Save for web help

[Bill Gass]

Hello all,

Not sure where to post other than here so hopefully this is the right spot...

.

I asked many months ago how to save a jpeg to make it load but but be an average file size and look sharp, the suggestion I got here was not to use, File...Save As... but to use, File...Export...Export As...I would pick 7 for Quality and save...I am making the pictures I post, 1500 x 750 pixels which has usally made a 1-2 meg file...Now when I do that same process my jpeg pictures are coming out about 500 KB and I don't know why. My pictures are being put on a Microsoft Word Web Page and haven't had any issues till now.

Anybody know why or have any ideas ?

Thanks-

-Bill Gass -

[Bojan Živković]

Sorry, I do not understand what your problem is. What do you want to ask in particular? Is it acceptable to export a 500k file, or is it fine to place that file in MS Word? It depends on what the MS Word file is used for; if you are going to print, then a better quality is preferable. If that file needs to be sent over the internet, it may be a good idea to use a lower quality file. How important is it to have the best quality images/graphics in your MS Word files?

[Bill Gass]

Quality is very important.

I am asking how to take a 1500 x 750 px picture and use file, export, to a jpeg that is 1-2 meg in file size, not a 500 px file.

[Bojan Živković]

Use the highest quality settings for JPEG files. The weight in kilobytes depends on various factors, such as the number of colors and the original file's quality. While increasing file size may lead to better quality, the primary focus should be on the JPEG quality setting, not the file size in bytes.

[Trevor.Dennis]

Quality is very important.

By Bill Gass

If quality is important, then saving to JPG set to '7' is not a choice.  It's well known that pixel peeping can send you mad, but 7 is pushing your luck.

[Per Berntsen]

I am making the pictures I post, 1500 x 750 pixels which has usally made a 1-2 meg file...Now when I do that same process my jpeg pictures are coming out about 500 KB and I don't know why.

By Bill Gass

The file size of a jpg is determined by three factors.

• Pixel dimensions
• Quality setting
• Image content

Because of the way jpg compression works, image content can have a huge influence on file size.

Images with predominantly flat, smooth, or out of focus areas are easy to compress, and will have a relatively small file size.

Images with lots of sharp, busy detail (or noise) are harder to compress, and will have a relatively large file size.

450 x 299, Quality 85, 40 kb

450 x 299, Quality 85, 145 kb

[Bill Gass]

Thanks for all the replies...Most of my pictures have lots of details.

Ever since I asked last year how to make pictures look better and load faster and not be too large or change details much, someone here suggested I used what was suggested here. Since then I have always used, Export, Export As, Quality 7, File Size is, 1500 X 756 px and file size is 476.2 KB.

.

I've done hundreds if not thousands of pictures this way since this post, ( https://community.adobe.com/t5/photoshop-ecosystem-discussions/saving-images-so-they-are-clear-and-s... )  and all pictures that are 1500 x 750 are anywhere between 1-3 megs, something has changed in the last month or so to do that and i don't know what. Maybe the dng file is doing something to it ???

.

I would insert my 1500 x 750 size jpeg file into my word web page and it would be maybe 12" x 20" on a 32" monitor.

Now when I do that the pictures on word are like 1/3 that size 7" x 5"

[D Fosse]

@Bill Gass 

Like jpeg file size, physical measurements are relative.

An image actually doesn't have a size. It's just pixels, in your case 1500 x 750 pixels. That's it. That's the size of the image.

Physical measurements are a function of the pixels per inch (ppi) number assigned to the file. Ppi is a way to translate from pixels to physical size, whenever that is needed, and it means exactly what it says. It's needed for print, and calculating font sizes, and a few other things. It is not needed for screen viewing, where the screen pixel density overrides it.

So Export strips the ppi number from the file. It's not needed. The exported file doesn't have a ppi number, and no size. The screen size is determined by whatever screen you're viewing on.

Most applications will assign a default ppi number if there isn't one in the file metadata. Photoshop assigns 72, Microsoft applications will assign 96. So any output size varies with that. And if the file was originally, say, 300, then you get a huge difference in size.

Now, about the jpeg quality level in Export. The highest is 7, but it's important to know that this is still destructive compression that will degrade the file. There is no such thing as "maximum" quality with jpeg. So with that in mind, it makes much more sense to go down to 5 or 6, which will vastly reduce file size with very little direct visual impact. It will be there, but chances are you can't see any difference between 5 and 7. But the file size will be, say, half or less, so they load that much faster.

The whole justification for using jpeg in the first place, is to reduce file size and load times. So you may as well maximize the payoff. Export gives you live preview so you can find the optimal breakpoint.

[Bill Gass]

Thank you again for the replies and talking...

.

The screen size is determined by whatever screen you're viewing on. ( I knew that when typing but just saying )

.

On my computer and my screen, I use photoshop and save a picture the way i said and when I add that picture to my word page it's 2-3x smaller. Kinda like work or anyhting else you do all the time or daily, when the slightest things change you wonder why or what's different.

.

You guys try it...Take a raw file, process it and it comes out a dng then process it and resize it to a 1500 x 750 size jpeg and put it on mirosoft word and see if it's the same size as what you just saw in photoshop.

[D Fosse]

That means Word is scaling the image. I don't know what rules Word follows. It's a text editor, not an image viewer, and there is no reason to assume Word will display an image correctly.

Most likely it's assuming 96 ppi and an A4 document page, and sizing/scaling the image according to that. Which has nothing to do with a 1:1 reproduction of the image.

[Trevor.Dennis]

That means Word is scaling the image. I don't know what rules Word follows. It's a text editor, not an image viewer, and there is no reason to assume Word will display an image correctly.

By D Fosse

Dag, I don't know for sure how it works, but pasting an image into Word or Outlook causes it to display larger on the screen than actual pixel size IME.

[D Fosse]

@Trevor.Dennis 

I edited my post adding a second paragraph, which I think answers that.

[Bill Gass]

True, word is not a good website platform but I have used it for a web page for the last 20 years.

When I bought a Microsoft package back in the Windows 98 world or older there was a web page maker that came with it too, pretty neat and very easy to use actually.

[Conrad_C]

Can you clarify where the unexpectedly small JPEG files are happening?

Is it:

A. After using Save for Web in Photoshop.

B. After adding the Photoshop exported JPEG image to a Microsoft Word document and saving as docx. 

C. After adding the Photoshop exported JPEG image to a Microsoft Word document and saving with the option Web Page (.htm), and looking in the folder of images that Word created for the web page. 

If it’s A, not sure what is happening unless one of the other Save for Web options is now set differently; for example, if metadata was being included earlier but not now. 

If it’s C, then it might be explained by what the HTML conversion settings are in Word. Those are discussed in this thread I found through a web search:

Word to HTML Conversion- Loss of image quality (StackExchange)

[Bill Gass]

Conrad,

After I save the pix in PS with the File, Export As...is when it happens, I preview the picture and it's like 500kb...I figured someone would say, oh PS update some stuff or somehting else but all looks the same.

[Bill Gass]

Thanks for the link as well Conrad ( Word to HTML Conversion- Loss of image quality (StackExchange) ) but didn't change anything.

[Nancy OShea]

Better compression methods.  On the web, less bandwidth is a good thing. It helps keep the Internet a faster place for everyone.  When pages don't take forever to load, users have a better experience, particularly on mobile devices.

Many factors can effect filesize including the number of colors, metadata, height x width, and quality settings.

Click on the 2-UP tab to compare your optimized image with the original.  Apart from filesize, they should look almost the same.  If it's under 1 MB, that's a win/win.

[Bill Gass]

""" Most likely it's assuming 96 ppi and an A4 document page, and sizing/scaling the image according to that. Which has nothing to do with a 1:1 reproduction of the image."""    I thought that as well but need to look into that.

[Bill Gass]

Agreed Nancy,

Most peeps are on their phones and I'm guessing not many use a computer, my pictures are great viewed on a 60" big sceen tv as well. But ya, around 1meg is a great file size I think. I don't like the 2up and want pixs to be around 1500 x 750 although I used 1200 x 500 for ages but 1500 x 750 or there about look great.

[Nancy OShea]

Have you looked at WebP?  You might like it better than JPEG.

https://developers.google.com/speed/webp

Photoshop's File > Save a Copy drop-list supports WebP format.

[Bill Gass]

Very interesting Nancy, I'll have to look more into that as I haven't heard of that format before.

Thanks-

[Bill Gass]

Sorry,

After going back to the web page I am making in Word...I can add or open or see the files I created before and they are roughly 1500 x 700 and about 1meg + and when I add those to my Word page they look great and are the size I want but when I add files I have made recently with PS they are all 500-700 kb and load up on Word as a small picture...Makes no sense at all, something has changed in PS I believe because it's not working the way it has before.

.