wrote:
>Is there any way to reduce an image from, say, 1260 pix wide, to 400
>pix wide, without loosing image quality? It sounds impossible, but I
>thought I'd ask anyway.
>I'm trying to make beautiful thumbnails for my website.
Isn't 400pix wide a bit large for a web thumbnail?
Well, much like Bill Hilton I've also just come back from a holiday
and have them up at my website.
http://www.metalvortex.com/myphotos/south_america_2006/
I took the photos at 3072x2048 and post-processed in Photoshop.
Then I created small web-sized JPEG images at generally 550x367.
Then I created JPEG thumbnails at 120x80.
The 120x80 thumbnails were applied with a moderate "Smart Sharpen"
filter with JPEG compression/quality set at "High". I think that this
gives a good thumbnail image quality without sacrificing too much on
download speeds (I have 60 thumbnails on that page!).
Hope that helps.
--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm
"It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice", Straight to Hell - The Clash
| |
| Bill Hilton 2006-03-27, 6:18 pm |
| > Kulvinder Singh Matharu writes ...
>
>Isn't 400pix wide a bit large for a web thumbnail?
I agree. Maybe she was making banner ads or something, given the pixel
sizes she mentioned. I usually go 100x100 pixels on my thumbnails and
then add a 16 pixel white border but anything up to 150-180 pixels or
slightly more looks great too.
>I've also just come back from a holiday
>and have them up at my website.
>http://www.metalvortex.com/myphotos/south_america_2006/
You have a lot of really striking images and a well-designed web site.
Nice work.
If I could offer two constructive criticisms ...
>The 120x80 thumbnails were applied with a moderate "Smart Sharpen"
>filter with JPEG compression/quality set at "High". I think that this
>gives a good thumbnail image quality without sacrificing too much on
>download speeds
I noticed these thumbs are mostly 25 KB - 30 KB in size ... similar
sized thumbs on my site are 2.5 KB - 4 KB (I aim for 3 KB) so mine
would load about 8 - 10x faster. I think you can get very good
thumbnail quality with smaller sizes with a different sharpening flow
or lower jpeg compression settings ... yours look really good, I'm just
saying I think they *might* look equally good at 1/10 th the file size
if done slightly different.
Second is a minor point but I liked the way the vertical thumbs look
like slides on a lightbox ... however the effect is spoiled a bit by
the horizontal thumbs, which are not centered like 35 mm film slides,
so if there's a way to center those the illusion of looking at slides
would be complete. Not that it will matter in the near future as those
of us who actually remember what 35 mm film on a lightbox looked like
are replaced by the digital guys with no such memories :)
Bill
| |
| Bill Hilton 2006-03-27, 6:18 pm |
| >> Kulvinder Singh Matharu writes
[color=darkred]
>I wrote ...
>
>I noticed these thumbs are mostly 25 KB - 30 KB in size ... similar
>sized thumbs on my site are 2.5 KB - 4 KB (I aim for 3 KB)
Kulvinder, I just peeked at a couple of your other excellent galleries
and noted that the thumb-nail sizes for most of them are around 3 KB
with good quality, FWIW ... so this 25-30 KB thumbnail flow appears to
be a new thing for you.
Bill
| |
| John McWilliams 2006-03-27, 6:18 pm |
| Bill Hilton wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Kulvinder, I just peeked at a couple of your other excellent galleries
> and noted that the thumb-nail sizes for most of them are around 3 KB
> with good quality, FWIW ... so this 25-30 KB thumbnail flow appears to
> be a new thing for you.
>
I'd vote personally for somewhat larger thumbnails and larger images.
Maybe 50-100% larger.
But some very fine images. What's your rule of thumb on saturation?
--
John McWilliams
| |
|
| I only used the 400 pixel size as an example. The thumbs are 100x100.
However, I created a mock-up with the thumbs and background as one
single jpeg 900x700 at high quality compression.
Is there any drawback to this? I can just make each thumb into a
hotspot, no? Wouldn't this save some code?
I don't think it looks too bad this way (the second from the left
thumbnail is intentionally scuzzy). It seems to download fast enough on
IE. What do you think?
http://roxywhite.com/
Roxy
| |
|
| In article <1143476134.880787.181530@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
"roxy" <rwhite1967@charter.net> wrote:
> I only used the 400 pixel size as an example. The thumbs are 100x100.
> However, I created a mock-up with the thumbs and background as one
> single jpeg 900x700 at high quality compression.
> Is there any drawback to this?
Yes. The resulting image is huge, and will take a long time to download.
A browser will download multiple images simultaneously, up to the
maximum bandwidth available. In practice, that means that in real-world
situations, a browser can often download three 3KB images faster than
one 9KB image, depending on server latency and other conditions.
Also, with multiple thumbnails, your viewers can be looking at some
thumbnails while the others are still downloading.
> I can just make each thumb into a
> hotspot, no? Wouldn't this save some code?
It is not the length of the HTML code but the size of the images which
is usually the deciding factor in how quickly a page loads, because most
of the time the length of the HTML code is less than the size of the
images on the page.
--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
| |
|
| Oh, I see. That makes sense.
It would've been too easy to create a web page with one giant jpeg.
Thanks for the education,
Roxy
| |
| Kulvinder Singh Matharu 2006-03-27, 6:18 pm |
| On 27 Mar 2006 06:55:11 -0800, "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com>
wrote:
[snip]
>You have a lot of really striking images and a well-designed web site.
>Nice work.
Thanks. I try to make an effort!
>If I could offer two constructive criticisms ...
[snip]
Sure.
>I noticed these thumbs are mostly 25 KB - 30 KB in size ... similar
>sized thumbs on my site are 2.5 KB - 4 KB (I aim for 3 KB) so mine
>would load about 8 - 10x faster. I think you can get very good
>thumbnail quality with smaller sizes with a different sharpening flow
>or lower jpeg compression settings ... yours look really good, I'm just
>saying I think they *might* look equally good at 1/10 th the file size
>if done slightly different.
Good point. I was in a rush to create the thumbnails so I may not
have compressed them as aggressively as the other thumbnails (as
noted by you in your other post). I'll have to re-visit that. Thanks
for pointing that out.
>Second is a minor point but I liked the way the vertical thumbs look
>like slides on a lightbox ... however the effect is spoiled a bit by
>the horizontal thumbs, which are not centered like 35 mm film slides,
>so if there's a way to center those the illusion of looking at slides
I've tried...I've really tried! I can do it but it means introducing
additional html mark-up (due to a limitation in CSS) and I was
reluctant to do that (due to losing some "semantic" web structure)
unless someone pointed it out. And you did! So I'll have another stab
at it...it's always good to aim for high standards!
>would be complete. Not that it will matter in the near future as those
>of us who actually remember what 35 mm film on a lightbox looked like
>are replaced by the digital guys with no such memories :)
Well, my father used to do slides (and prints) so I have "fond"
memories of his chemical development kit and slide-box!
--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm
"It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice", Straight to Hell - The Clash
| |
| Bill Hilton 2006-03-27, 6:18 pm |
| > roxy writes ...
>
>I created a mock-up with the thumbs and background as one
>single jpeg 900x700 at high quality compression.
>Is there any drawback to this? http://roxywhite.com/
This one is about 96 KB so according to the 'save for web' dialog box
(lower left corner) it will download in about 35 sec for people with
28.8 KB modems, half that for the more common 56 KB modems, 5 sec for
DSL guys ... so it depends on the speed of the end user, but even 18
sec on a 56 K modem isn't too bad. As Tacit says if you have it in
pieces you can see parts of it quicker.
> I can just make each thumb into a
> hotspot, no? Wouldn't this save some code?
"Image Map" is the term, probably ... the code is still there and to me
at least it's harder to generate with ImageReady than cut-and-paste for
separate smaller images in Notepad :)
> I don't think it looks too bad this way ... What do you think?
Looks fine to me ... I think the jpegs are choking on the large areas
of flat single color and on the text so if you had more small images
and less flat color area you might find you can use a lower jpeg
quality setting and get a smaller file. On mine I usually watch the
copyright text carefully because that's where the jpeg artifacts are
most noticeable.
You can also run slices to cut the one larger file into several smaller
ones so it will load quicker, this is an option in 'save for web'.
Good luck with your site.
Bill
| |
| Kulvinder Singh Matharu 2006-03-27, 6:18 pm |
| On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 08:01:14 -0800, John McWilliams
<jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
[snip]
>I'd vote personally for somewhat larger thumbnails and larger images.
>Maybe 50-100% larger.
Thanks. Might be too much hard work to apply retrospectively to all
my thumbs.
>But some very fine images. What's your rule of thumb on saturation?
I normally de-saturated by between 10% and 50%...due to the
aggressive curves I put in there the saturation appears to be very
deep so I have to de-saturate to get something a bit closer to
reality. And with a polarising filter my skies go quite dark!
--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm
"It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice", Straight to Hell - The Clash
| |
| Kulvinder Singh Matharu 2006-03-27, 6:18 pm |
| On 27 Mar 2006 07:03:28 -0800, "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com>
wrote:
[snip]
>Kulvinder, I just peeked at a couple of your other excellent galleries
Thanks, again. I guess my images are quite stylised...some people
like, some people don't like!
>and noted that the thumb-nail sizes for most of them are around 3 KB
>with good quality, FWIW ... so this 25-30 KB thumbnail flow appears to
>be a new thing for you.
I just followed my workflow as described earlier and I'm creating
thumbnails about 7kb in size...so have no idea how I created 25kb
files! I must have been drunk and pressed the wrong option!
I'm glad you checked the files sizes. I'll have to check the rest of
my site to double check.
--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm
"It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice", Straight to Hell - The Clash
| |
|
| Here's another page design:
http://roxywhite.com/purplepage_illustration1.jpg
If I create separate jpegs for all these elements: background, banner,
thumbs, will different browsers position them correctly? Or, should I
slice the one jpeg?
I dont' know how to use ImageReady; I read somewhere that slices were a
thing of the past, but I don't know why. I'm using Dreamweaver to make
layers. If I use absolute positoning, will that do it?
How would you create the look I'm after?
Roxy
| |
| Bill Hilton 2006-03-27, 6:18 pm |
| > roxy writes ...
>
>Here's another page design:
> http://roxywhite.com/purplepage_illustration1.jpg
> ...
> How would you create the look I'm after?
This page looks pretty good to me and I see it's under 70 KB so will
load in about 12 sec or so on the typical 56 KB modem. Add the Image
Map links and you are good to go.
> If I create separate jpegs for all these elements: background,
>banner, thumbs, will different browsers position them correctly?
I'm only a photographer who makes simple web pages, hand-coding in
Notepad, so I'm the wrong person to ask about this :)
> I dont' know how to use ImageReady;
When you do 'save for web' from Photoshop it basically opens an
ImageReady window for you for the jpeg or gif conversions. You can
also do slices here and also do the image mapping and it will generate
the html code for you, which is nice. This is covered in the Help
files I think (I've done a couple of image maps and was able to figure
it out from Help).
> I'm using Dreamweaver
I've never used this but from all I've heard it's even better for these
web-page building tasks ... though maybe not for editing individual
images.
Bill
| |
| Kulvinder Singh Matharu 2006-03-27, 6:18 pm |
| On 27 Mar 2006 10:54:02 -0800, "roxy" <rwhite1967@charter.net> wrote:
>Here's another page design:
>
>http://roxywhite.com/purplepage_illustration1.jpg
Nice.
>If I create separate jpegs for all these elements: background, banner,
>thumbs, will different browsers position them correctly? Or, should I
>slice the one jpeg?
[snip]
>How would you create the look I'm after?
I personally would use CSS absolute positioning...but only because I
think that you can get away with a fixed-size page layout (glad you
didn't mention tables for layout!). I use a liquid/elastic layout but
then I'm not too concerned about the absolute look of my pages. For
example, for the my thumbnail pages, you can resize the browser
window and the thumbnails will then flow to fit.
I think that IE6, Firefox, Opera and Safari should all render very
similar to each other with absolute positioning. But as you code and
tweak the code you may come across layout limitations in IE6 and may
have to use some CSS/HTML code hacks (but I try and avoid hacks as
that may cause compatibility problems with future versions of IE).
I also try and use this web design site for ideas...
http://www.alistapart.com/
and of course Eric Meyer's site here...
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/
--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm
"It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice", Straight to Hell - The Clash
| |
|
| Thanks for these sites, they are so packed with info, and your advice.
I think your work is spectacular; I feel like I'm traveling without
leaving my chair!
| |
| Kulvinder Singh Matharu 2006-03-28, 6:16 pm |
| On 27 Mar 2006 07:03:28 -0800, "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com>
wrote:
[snip]
>Kulvinder, I just peeked at a couple of your other excellent galleries
>and noted that the thumb-nail sizes for most of them are around 3 KB
>with good quality, FWIW ... so this 25-30 KB thumbnail flow appears to
>be a new thing for you.
Bill,
I know what I did wrong.
Even though I think that I'm fairly comfortable with Photoshop and
should know better, I made the cardinal sin of using "Save As..."
instead of "Save to Web...". This resulted in the file size being ten
times bigger than it should be. I've corrected this now and have
written a little Action to make sure that I don't make the same
mistake again!
--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm
"It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice", Straight to Hell - The Clash
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|