Should I Resample?

[Bill Murmann]

When I e-mail photos to friends, is it a good idea to resample large JPEGs and make them smaller, reducing them, for example, from something like 2000 x 2000 down to 600 x 600? Or even 300 x 400?

Will they still get a decent-looking photo?

And what if I convert the JPEGs to TIFs and then resample the TIFs to smaller sizes? Would this be better?

I'm curious about this because I use Paint Shop Pro 9 to handle digital photos and I suspect that most casual computer users don't have PSP-type image-editing software.

I wonder if casual users can open TIF images?

I'd appreciate any suggestions.

--Bill

[donmcc]

Most people are quite happy with a 800x600 pixel image. While you cannot make a good print from a low rez image, it is perfectly appropriate for the web. Save the 2000x2000 version for the people who ask for it in order to make a print.

(In fact, in IE at least, the default setup is to shrink images too large for the screen down, so they never actually see the 2000x2000 detail unless that feature is turned off.)

As well, save jpg for web use. It is way smaller, and you can use a compression of medium to low without any real loss of quality at web resolutions. The only thing to remember is that jpg is a throw-away format. You always want to save the original tiff, and make your new jpgs from that. Every time a jpg is saved, the quality declines, even if saved at the highest levels of quality. It is a bit like a photocopier, where a copy of a copy of a copy gets really bad. Jpgs saved multiple times also get worse and worse.

Don McCahill

[Bill Murmann]

<<...Most people are quite happy with an 800 x 600 pixel image...(etc.)...>>

Thanks, Don. I appreciate the information.

Little by little, I've been learning how to handle digital images. There's one set of practices for web use, another set for commercial printing, etc.

I was talking this week with my commercial printer, who agreed that most people and print-shop customers have no idea of what's involved in working with digital photos.

My printer says that lots of digital photos that he gets from customers are in bad shape. They can be cleaned up and enhanced with image-editing software. But the question is whether or not the customer is willing to pay for the extra service--or even if he or she understands the need for the service.

Oops, I've been going off on a tangent...sorry. But as far as e-mailing photos to friends is concerned, I'll stick to JPEGs and resample down to an 800 x 600 pixel size.

Thanks again for your help.

--Bill

[donmcc]

Tangents are cool. Some of the most interesting forum threads come from tangents far removed from the original message.

Don McCahill

[Molly/CA]

You're completely right about not saving a JPG onto itself, of course--

but I've found that a reasonably decent picture doesn't lose much (usually nothing that I can detect!) for e-mailing purposes if you resize and save to a JPG ONCE. To be safe, try to remember to always save to a new filename --just add an a to the end of the original name, for instance --a few times and it becomes a habit.

If you have a good picture managing program like ThumbsPlus you can easily compare images by opening and synching so they zoom together, or with the slidehow utility. And as easily delete the dupes you don't need.

Even if your e-mail victim's default viewer recognises TIF the person might not recognise that a TIF is a picture. Though I think it's becoming a more and more common format as people become more savvy and beging to see its advantages.

PS: it never hurts to ask your recipient what kind of connection they have --usually you're sending a picture to someone you write to often. Then apologize a couple times if you send biggish pictures and you'll soon know how to keep the picture exchange sweet.

[Bill Murmann]

Thanks, Molly. Sounds like good advice. I know what you mean about large photos. I've received some really huge photos--especially in an instance where someone sent a photo CD with over 100 shots on it. Fortunately, I have Paint Shop Pro and was able to deal with it.

--Bill

[LoisWakeman]

Bill, I see you had plenty of advice over the holiday weekend (in the UK), but here's my tuppence worth anyway. Yes, I would definitely resize to about 800x600, and in addition use a compression factor of about 30% in PSP, which is undetectable on screen and will give OK snap quality prints - not fine art quality, obviously!

If you want to know more about web format images, I did a little tutorial on my web site (now a bit dated WRT PNG files, but otherwise OK).

[Bill Murmann]

Thanks very much, Molly. I appreciate all the good advice I've been getting. I didn't know anything about compression factors, so it's good to know that 30 percent is a good number for web use.

I see you are in the UK. My neighbor just returned from a cruise to the UK. Flew to London and then boarded a cruise ship with stops in Ireland and Scotland and other places. I was talking with him for a bit today, and he mentioned having a meal of something called "bangers" in an Irish pub.

--Bill