NX2:Gen - Functionality - Save For Web Settings

[MikeT]

I'm currently trying out NX2 as an easier option to pp other than CS3. Only used it a couple of days and I Like It!. It looks like I'll be purchasing this one!

After searching the web and here trying for find information on saving for web. Since I'm not finding the information it must be so silly simple to do.:redface:

CS3's has a feature called "save for web". How do you do it in NX2?


Thanks


Mike

 

[DrJay32]

You save as JPEG. NX does not have the fancy "Save for web" options that CS3 has. It's something I've asked for in future versions of NX.

-Jason

 

[MikeT]

While I did look for a save for web feature in NX2, I was looking for a way to save for web using the size / resolution settings. Example:, If I do 72 dpi in resolution and 800x600 pixels in file size, I still have a fairly large file. In this case 2.5m.


BTW, I got my book Friday and you did a great job. Being a member of the older generation, I like your choice of font size!


Thanks Jason,

Mike

 

[DrJay32]

Mike-
You can fiddle with the JPEG compression settings during save, but it's an inexact science. I usually use CS3 for critical web saves.

-Jason

 

[MikeT]

Ok. Thanks Jason


Mike

 

[MikeT]

Hi Mike - are You sure the file actually is 2.5 mb or is it just size. the editor window shows on top?
If You just set the adjustments, the original file size remains in the top of the editor window. The size changes, after You have appled the settings and SAVED the file to Your hd.

I have produced a settings file, called save4web. It reduces every picture You like to resize to 800px on the longest size and sets the dpi to 72.

You can download the settings file save4web.set.zip by clicking on the blue indication. save it at first to Your desktop and un-zip it.

For using it. do the following:
1. select all files You like to prepare for he web.
2. right click on them/use the batch command from the top and selecte to load the settings-file "save4web.set", which You should have stored at first on Your desktop.
3. Now the batch window is opened. In the lower part of the windows, You should select File-Type = jpg. (by default, nx sets nef as standard output-file) and select the compression-factor. You should try any setting between 60% to 100%.
4. if Your source files is a nef-file, You can leave everthing else like it is: the jpg will besave to the same folder, where Your nefs reside.
5. If Your source pictures are jpgs, the best is to select either to stire the output with a different name as the originnal OR save the output to another location.

regards, tom

Good catch Tom! The file size of 2.5m as stated earlier was at 300 dpi instead of my stated 72 dpi. I slipped on that one. :biggrin: I did try with 800 on the long side and 72 dpi but the image was too small for posting here as it pixelated very quickly.

I was reading the file size above the apply button in the size / resolution settings, but before saving. I ended going the long way around by exporting to CS3 as a tiff, convert to sRGB and 8 bit, then resize and save as jpeg.

I will give your settings file a try.

BTW: I always shoot RAW


Thanks for your help.


Mike

 

[MikeT]

It works! If I had actually SAVED it like you told me it would have worked the first time. :biggrin:


Thanks for getting me straight Tom!


Mike

 

[TomaS]

Good catch Tom! The file size of 2.5m as stated earlier was at 300 dpi instead of my stated 72 dpi. I slipped on that one. :biggrin: I did try with 800 on the long side and 72 dpi but the image was too small for posting here as it pixelated very quickly.
Mike

Just one suggestion Mike, ignore dpi and concentrate on pixels. 800 on the long side is 800. No matter the dpi setting - which only comes into play when you are measuring area in inches or centimeters. Notice how they appear in separate boxes on the adjustment windows?

 

[Mike Buckley]

I almost always agree with tomTom. That's because he always know what he's talking about and I rarely do. :biggrin:

Seriously, in this case I disagree with the need to save at 100%. I batch process all my JPEGs saving at 70% and have never seen any artifacts. (That doesn't mean they aren't there but if I can't see them when viewing in email or on the Internet, for which the JPEGs are created, I don't care.) That's because I'm aiming for about 200KB per file. Sometimes it ends up being more and sometimes less, but considering the advantage of the batch process it's not really important to me if it's not 200KB.

As to Tomas's point about the resolution, it can be changed if you save one JPEG at a time. Oddly, the batch process doesn't allow you to make that change. So mine presumably get saved at 300dpi but I'm not sure if I have ever opened a saved file to check it.

My batch process that converts to JPEG does the following:
1) applies Fit Photo using the long dimension being no more than 900 pixels and the short dimension being no more than 800 pixels. (I still haven't figured out why it doesn't matter whether the image is portrait or landscape orientation, but it seems to work either way.)

2) Applies USM 10/5/0.

 

[Kees de Bruin]

Don't forget to convert to the sRGB color profile to prevent the washed out colors when viewing in non-color profile aware applications.

 

[Mike Buckley]

Hi TomaS

If You wan't change the resolution, it is easier to use the last adjustment in the menu "Fit Photo" - this also answeres Mike's question #1 in his last section.

There You can set "Height=800" and "Width=800". This adjustment detects the longest side of the picture, regardless if the piture is in landscape or portrait and sets it to the given size as the longest, i. e. with standard dx nef:
W x H: portait becomes : 5xx x 800
W x H: landsape becomes: 800 x 5xx.
Very easy - one step - nothing else to think about - autodetect by nx.

regards, tom

Tom, my point addresses a different use and need. If the image is in landscape orientation, I prefer not being limited to 800 pixels as the horizontal dimension. I like being able to use 900 pixels.

However, I would not want the vertical dimension to be more than 800 pixels whether the orientation is portrait or landscape.

So, I set the width to no more than 900 and the height to no more than 800. Now that I've written this post, I realize why that setting works in both orientations. Duhhhhh.

 

[Mike Buckley]

Mike, ever considered to do that with two seperate steps while batching?
1st step: change the resolution. NEW SETP:
2nd step: fit Foto to 800 x 800
regards, tom

Nope, believe it or not I never thought of that. That's why we like having you around here so much! :smile:

 

[Mike Buckley]

The pictures I sell are mostly night captures and with low liight/long exposures there are often, if not everytime, artefacts, if the jpg is not saved to 100%.

I forgot to comment about that really great tip. The few night pictures I take will be more closely inspected in the future. Thanks, Tom!

 

[MikeT]

Just one suggestion Mike, ignore dpi and concentrate on pixels. 800 on the long side is 800. No matter the dpi setting - which only comes into play when you are measuring area in inches or centimeters. Notice how they appear in separate boxes on the adjustment windows?

I was trying to do what most others do when saving photos to display on the web with settings of 800x600 at 72 dpi, yet hindering anyone getting a decent print at the 72 dpi resolution. This time I just went ahead and saved at the default 300 dpi.

Thanks TomaS,

MikeT

 

[MikeT]

.... My batch process that converts to JPEG does the following:
1) applies Fit Photo using the long dimension being no more than 900 pixels and the short dimension being no more than 800 pixels. (I still haven't figured out why it doesn't matter whether the image is portrait or landscape orientation, but it seems to work either way.)

2) Applies USM 10/5/0.

Mike, My first impression of the "Fit Photo" settings was for sizing a photo for printing. I haven't sent for any prints yet but it looks like this setting would be ideal to "Fit Photo" to 8x10 rather than use Size / Resolution settings and crop your photo to make it fit into the 8x10 area.

I just re-joined with pbase and found that I have to size to about 900 pixels on the long side as pbase resizes your photo down to the next size. In my case the resized photo would be 800x600 or close to it.

I can understand the logic behind your #2 where you applu USM. I haven't done any USM after resize yet. I keep forgetting about it. :biggrin: How did yoiu arrive at your 10/5/0 USM settings? I assume that you zoom to 100% and pick a value which works for all images.


MikeT

 

[MikeT]

Don't forget to convert to the sRGB color profile to prevent the washed out colors when viewing in non-color profile aware applications.

I forget this step almost every time! Then I go back and do it all over again. :biggrin:


MikeT

 

[MikeT]

You can set it what ever You like, 800 was an example, You might set it the following: w: 1072, h: 800, or whatever You like ))
tom

Following your post to Mike B with interest.

Thanks for your help Tom.

I'd be lost without you folks here to help out!


MikeT

 

[Mike Buckley]

Mike, My first impression of the "Fit Photo" settings was for sizing a photo for printing. I haven't sent for any prints yet but it looks like this setting would be ideal to "Fit Photo" to 8x10 rather than use Size / Resolution settings and crop your photo to make it fit into the 8x10 area.

If you want an 8x10 print, remember that that is a different aspect ratio than the original aspect ratio that comes out of your D80. Fit Photo doesn't allow you to change the aspect ratio. If you change the long dimension to 10, the height will be 6.69, not 8, because the ratio remains unchanged. As a result, you'll have to use the crop tool to obtain any aspect ratio that is different than the in-camera aspect ratio.

On the other hand, if you are changing the size but maintaining the aspect ratio, you are correct that you won't have to use the crop tool. That would allow you to use Fit Photo rather than Size/Resolution.

I just re-joined with pbase and found that I have to size to about 900 pixels on the long side as pbase resizes your photo down to the next size. In my case the resized photo would be 800x600 or close to it.

My understanding is that you do not want to size PBase images at "about" 900 pixels. You want to resize them at no more than 900. That's because of changes PBase will make to images larger than 900 that have been observed to also affect color. Yikes!

The reason I use 900 is because I like to post my PBase images here at the Cafe. I think I remember correctly that the Cafe accepts up to 900 wide without changing the dimension.

How did yoiu arrive at your 10/5/0 USM settings? I assume that you zoom to 100% and pick a value which works for all images.

That was more or less my methodology. More precisely, after setting USM parameters to a few hundred files sized as they come out of the camera, I developed an understanding of the relationship between the three parameters and the relationship between visual change and change in the numeric value of the parameters. The dialog box default setting is 0/5/0. I satisfactorily tried a range of 8-12/5/0 and settled on the median of 10/5/0 as my starting point partly (this is embarassing) because I didn't want to have to bother adjusting more than one parameter. That's because I wasn't using batch processing at the time.

Jason Odell suggests 25/3/2 for web resizing. Once you learn the relationship between the three parameters, you might also conclude as I do that his settings and my settings should produce results that might be a little different but not a lot different. (I haven't actually tested that theory.)

 

[MikeT]

If you want an 8x10 print, remember that that is a different aspect ratio than the original aspect ratio that comes out of your D80. Fit Photo doesn't allow you to change the aspect ratio. If you change the long dimension to 10, the height will be 6.69, not 8, because the ratio remains unchanged. As a result, you'll have to use the crop tool to obtain any aspect ratio that is different than the in-camera aspect ratio.

On the other hand, if you are changing the size but maintaining the aspect ratio, you are correct that you won't have to use the crop tool. That would allow you to use Fit Photo rather than Size/Resolution..

Hmmm. Intestering! I haven't noticed the interactive relationship between size / resolution and fit photo before. I should start a new topic on the size / resoultion and fit photo as I think we'll be straying from the original topic of size for web settings.

My understanding is that you do not want to size PBase images at "about" 900 pixels. You want to resize them at no more than 900. That's because of changes PBase will make to images larger than 900 that have been observed to also affect color. Yikes!.

The reason I use 900 is because I like to post my PBase images here at the Cafe. I think I remember correctly that the Cafe accepts up to 900 wide without changing the dimension...

Actually I did pulg in 900 on the long side as I didn't know how much over 800 I could go with pbase downsizing. I'm not sure, but if I put in 825 or 850, pbase should still downsize to my desired 800 x whatever size.

That was more or less my methodology. More precisely, after setting USM parameters to a few hundred files sized as they come out of the camera, I developed an understanding of the relationship between the three parameters and the relationship between visual change and change in the numeric value of the parameters. The dialog box default setting is 0/5/0. I satisfactorily tried a range of 8-12/5/0 and settled on the median of 10/5/0 as my starting point partly (this is embarassing) because I didn't want to have to bother adjusting more than one parameter. That's because I wasn't using batch processing at the time.

Jason Odell suggests 25/3/2 for web resizing. Once you learn the relationship between the three parameters, you might also conclude as I do that his settings and my settings should produce results that might be a little different but not a lot different. (I haven't actually tested that theory.)

I'll try your USM settings and a few other to see the releationship in sharpness since I haven't done this as the last step yet. I assume you zoom to 100% to see what the settings are doing?


Thanks for your help MikeB!


MikeT