Is there any way to not lose detail when resizing for web?

[Frank Petronio]

I used to advocate downsizing by a factor of 2 and doing it in multiple steps, etc.

At least until I compared several random files done that way and also done by simply resizing once and running a CS2 "Smart Sharpen" filter at what looked good at 100%.

I've been doing digital stuff since forever. I can't tell a difference. Photoshop is really, really smart software.

[Paul Schilliger]

In Photoshop, you can chose which algorithm will process the image when you change it's size. Adobe recommends "bicubic" as producing the best quality. This is true when the image is made larger or if it contains patterns, in order to avoid artifacts being created. The images produced in bicubic mode are smoother. But when it comes to down sampling very small images as the ones used for the web, this mode makes a mush of the images, and no matter what amount of unsharp filter can restore the details. That's why I always use the "bilinear" mode to reduce an image. This mode simply strips the image from the unnecessary pixel lines, and the original sharpness is preserved. Then, a 0,2 or 0,3 radius for an amount of 200 or even less will sharpen it quite well (always set levels to 0). This works well for me, others have their way of doing which seem fine too.

[Sheldon N]

..u could also buy..Ftp..space,we provide our own customer's,then u could keep high mb files,as good as original for people to see..but i know there are places to rent ftp.space....?we have a tera-byte,of space that setup..cost.$25,000..but you could also set up old computer,and dedicate that as being ftp,with some storage space of your own...

Is something going to be done about his spam?

[Michael Gordon]

I just assume my jpegs are going to suck and live with it. The best jpegs I can create will never hold a candle to even my tiniest prints, and trying to get even close is an exercise in futility. My best looking jpegs are minimally 1000 pixels wide and at max jpeg quality, which makes then unbearable to download for dialup users (between 600k and 1mb, but I will not put 1000px jpegs on my site). Any jpeg under 200k is going to look compromised. I'd get used to it, unless it's jpegs you actually want to sell.

[David_Senesac]

I'd echo what Michael just posted haha. The web levels the playing field between we large format photographers and even someone with a crummy $39.95 one-megapixel digital camera. The result of downsizing compression on each image varies with strong graphic images suffering less while images with fine subtle tones and detail sometimes resulting in an image any web audience is likely to consider mediocre. Accordingly on my own web site, I've gone to some length to give viewers some indication of how detailed my images really are. Just like you did on this thread, for each of my marketed images, I selected one or two appropriate locations on the frame that the public can view that shows a small crop of the image at the same size as my standard print sizes for a given image. Thus if I have say a 30x37.5 inch print, I'll select square foreground and background locations each 900x900 pixels, downsize by one-third that will then display an approximate 3 inch by 3 inch section of the print at the same size of the actual print given typical monitor dot pitches. The one-third downsizing does reduce sharpness, however that is necessary given the ratio of typical monitor dot pitch of 90 RGB phosphor pixels per inch versus my 304.8 ppi printing pitch else the 3x magnified monitor display will tend to look less sharp. To see what I do check out any of the images on my home page image index below then on the sub-page for specific images the crop viewing link is just below the display image. ...David