Posting Images

[Anton Largiader]

Barry, are you using Photos on the Mac at all? If something is in Photos, you can export it, set to a max dimension of 1600, select HIGH for the JPEG quality, and it'll probably be good.

I just opened something in Preview and I don't see any way to alter size on export.

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

I just opened something in Preview and I don't see any way to alter size on export.

You can (see post #13). But using Preview to resize your images is really not a good way. My guess is that Photos would be much better.

 

[Anton Largiader]

If I select JPEG in the file type drop-down I can alter the quality but not the dimensions. Maybe there's an advanced mode that I'm not in. This is Sonoma 14.2.1. Open an image, File -> Export... and with JPEG I get a quality slider only.

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

If I select JPEG in the file type drop-down I can alter the quality but not the dimensions. Maybe there's an advanced mode that I'm not in. This is Sonoma 14.2.1. Open an image, File -> Export... and with JPEG I get a quality slider only.

I'm still on Ventura. When I open an image in Preview and choose Change Size (or whatever it is called in English - my Mac speaks Dutch), the window that opens looks like this. I've not set any advanced mode. I never use Preview to edit anything. Must be Sonoma then.

 

[OhLook]

So you don't shoot in raw?

No.

 

[OhLook]

Aside from reducing the pixel dimensions to reduce file size, is it possible for you to specify a compression factor (0 = lowest compression, highest quality) or an image quality factor (100 = highest quality, lowest compression) when converting or saving the image in jpg format? Reducing the quality slightly / increasing compression reduces file size in MBs.

Post #10 shows what I can specify. If compression is there, it goes by another name. I don't have the vocabulary to discuss these things like a pro. Is compression related to resolution? I've avoided reducing the resolution. Maybe 180 is higher than necessary for viewing on computer screens.

What's really strange is the difference in KB/MB values when Sam and Levina determine them from what Preview says for the same photos.

 

[Barry]

I didnt think o

Barry, are you using Photos on the Mac at all? If something is in Photos, you can export it, set to a max dimension of 1600, select HIGH for the JPEG quality, and it'll probably be good.

I just opened something in Preview and I don't see any way to alter size on export.

Photos !! Good Idea, Ill try that next...Thanks

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

Post #10 shows what I can specify. If compression is there, it goes by another name. I don't have the vocabulary to discuss these things like a pro. Is compression related to resolution? I've avoided reducing the resolution. Maybe 180 is higher than necessary for viewing on computer screens.

No, that only matters when you print. It has no meaning for images on a screen, so ignore that.

What's really strange is the difference in KB/MB values when Sam and Levina determine them from what Preview says for the same photos.

I haven't seen Sam's examples but I used a raw file, so then Preview has to first convert it to a TIFF and that increases file size considerably. After that I could save it as a jpeg and with the slider at about 80 or 90% it brought down the size to way below 1MB.

However, I redid my test with a jpeg from my old 5D. I first cropped it to 4000px, so it's the same as your file. As a jpeg, Preview obviously doesn't need to convert it to a TIFF first and it looked like this now (pic on the left) and then downsizing it to 1600px, it looks like this (pic on the right). Downsized to 1600px the resulting size is now 40% of the original and file size is just 302KB.

 

[OhLook]

. . . I redid my test with a jpeg from my old 5D. I first cropped it to 4000px, so it's the same as your file. As a jpeg, Preview obviously doesn't need to convert it to a TIFF first and it looked like this now (pic on the left) and then downsizing it to 1600px, it looks like this (pic on the right). Downsized to 1600px the resulting size is now 40% of the original and file size is just 302KB.

View attachment 20093

My numbers are a little different. I very rarely post anything as wide as 1600 px.

The sequence for the plant with radiating leaves in the example on page 1: Uploaded to Image Browser as 4000 x 3000. Cropped in Image Browser to 3750 x 3000. Copied the cropped version to Desktop. Then PPed in Preview: sharpen, correct color, etc. Resized in Preview (Tools menu) as the last step of PP.

First resized to 1350 x 1080. Resizing window said result was "1 MB (was 2.6 MB)." Uploaded easily to POTN.

Rejected by Focus as too big. Resized a few times to get one small enough to please Focus, 1120 x 896, "646 KB (was 1.6 MB)." Something's wrong here with Preview's reporting, as 1.6 > 1, which was the figure given for an earlier, larger version. And you get a bigger number for KB/MB than Preview said.

People say their images above 1600 are automatically resized. It seems that the resizing automaton considers only dimensions and pays no attention to this thing called weight?

 

[Charles Lent]

I always use the program Irfanview to resize any photos that I'm about to post on a forum. I usually resize to 4" X 6" and 72 DPI, which seems to work well on any forum. It's a Freeware program that I've been using for about 23 years. If you download it, be certain to download the companion file containing the Codecs and extensions. Irfan is the creator's first name and he lives in Holland. C-Net is the safest source to download from. It's a great photo viewer, light editor, slide show creator, and generally all around photo tool to have.

Charley

 

[Barry]

When I was on a Windows machine Irfranview was my goto...Not available for Mac...

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

My numbers are a little different. I very rarely post anything as wide as 1600 px.

The sequence for the plant with radiating leaves in the example on page 1: Uploaded to Image Browser as 4000 x 3000. Cropped in Image Browser to 3750 x 3000. Copied the cropped version to Desktop. Then PPed in Preview: sharpen, correct color, etc. Resized in Preview (Tools menu) as the last step of PP.

First resized to 1350 x 1080. Resizing window said result was "1 MB (was 2.6 MB)." Uploaded easily to POTN.

Rejected by Focus as too big. Resized a few times to get one small enough to please Focus, 1120 x 896, "646 KB (was 1.6 MB)." Something's wrong here with Preview's reporting, as 1.6 > 1, which was the figure given for an earlier, larger version. And you get a bigger number for KB/MB than Preview said.

People say their images above 1600 are automatically resized. It seems that the resizing automaton considers only dimensions and pays no attention to this thing called weight?

No, the weight comes in too. But the ratio weight vs size seems to be a bit fluidic.

As to your way of resizing. There is another way with Preview but I'm on Ventura. I know it was available in Monterey as well but I'm not sure about earlier versions of the Mac OS, like High Sierra, which I think you are still on?

But anyway, that goes as follows. You don't open the image but just right click on it, that opens this window:


Go to the bottom, select: Convert Image. That opens another window:


The pull down menu has three options: JPEG, PNG or HEIF. I chose JPEG. And then you choose your size.

I had an image that was rejected for being too large. It is 1.7MB. It was a jpg already and keeping it as a JPEG in Preview was in fact enough to reduce the weight by half, from 1.7MB to 788KB. Now my image would be accepted.

When you choose Large (Groot (363 KB) in my example), the image size (dimensions) is reduced from, in my case 1600px to 1280px on the long end.
Choosing "Normal" I got a really small file, so that is not recommended. But 1280px is pretty good.

 

[OhLook]

No, the weight comes in too. But the ratio weight vs size seems to be a bit fluidic.

As to your way of resizing. There is another way with Preview but I'm on Ventura. I know it was available in Monterey as well but I'm not sure about earlier versions of the Mac OS, like High Sierra, which I think you are still on?

But anyway, that goes as follows. You don't open the image but just right click on it, that opens this window:

View attachment 28208
Go to the bottom, select: Convert Image. That opens another window:

View attachment 28209
The pull down menu has three options: JPEG, PNG or HEIF. I chose JPEG. And then you choose your size.

I had an image that was rejected for being too large. It is 1.7MB. It was a jpg already and keeping it as a JPEG in Preview was in fact enough to reduce the weight by half, from 1.7MB to 788KB. Now my image would be accepted.

When you choose Large (Groot (363 KB) in my example), the image size (dimensions) is reduced from, in my case 1600px to 1280px on the long end.
Choosing "Normal" I got a really small file, so that is not recommended. But 1280px is pretty good.

Thank you for doing all that. Yes, my OS is Sierra. I followed your procedure with a too-big photo. It didn't produce the large window in your screenshot. I can nevertheless get the smaller window, the one that begins Open and then Open with>, but it doesn't have "Convert." I guess Sierra's version is too early.

I always upload jpgs. Other choices have even larger numbers for weight.

 

[ShipleyNW]

Could you repeat the max size for images ?

We were spoilt on POTN as it auto sized uploads - now I have to copy photos over into a new FOP folder for self sizing before posting. Or am I missing an easier way ?

Many thanks and enjoying being a FOP so far !

This seems to be a pertinent, easily answered question.

From my experience, 1600px on the long edge seems to be the max, but there is also a file size restriction. I posted a 1600px image that was 1.73mb in size that was rejected by the software. The same image at 1200px/1.11mb was accepted. (These are from LRC export presets, so the source of the file to be posted doesn't seem to make a difference.)

The forum software here has a cool feature. If you click a large photo in a post, it will open a fit-to-window view that shows the whole image. This is especially useful for vertical images that fill up more than a browser window. But that feature only seems to work with images that are at least 1600px on the long edge. A vertical 1200px image that won't fit completely in a browser window doesn't qualify for that click feature. By limiting the file size, we've kneecapped that click-on-photo feature.

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

Thank you for doing all that. Yes, my OS is Sierra. I followed your procedure with a too-big photo. It didn't produce the large window in your screenshot. I can nevertheless get the smaller window, the one that begins Open and then Open with>, but it doesn't have "Convert." I guess Sierra's version is too early.

I always upload jpgs. Other choices have even larger numbers for weight.

The bigger window behind the smaller window with "Open" and "Open with" etc. was just an open window on my desktop. Here's the same starting point, now just with one image on my desktop:

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

This seems to be a pertinent, easily answered question.

From my experience, 1600px on the long edge seems to be the max, but there is also a file size restriction. I posted a 1600px image that was 1.73mb in size that was rejected by the software. The same image at 1200px/1.11mb was accepted. (These are from LRC export presets, so the source of the file to be posted doesn't seem to make a difference.)

The forum software here has a cool feature. If you click a large photo in a post, it will open a fit-to-window view that shows the whole image. This is especially useful for vertical images that fill up more than a browser window. But that feature only seems to work with images that are at least 1600px on the long edge. A vertical 1200px image that won't fit completely in a browser window doesn't qualify for that click feature. By limiting the file size, we've kneecapped that click-on-photo feature.

It depends. If the file is small enough in MB's or rather KB's, you can upload much bigger than 1600px on the long end and the software will downsize it for you. I have uploaded images as large as 5000px wide and the software downsized them for me.

But if your file is 1600px wide and larger than 1.6MB, the software will consider it too large. Yesterday I had a file of 1.7MB that was 1600px wide and it was too large. Downsizing it to 800KB went through no problem.

So the software does look at the ratio weight x size.

 

[ShipleyNW]

Can you make the size restriction bigger to match the dimensionality restriction? I just exported a 1600x1600px jpeg and its size came out to 2.42 mb. Since that's the max dimensionality on the site, why can't the size restriction match up with that a little closer, or just be eliminated altogether? The 2 restrictions are in conflict with each other. Before this board went live, I joined another board that uses the same forum software. I've never had an LE 1600px picture denied.

I worked with server-side software for 25 years. You need to be really careful about addressing limited-scope problems with solutions that affect the entire user community. A good example is the Edit/Delete button removal. From what I understand, a couple of users deleted a bunch of their own posts, and that created downstream problems. The solution was to remove the Delete button for all users. How many users noticed the first problem? How many users complained about the solution?

(As an aside to the edit/delete issue, by removing those options, the board has seized ownership of all posts. They no longer belong to their authors.)

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

Can you make the size restriction bigger to match the dimensionality restriction? I just exported a 1600x1600px jpeg and its size came out to 2.42 mb. Since that's the max dimensionality on the site, why can't the size restriction match up with that a little closer, or just be eliminated altogether? The 2 restrictions are in conflict with each other. Before this board went live, I joined another board that uses the same forum software. I've never had an LE 1600px picture denied.

We set a limit for attachments so as to prevent pages and images loading slow(er), the way it is for the other site you speak off. For us a fast loading site is more important than to accommodate one or two members who wish to upload bigger files. And 99% of people's attachments are well within the limits we have set, which tells me you need to change something on your end.

I worked with server-side software for 25 years. You need to be really careful about addressing limited-scope problems with solutions that affect the entire user community. A good example is the Edit/Delete button removal. From what I understand, a couple of users deleted a bunch of their own posts, and that created downstream problems. The solution was to remove the Delete button for all users. How many users noticed the first problem? How many users complained about the solution?

That was one of the reasons, but images also get deleted from posts and get replaced with dots "..." which makes all comments that follow lose all context and it disrupts the flow of a thread. You and one other complained.

(As an aside to the edit/delete issue, by removing those options, the board has seized ownership of all posts. They no longer belong to their authors.

No, we have not seized ownership of all posts. If you have a good reason to have a post removed or an image removed all you need to do is ask us.

 

[joayne]

Ken, the rules in place are not random or meant to punish our members. The restrictions on size have to do with the server and loading times on the forum.
The Staff take a lot of time and we have a lot of discussion to come up with solutions to the various concerns of members and what Staff need to do to prevent the same problems arising again and again. No single person decides anything. Decisions are group decisions. We are never going to please everyone. We do have limitations and we work within those limitations.

As to seizing ownership of posts ... Any forum, at anytime can remove posts that do not conform to forum rules.

 

[CNP]

Sounds like one issue may be using to high a jpeg setting. Maybe need to crank it back to a level 6 or 8 when saving files for use here?