Digital BW, The Print

Paul, 

PhotoShelter hosts my website. I had to downsize my images somewhat before uploading them to the PhotoShelter archive or the upload time would have been far too great. However, I still wanted pretty good image data to reside at PhotoShelter since someone might need good data. 

To compromise, I reduced the pixel depth from 16-bit to 8-bit (which reduced file size by half) and then reduced the number of pixels to about 1/4 using Bicubic Sharper in PhotoShop. These files still needed more than 30 min each to upload using a DSL connection.

The real question is, "How does PhotoShelter downsize images to display them on a website for viewers?" I really have no idea how they do it so I can't answer the question. I'm not certain, but I think my files archived in PhotoShelter have 10,000 pixels in their longest dimension and the images displayed on my website at their LARGEST size have only 750 pixels in their longest dimension. Consequently, a really big size change was made by PhotoShelter to resize images for display and the method of resizing may make a real difference. I suspect PhotoShelter has evaluated various downsizing methods because they seem to do a quality job with their hosting service overall. I'll send them an inquiry about it when I get time and then I will report back to this group. 

Randy.
www.RandallRBreseePhoto.com
 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Grant" <studiopbg@...> wrote:
>
> Randy,
> 
> Sorry for the confusion.  I was specifically referring to when you downsized
> the images for the web.    I would suspect that the method of downsizing
> using would require some sharpening after or during the downsize process.
> In photoshop there is a tab for the method used in resizing.
> 
> I have found that images destined for the web need some extra snap.
> 
> Paul
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> lgrrrb@...
> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 6:19 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] New Website - Image Contrast

> Paul, 
> 
> As for sharpening, my scanned images normally look plenty sharp globally so
> I don't sharpen during scanning. They also look plenty sharp globally when
> being edited in PhotoShop so I normally apply only minor local sharpening,
> and often not even that. I sharpen moderately during printing, however,
> using QImage. I did not modify the file to obtain the data posted below
> other than changing the file size because I thought that might confuse data
> interpretation. I started with one original file and successively reduced
> its size incrementally using Bicubic Sharper to obtain the data. 
> 
> Randy. 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> , Paul Grant
> <studiopbg@> wrote:
> >
> > Randall,
> > 
> > Good discussion. Although I don't have files that large I have seen the
> problem before. I think alot depends on the methods of Size reduction that
> you use. What methods are you using for file size reduction? Do you do any
> processing afterward ie: sharpening etc. What method of redcution are you
> using if in photoshop. I think the default for photoshop is "Bicubic" and I
> think that tends to soften. You might try Bicubic Sharpener?
> > 
> > Paul