| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/28/2005 02:25:40 PM · #1 |
Post your comments, questions, and reviews for...
'Workflow, Lossy Formats & Intro to Layers in Photoshop'
by bear_music
View this tutorial here. |
|
|
|
04/28/2005 02:28:13 PM · #2 |
| My apologies to you, Robert for losing track of this and taking too long to get it up. |
|
|
|
04/28/2005 02:46:32 PM · #3 |
| It doesn't seem to have an identifier thumbnail on the tutorials Home page. |
|
|
|
04/28/2005 02:46:57 PM · #4 |
| Thanks for the tutorial, Robert. I'll be adjusting my workflow process because of it. |
|
|
|
04/28/2005 02:48:37 PM · #5 |
|
|
|
04/28/2005 05:41:25 PM · #6 |
Great tutorial Robert. Thanks for taking the time.
|
|
|
|
04/28/2005 05:52:03 PM · #7 |
| Very helpful! thanks for taking the time to write this up! |
|
|
|
04/29/2005 03:03:24 PM · #8 |
Great tutorial Robert. Thanks for sharing.
Just as a side note:
In number 3 of the "Procedure for submitting an image to DPC:", you accidentally have "lpi" instead of "dpi." Not a big deal for those who know, but it may confuse anybody not as familiar with image resolution.
Edit: Added "side note."
Message edited by author 2005-04-29 15:09:22. |
|
|
|
04/29/2005 03:12:08 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by tanoluv:
Great tutorial Robert. Thanks for sharing.
Just as a side note:
In number 3 of the "Procedure for submitting an image to DPC:", you accidentally have "lpi" instead of "dpi." Not a big deal for those who know, but it may confuse anybody not as familiar with image resolution.
Edit: Added "side note." |
There's actually a number of details I'd change now; the tutorial got sidetracked in the work pile and sat unposted for some time. I've learned a bit since then :-)
Thanks all for the kind words.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/29/2005 03:14:55 PM · #10 |
A fine tutorial!
One very minor correction, however. In the beginning you say, "A "lossy" format is any format that uses image compression ..."
While this is true for jpg, files, it is not necessarily true for other formats such as png. It would be technically correct to say "A "lossy" format is any format that uses an image compression approach which does not preseserve every pixel's data ..."
And a couple of suggestions ...
You may want to add just a bit when you talk about resizing. I would suggest you direct folks to check the Resample Image box and (if they are making the image smaller) to choose bicubic sharper.
Finally, I would skip the dpi discussion. It is meaningless for web display and dpi confuses a LOT of folks.
Message edited by author 2005-04-29 15:26:40. |
|
|
|
04/29/2005 04:20:45 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:
Finally, I would skip the dpi discussion. It is meaningless for web display and dpi confuses a LOT of folks. |
Meaning that if we resize at 300dpi (or whatever it uploaded to puter at) to 640 pixels, then save at 150kb, it will look the same anyway? Or what, exactly? I've never tried this so I don't know...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/29/2005 04:48:23 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:
Finally, I would skip the dpi discussion. It is meaningless for web display and dpi confuses a LOT of folks. |
Meaning that if we resize at 300dpi (or whatever it uploaded to puter at) to 640 pixels, then save at 150kb, it will look the same anyway? Or what, exactly? I've never tried this so I don't know...
Robt. |
For the web, i.e. for DPC, I set resolution at 72, enough for the purpose but entirely unfit for printing.
|
|
|
|
04/29/2005 05:02:44 PM · #13 |
Another dpi question (see - it does cause confusion ;-)
My monitor is 96 dpi, as are most monitors I've worked with, so that's what I always resize to. Is this a mac vs windows thing? I work on windows, so I don't know what mac hardware is like. |
|
|
|
04/29/2005 05:14:00 PM · #14 |
Same image:
72 dpi:  300 dpi:  3000 dpi: 
The dpi ONLY matters when outputting to a device (i.e. printer/imager), when that setting tells the printer how much area to cover with the available pixels.
If your image is 640 pixels wide, your monitor will display 640 pixels; how big it looks on the screen is dependent on the MONITOR's settings, not the file. |
|
|
|
04/29/2005 06:03:51 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Post your comments, questions, and reviews for...
'Workflow, Lossy Formats & Intro to Layers in Photoshop'
by bear_music
View this tutorial here. |
There are a couple points of minor disagreement:
1-You recommend applying USM (sharpening) as an early step in post processing. Generally speaking sharpening should not be applied until the very last step in preparing an output file (print or web). There can be times where you want to apply some pre-processing USM, but you would still have final sharpening at the end.
2-I might be paranoid here and completely wrong but I always convert images to .tiff for post processing rather than .psd. Adobe's proprietary format .psd creates a much smaller file size than .tiff so it seems to me some sort of proprietary compression is being applied. It may be better than others but it is still compression. .tiff has no compression so there can be no loss in saving and has been a standard for many years so I use it.
|
|
|
|
04/29/2005 08:42:27 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Another dpi question (see - it does cause confusion ;-)
My monitor is 96 dpi, as are most monitors I've worked with, so that's what I always resize to. Is this a mac vs windows thing? I work on windows, so I don't know what mac hardware is like. |
No, my Mac is 96 as well. 72 is just a standard. I doubt you can discern the difference viewing either resolution on any monitor.
|
|
|
|
04/29/2005 09:01:05 PM · #17 |
Yeah, but you just proved my point; the one set to 72 ppi is noticeably sharper than 300, and WAY sharper than 3000, even though they all show to the same size.
Davidson,
I use as little in-camera sharpening as I can, and sharpen early-on as a standard part of my workflow. It's using my own eye in place of the cam's algorithms. Sometimes I don't have to do it. Then, when I downsize it usually needs another little goose in the jpg to capture the appearance it had at higher resolutiuon. That's my experience anyway...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/29/2005 10:33:20 PM · #18 |
stdavidson commented:
"I ... convert images to .tiff for post processing rather than .psd. Adobe's proprietary format .psd creates a much smaller file size than .tiff ..."
I dunno. For my Free Study entry, I took the .tif out of my camera, and it became a larger .psd. (One example only, as I seldom take .tifs)
Resize for DPC - I use PS "file>save for web" - it automatically sets to 72 dpi, and has functions for resize and optimize to file size. This then saves as a .jpg. PS then returns to the .psd I was using. I then can try other effects and "save for web" again. This gives me several images at "DPC" sizing.
Just my limited experience... |
|
|
|
04/29/2005 10:36:23 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Yeah, but you just proved my point; the one set to 72 ppi is noticeably sharper than 300, and WAY sharper than 3000, even though they all show to the same size. |
No, I just proved you can't rush ... And that I know how to sharpen a cruddy image effectively. the original 72 dpi image I posted was a challenge entry, and had been sharpened; the other two were made from the unsharpened TIFF file I use as an intermediary.
If you now look at the 72 dpi at the top of this post, I have SUBSTITUTED the CORRECT link to a 72 dpi version without sharpening, which should look exactly like the "hi-res" images. |
|
|
|
04/29/2005 10:44:19 PM · #20 |
Robt,
Thanks for this tutorial. AS you know I have been trying to learn more about layers... and still does not it under my thumb. This tutorial will be practiced by me. Thanks for being one of the most unselfish people I have yet came across. |
|
|
|
05/02/2005 12:13:07 PM · #21 |
I can't thank you enough Robt. !!!!
I really appreciate the time you took to help me personally.
thanks again.
Doyle |
|
|
|
05/02/2005 12:16:19 PM · #22 |
|
|
|
05/04/2005 12:26:17 PM · #23 |
Thank you for this tutorial, i am new to photoshop and it helped me alot...
Alex |
|
|
|
10/25/2006 10:19:22 AM · #24 |
Can I just add to the dpi conversation?
To repeat, dpi has no, repeat NO effect on your file size/quality. An 800x600 1 dpi file is exactly the same file size and quality as an 800x600 1,000,000 dpi file. Try it.
I have no idea why the fallacy that dpi applies to web/PC use is still circulating, not like it's hard to check, all of what, 10 seconds?
|
|
|
|
10/25/2006 11:33:48 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by TuckerUK:
Can I just add to the dpi conversation?
To repeat, dpi has no, repeat NO effect on your file size/quality. An 800x600 1 dpi file is exactly the same file size and quality as an 800x600 1,000,000 dpi file. Try it.
I have no idea why the fallacy that dpi applies to web/PC use is still circulating, not like it's hard to check, all of what, 10 seconds? |
Agreed, I didn't really realize this at the time but I'm well aware of it now. At the time I thought that saving at more than 72 dpi (or ppi) added useless file size.
R. |
|
