jpeg file sizes - I can't seem to make them small enough!

[MarkChap]

I don't know,
I just did my old school way
Opened a file --> Resized via image size to 1200 pixels --> File Save As --> Selected JPG in the drop down box --> Quality 8
Resultant file size 146 Kb

[ameerat42]

I went to the same school, Mark.

[Lance B]

Yep, and that used to work in the old Photoshop CC. However, when I uploaded the new Photoshop CC, even set to the lowest quality level of "0", it was still a 1.46MB file!!

The new version of Photoshop CC you go to "File" > "Export" > "Export as" and then save for jpeg similar to the old way, but it strips metadata. You have to go to "File" > "Save for Web" then you can adjust the quality to your desire and it keeps the metadata. Why the hell in their "wisdom" they needed change something that worked perfectly well previously, I'll never know.

[Cage]

Very frustrating Lance.

I'm running W10 and the latest CC with current updates and I have noticed no changes.

To check I just did a 'Save' exercise with a 17MB RAW file, both the 'Save for web' way and the method I usually use, 'File >> Save As >>jpeg>> select jpeg size >>Save' and got no surprises.

Something strange going on Mate. If you'd like to post a snip of your 'Save for Web' box before you hit 'Save' I'll compare it with mine to see if there are any differences.

[MarkChap]

Lance,
I am using a Windows 10 Machine with all the latest updates to Photoshop and Lightroom,

And I did the exercise moments before posting last night

Yep, and that used to work in the old Photoshop CC. However, when I uploaded the new Photoshop CC, even set to the lowest quality level of "0", it was still a 1.46MB file!!

The new version of Photoshop CC you go to "File" > "Export" > "Export as" and then save for jpeg similar to the old way, but it strips metadata. You have to go to "File" > "Save for Web" then you can adjust the quality to your desire and it keeps the metadata. Why the hell in their "wisdom" they needed change something that worked perfectly well previously, I'll never know.

[Trevspics]

Trev. What do you mean? Compressing what? a jpeg that's 20-30MB, or a RAW that starts at about that size?
If the first, I'd agree that it would be hard to do, but if a raw (say even 40-45MB, such as I usually get and which
produces a best output jpeg of 14MB) is then reduced to 1200 pixels max on a side and it is a 3:2, then it is
doable with not too destructive compression. I have done this often enough.
...
(Some time since the last sentence.)
...

From a particular raw file just now:
Raw file size: 45.5 MB
Full size jpeg: 14.1 MB
1200x800 jpeg: 382 KB (saved at quality 9 in P'shop.

Whether this results in an optimally detailed file is another thing.

am I'm pretty sure that I'm not doing it the right way (uploading images to AP) and I'd love to know how to upload an image that has a reasonable amount of quality but what I meant was I have tried to reduce an image of around 24mb jpeg down to 1200 pixels max side and it was hardly viewable, I have done it in the past with smaller jpeg images with good success so was just under the impression that if the jpeg was much larger it would be more difficult to reduce its size without too much destruction. I might check out what bobt suggested and see if that works for large jpegs. Sorry Lance I didn't mean to push in on your thread.

[Kym]

There are two basic things that control file size of JPEG images... Pixels (w x h) and compression % setting.
(subtly the number of times saved/opened/re-saved also has an effect due to lossyness of JPEG)

See: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...sh_photographs

[ameerat42]

I think you might be pushing it with 24MB, Trev. Mine are usually about 15MB (max).
And what I said in the last sentence above is quite often the go. - Fingers entwined!

And don't worry about "pushing in" on Lance's thread because your experience is relevant to
the discussion. (Now if you were to talk about giraffes...)

[Mark L]

..... but what I meant was I have tried to reduce an image of around 24mb jpeg down to 1200 pixels max side and it was hardly viewable, ......

Try doing it in stages. 24 to 18 to 12 to 6

[ameerat42]

You can certainly shrink them, but the Q might shrink even faster

[MarkChap]

You sure it is not just the zoom setting.
If your zoom setting in PS is at say 15%, which it may well be, to fit a large file on screen, when you resize the zoom amount stays the same.
So the view you get on the screen is just a very small image in the middle of the screen.
Adjust your zoom level back to 100% and you will have a larger view on screen

am I'm pretty sure that I'm not doing it the right way (uploading images to AP) and I'd love to know how to upload an image that has a reasonable amount of quality but what I meant was I have tried to reduce an image of around 24mb jpeg down to 1200 pixels max side and it was hardly viewable, I have done it in the past with smaller jpeg images with good success so was just under the impression that if the jpeg was much larger it would be more difficult to reduce its size without too much destruction. I might check out what bobt suggested and see if that works for large jpegs. Sorry Lance I didn't mean to push in on your thread.

[Cage]

When you resize an image in PS you have an option to change the PPI (Pixels per Inch)

I usually use 300, which I think is the default. If you change that to say 70, your image will shrink.

[ameerat42]

Kev. As long as you "Resample" the image, changing ANY one of the parameters: Pixels, Document Size, or PPI
will have the same effect.

- - - Updated - - -

OPS (Oh, PS): The "default" if you're loading an image is whatever is set in the image exif.
The default size for CS2 Photoshop is (a humble) 72 pixels/inch. You can change this in
Preferences.

[Lance B]

Very frustrating Lance.

I'm running W10 and the latest CC with current updates and I have noticed no changes.

To check I just did a 'Save' exercise with a 17MB RAW file, both the 'Save for web' way and the method I usually use, 'File >> Save As >>jpeg>> select jpeg size >>Save' and got no surprises.

Something strange going on Mate. If you'd like to post a snip of your 'Save for Web' box before you hit 'Save' I'll compare it with mine to see if there are any differences.

My previous CC had the latest updates but I was having other issues with saving TIFFs from Capture One Pro to Adobe Bridge and I thought it might have been Adobe Bridge that was playing up so, I uninstalled and tried to re-install Bridge but I had to re-install the complete Photoshop CC as well. That is when I got the complete new version of Photoshop CC - it is different to the updated version that I previously had and that is when the jpeg file size issue started.

Here is a screen shot:



As you can see, I have set it to the lowest setting of "0" and it is still a 2.7MB file! However, it seems to be less than that when it actually saves. This is exactly how I used to do it on every previous version of Photoshop.

[Cage]

Very strange Lance.

I tried to reproduce what was happening to you and the only way I could get close was by leaving the image at it's original size of 7360 x 4912.

All I can suggest is that in your iteration of CC CS6 there is a gliche in the image resizing tool.

Sorry I couldn't be more helpful as I'm sure you must be about to tear your hair out.

[Lance B]

Very strange Lance.

I tried to reproduce what was happening to you and the only way I could get close was by leaving the image at it's original size of 7360 x 4912.

All I can suggest is that in your iteration of CC CS6 there is a gliche in the image resizing tool.

Sorry I couldn't be more helpful as I'm sure you must be about to tear your hair out.

It's now not a problem because I can go to "File" > "Export" > "Save for Web" and then I can adjust to what I require so, all is good. However, it's just that the old method worked fine and now it doesn't - why did they change it?

Anyway, thank you for your help and thoughts. Much appreciated.

[Warbler]

... it's just that the old method worked fine and now it doesn't - why did they change it? ...

Haha! Exactly what I said when Microsoft changed the Office interface from Office 95's great layout. Change for change's sake.