Sizing photos for website

[Big Fish]

Greetings...

Building a website and would like to know how to size the photos for web viewing and best way to prevent anyone from downloading/copying. I print large 30 x 40 ++prints and the files can be 500-800MB++?

I am using PS CS2. In"file" does " Save for web" automatically save for correct size and resolution?

Thanks.

[lilmsmaggie]

I am using PS CS2. In"file" does " Save for web" automatically save for correct size and resolution?

Thanks.

I don't have CS2 but I do have CS3. In CS3, "Save for Web & Devices" first gives you a choice of views of your image: Original, Optimized, 2-Up & 4-Up.

In a class I took for Photoshop, the instructor recommended the 4-Up view. In this way, if going from left to right, top to bottom, you can select the file type, e.g. jpeg, Gif, PNG-8, PNG-24 to see how each file type will affect the image quality by the changes you make.

I would suggest using this view if its available in CS2. It allows you to see which file type gives you the best resolution for the type of device the image will be used for.

So, to directly answer your question: No, it doesn't automatically save for correct size. You have to by visually inspection, determine the best file type and size make that makes sense for your application.

Also, size will be most likely be determined by any restrictions that some web sites impose for uploading images but most importantly, one must keep in mind how image size will affect page loading, especially if other images, graphics or text need to be loaded at the same time.

Bottomline: The more optimized (size and type) an image is, the less impact it will have on page load times.

[Jon Shiu]

CS2 Save for Web is not designed for working on that large of a source file. Use image resize and also convert to profile, srgb. Then you can use save for web with the smaller file.

Jon

[Frank Petronio]

Geezum stop making it hard.

Reduce the image size to 800 pixels wide or whatever size you want to standardize on. Surf around and look at what other people are doing and see how large their image are. Most are 400 to 1000 pixels wide, some people will look at your site on a laptop, others with a 30" monitor, all at different resolutions, so it is a compromise whatever you do. Unless you do a Flash site with LiveBooks/Dripbook or something along those lines.

Use Photoshop's "Save for Web" or simply "Save As" to get a .jpg file. Experiment with the setting to see what looks best.

"Save for Web" will stop you before you try to save a too large file.

You can adjust the jpg settings to find the best compromise between file size and image quality. Images with lots of texture save as larger files than images with smooth areas.

You can also retain your metadata and color profile in the "Save for Web" controls so if someone views your website with a browser that can handle color management, you're better off.

As for protecting your images, go to File>File Info and imbed your copyright information into your file's metadata. Do this with everything, you can make a template and "Select All" in Adobe Bridge and Append the metadata.

Watermarks and other schemes are a waste your time. This gets wide discussion elsewhere, but if you notice, most of the best photographers don't bother anymore. Just make sure it is in your metadata - and register your copyrights - so if someone with deep pockets does steal an image you can sue them into Hell. Lucky Day.

Mostly though it is third-world jerks who steal pictures - but who cares in the grand scheme of things?

[Big Fish]

Gentlemen...

Thank you very much for information. One follow up on copying issue. If the file downloaded is 72 dpi and someone downloads can they change the file back to it's printing size?

Thanks.

[Frank Petronio]

72 dpi doesn't mean anything, the total number of pixels is all that matters.

An image 1000 inches long @ 72 dpi is the same count an image 7.2 inches long @ 1000 dpi.

So when photographers or clients say, "Do it at 72dpi" it is meaningless. Besides it is a carry over from twenty years ago when most computer monitors only had 72 pixels per inch resolution. They all do better than that now.

But I know what you're asking. And sure, try it with any old web image that you grab off the internet. The results will look lousy since Photoshop can't create new data, it just duplicates one pixel into more pixels. Your original scans are very large, 100 mb or whatever. The web jpg might be 100 kb or 10,000 times smaller.... it would be a vast understatement to say that image quality suffers.

Your next question is probably going to be about sharpness on screen right? It depends on the viewer's monitor, how dense the pixel count is on their screen. Devices like the Apple iPad have a very high pixel count for a small screen so images appear very crisp and detailed. Versus the giant Jumbotron monitors used in Football stadiums, which are very coarse with low resolution.

What you end up doing for optimal results is experimenting with moderate Photoshop Unsharp Mask sharpening as you reduce the pixel count of your images for web viewing.

[Ramiro Elena]

Mostly though it is third-world jerks who steal pictures - but who cares in the grand scheme of things?

I doubt nationality has anything to do with stealing photos from the web. I do agree with the second part of the sentence though.

[rdenney]

I doubt nationality has anything to do with stealing photos from the web. I do agree with the second part of the sentence though.

Sure it does. Most of the purposed stealing is done in places where copyrights are not honored or not enforceable. The stealing done by people who want a neat picture as their wallpaper--those are everywhere. For that type of thief, "who cares" is especially true.

But I disagree with Frank on one count. I still watermark my images with a copyright notice. The reason is simple: I want whomever steals my images to either see my name every time they look at it, or demonstrate (to themselves, if to no other) that an admission of guilt. The kids who say it's not stealing who still erase copyright notices know in their heart of hearts that they are lying to themselves, and it's that knowledge I want to enforce. Yes, it's probably foolishly idealistic.

I'm not worried about registering images with the Copyright Office. Doing so improves the burden of proof, but I don't expect to ever sue anybody in any case. But I always have either the raw image (if a digital photo) or the actual film (if a scan), and anyone who steals it would not have those things. That's my protection if someone steals an image of mine and then wants me to cease and desist.

I built an action in Photoshop that takes a given image, resizes it so that the long dimension has 700 pixels, sharpens it for the target display resolution, and lays a text layer with my watermark over it. I then use Save for Web, with sRGB checked, to save the JPEG. I then back up in my history to before when I applied the action--if I need a new low-res image for web display, I can make another one.

Rick "whose watermark is visible but not obtrusive" Denney

[Ramiro Elena]

Sure it does. Most of the purposed stealing is done in places where copyrights are not honored or not enforceable. The stealing done by people who want a neat picture as their wallpaper--those are everywhere. For that type of thief, "who cares" is especially true.

And how would you know that? I am afraid you are just guessing from prejudice. There's no way of knowing who is downloading images from who unless you monitor IP addresses.

Statistically there are more chances of theft cases in the 1st world due to a much larger internet connection spread.

I wouldn't call stealing to use an image for wallpaper anyway. I'd be worried or annoyed if someone made profit (and would, in that case, do something about it) or did not credit such image. When that happens I usually contact whoever used or linked my photo and explain it is no cool to "use" (not steal) without saying who the author is. After all, who cares as Frank said.

As for watermarks, I simply don't like them. They ruin the photo for me and honestly I doubt they prevent an image from being used. There are so many ways to get rid of them nowadays that they don't seem worth it.
I get annoyed whenever I visit a website with potentially good work and find images that are 100x200px or covered with watermarks. I usually leave the site right away. Something like "It is okay to blog or link my images but please credit them" seems more useful. After all you are getting advertised and that could lead to more work. ;-)

[Frank Petronio]

The only recent case of internet image theft by a professional client that I know about was mentioned on "the Photo Editor" a year or two ago. An American family was vacationing in Yugoslavia (I think) when they saw one of their family snapshots used on the side of a bus advertisement. The ad agency had swiped it from Flickr, probably figuring that the owner would never realize.

I say "Third World" because when I look at my web statistics to see sites hotlinking to certain "hot" images of ladies on my website, most of them come from the Far East, Africa, former Soviet Rupublics, etc. Perhaps Second World is more accurate, but I don't see as many from the Americas, Japan, or the EU.

I have hot linking blocked now, not that it was a problem but I just don't like the idea of providing bandwidth to thieves.

So yes, I am totally prejudiced and I think stereotypes are usually validated by evidence. I don't help former Nigerian Finance Ministers who email me either.