saving fine art photos for web so as to show work but not be good enough to steal

[Eve1285]

Hi there,

I hope I'm asking in the right place, I've been going around in circles online for a long time and am pretty stuck.  One reason I am stuck is that I am creative and all that but not up to date with all the techical stuff and to be honest my brain just starts to shut down and I don't think it helps that online there's such a varied plethora of answers- and much contradiction!

So essentially my issue is: I have some lovely fine art photography that I'll be exhibiting in real life for the first time and starting to sell ltd ed prints of v. soon.

I obvisoulsy need to put them on the galleries website, my own and socials but I'm worried that they can be copied and stolen. Whilst I understand there's no absolute way to stop this I can see that I can reduce the pixel dimensions and also compress the file to make it less appealing to do so - certainly to make the image rubbish for printing- but of course I don't want it to be too rubbish so that the image isn't "sold" to the viewer.

So... there's A LOT online, so confusing. Also I've gotten into a muddle with technicalities in P.S 'image size' command. When I change pix dimesions, different things happen whether I am also changing ppi from 300 to 72 (have read a lot about this and still confused).

Also whether I'm meant to use this legacy 'save for web' or 'export as' to compress and maybe even resize at same time?

I did use 'save for web' for a photo comp entry, where they needed small file sizes for the entries and drastically reduced file size - I thought that would also affect quality but realised that at full magnification the image is not only same size but no pixelation/ quality reduction- which I suppose is good if all you want to do is reduce file size not image quality but I actually want to make these versions of my work unprintable (at any decent size anyway).

I am starting to understand different aspects to this like how screen resolution comes into play but my head remains muddled to be frank...

I wonder, rather than trying to unpick all of the above if someone would be kind enough to talk me through their opinion/ knowledge of the best way to acheive what I'm aiming for rather than trying to unpick  my muddles. I always find on messages that muddles can get worse... if i could have someone sat next to me to talk it through I'd be so happy!

Perhaps if I had a very clear guide on the best way to acheive the end goal the rest of it just wouldn't matter or I can save it for another day when I'm not trying to acheive a specific thing.

So, ultimately I need to put my fine art photography on websites- just good enough quality to sell the work but not good enough that it's can be copied and printed/ stolen.  

For that I think, (correct me if I'm wrong) I need to reduce pixel dimensions, (600px on longest edge was mentioned elsewhere online,) and compress the file, (not sure what it should be compressed to to actually reduce image quality).

Alos am I best using 'Image size', 'save for web, (legacy)' or 'export as' and what setting (s) am I aiming for to acheive desired results?

I know some of this will be subject to different opinions but if someone can help me distill this to a plan I can follow I'd appreciate it immensely, (as I've googled til my eyes are ready to fall out and my own 'experiments' have not yielded reliable results- I'm sure because I just don't understand enough about it all.)

Ultimately though I just want to get my art work out there as safely as possible rather than trying to become a full expert at this as to be honest it is just not my stregnth.

(I am not at this stage going for watermarks).

Thanks in advance!!

Evie : )

[D Fosse]

Just reduce it to a pixel size unfit for printing larger formats, but still doing it justice on screen. 1000-1500 pixels long side will usually be fine.

Nevermind the ppi number, that's irrelevant.

Use Image Size with resample checked, and set your target pixel size.

If you want it to look good on screen, apply careful sharpening after resampling. Don't overdo it! You just want it to look crisp. For this, it's essential to set View > 100%. This means each image pixel is represented by exactly one physical screen pixel.

[Eve1285]

Thanks D Fosse, much appreciated! 

should I still compress the file afterwards in export as or save for web, (legacy)?

[D Fosse]

You'd normally use jpeg for this, which is always compressed. You choose the compression level to balance file size vs. acceptable visual quality.

[D Fosse]

One thing I need to add.

In Image Size, the default resampling algorithm has sharpening built in, and the problem with that is that it oversharpens massively, with very unattractive edge halos as a result. I've no idea why they have this aggressive setting by default, but there it is.

I always change the algorithm to "Bicubic Smoother", which has no built in sharpening (or very little). Then it's much easier to apply your own custom sharpening.

I'd recommend the ACR filter for sharpening. The Detail slider is very good for controlling edge halos.

[davescm]

'...I am not at this stage going for watermarks...'

I would strongly advise that you do. A simple text watermark with the opacity lowered so it is just visible but unobtrusive is easy to add and acts as an additional reminder that the work is yours and not free to copy.

The demo example below uses a bevel and emboss layer style, with fill lowered to 0% and opacity to 75%

Dave

[Eve1285]

Thanks both, I've been playing around with the settings and ideas today and feeling much more confident!

D Fosse, for the compression I've used 'low quality' (3) for the jpeg and gotten to 700 KB-  I have read though that images for web should be 500kB or less? Can't understand how to make it less as even if I set it to 1 it's still 700kb? (and that's even with a 600px wide image which is about as small as I should probably go I was thinking...)

Davscm- thanks so much for the advice- I totally hear you on the watermark and I am properly torn on this.. I was strongly advised against it by an advisor in the fine art world...  and there's so much debate about this online too and people saying they're quite easy to remove.. I'm still mulling it over though...!

[D Fosse]

The thing about jpeg compression is that the final size varies with image content. Smooth areas compress much more efficiently than busy high frequency detail. It can be a 10x difference in size.

That said, a "normal" 600 pixel jpeg should be somewhere in the vicinity of 50 - 150 kB at a fairly high quality setting. If you can't get it below 700 kB at that size, it sounds like you may have excessive amounts of metadata in the file. If you use Export or Save For Web, that metadata will be stripped out. Try again.

Jpeg quality setting scales vary a bit between Save As jpeg / Save For Web / Export. But either way, 3 is too low. That shouldn't be necessary.

Just for reference, this is 1280 pixels wide, at quality 80 in Save For Web (which corresponds to 6 in Export, or 9 in Save). This weighs in at 372 kB:

[Eve1285]

of wow, ok will have another try.. thanks for the help

[Eve1285]

Hi again! I must be doing something wrong but I can't undertsand what exactly as I seem to be stuck on 703.1 kb  no matter how I change it. 

I now have 6 versions of same image and 5 are exactly 703.1Kb according to image size box!

1/ 800px (longest edge)- saved as Jpeg low quality (3) =1.22 mb

2/ 600px (longest edge) - saved copy as Jpeg -low quality (1) = 703.1 Kb

3/ 600px (longest edge) - saved copy as Jpeg -low quality (3) = 703.1 Kb

4/ 600px (longest edge) - Export as command -high quality (6) = 703.1 Kb

5/ 600px (longest edge) -Export as command -high quality (5) = 703.1 Kb

6/ 600px (longest edge) -Save for web legacy -low quality (3) = 703.1 Kb

I feel I must be going potty- I've checked and recheked in the image size command box and these are the numbers I have and I noted how I saved each one in detail to see which one worked best (not expecting them to be the same!!)

I'm obviously missing soemthing- Ive a horrible feeling it'll be something very obvious but just can't see it at the moment!

[Eve1285]

I have restarted the computer to see whats happening incase of a glitch- Image Size in photoshop is still reporting same numbers... but just the direct info from the mac in 'Get info" and bridge i have totally different numbers..

1/ 'Get info' 3.6 mb (3.41 megabyte - bridge)

2/'Get info'  3.6 mb (3.39 megabyte - Bridge)

3/'Get info'  3.6 mb (3.40 MB - bridge)

4/'Get info' 94kb (90 KB - bridge)

6/'Get info' 37 kb (34 KB - bridge)

6/ 'Get info'  29 kb. (25 KB - bridge)

Am I missing something really obvious here?

Thanks!

[D Fosse]

Don't look in Image Size! That's the uncompressed/decompressed size when the file is open.

Look at the size on disk when saved, from Windows Explorer. That's where you see the effect of the jpeg compression.

An open file doesn't have a file format. It's encoded into one when you save the file. A file format is a storage container.

[Eve1285]

oh! this is what I meant about not having a tech head!! OK, thanks! .. so the read out in bridge was accurate enough then? 

Its a pain having to check each one in the finder on the mac but the bridge numbers are pretty similar..

Thanks (again!) for explaining!! 

[D Fosse]

Yeah, sorry, Finder, not Explorer 😉 Or Bridge.

The final size isn't known until the save with compression is actually executed. There is a size prediction in Export and Save For Web, but it's just a prediction and may not be entirely accurate.

[Eve1285]

Thanks so much!

Hopefully I can get on now without any other hiccups!

[Eve1285]

Hi again, I'm working through my other images and the first one worked brilliantly- I used the bicubic smoother as you said in image size box and was great in the reduced version straight out of the "image size" adjustments. However I've tried it on 2 other images and they look massively over sharpened once they're smaller and that's with bicubic smoother not bicubic reduction.. I've played around with loads of different resmaple settings and these images always look over sharpened once reduced. Is this just an effect of the reduction on certain images? Thanks!

[D Fosse]

Are you seeing them at View > 100% ?

Can you post a cropped portion of an image showing this oversharpening? Again, it needs to be at 100%.

[Eve1285]

Hi, I sent this to you directly, thanks!

[Eve1285]

Heya D Fosse, hopw you had a good weekend! Did you see my direct message about this from last week? Thanks so much!

[D Fosse]

To be honest, I have no idea why you get oversharpening if you use Bicubic Smoother. There is no reason that should oversharpen. On the contrary, it will be a bit softer than the original, which is why you need to sharpen after resizing.

If you use Bicubic Automatic it tends to oversharpen.

I think you should go over your procedures again.

Post 100% crops here in the forum. We don't do personal one to one support.

[Eve1285]

Ahh I see, sorry I didn't realise.

I did post it directly as wasn't comfortable having it sit on an open forum so I guess it's not going to be possible to get help on this then.

Is there any other way to have adobe help with this privately/ directly?

Thx for the advice to check my procedures- have done so several times... am 100% using bicubic smoother.

I do wonder if it's a kind of optical illusion..

Just looking at the reduced version alone makes it look over sharp to me.

Then I've tried to look at them side by side at the same size on screen- the reduced size 600 px version at 100% and the full version at 10%- and this makes the 600px version continue to look way over sharp, unnaturally so and the 10% of the full version look almost too soft- despite it being perfect.

And viewing both at 100% and just looking at one area is when I start to wonder if it's an optical illusion. 

It is odd though as the first image of the 5 I reduced to 600px with the same method doesn't have this issue...

If anything I've said clears it up then that's great. Otheriwse no worries. Thanks for your help.

[Eve1285]

Hey there, I wanted to update this myself incase anyone else was struggling. I sent those weird reduced images to my website designer and he agreed they were odd, so I knew it was not in my head or "optical illusion".

Over the last week I have had a very bad sinus cold and for the first time today my head has felt clear and I had a thought when I woke- "did you check the images were flattened before reducing?" So I went back to my files - and lo and behold- the image that worked out ok was already flattened but the other 4 were not. So I tried one flattened and it's EXACTLY as it should be no strange over sharpening effect at all!! So it was the simplest thing in the end!

[Lumigraphics]

I'm a working pro and my take? Don't worry about it. Register your work with the proper authorities and move on. Watermarks are useless to prevent image theft. Learn how to use the various image search tools online but otherwise, life is too short to stress about it. You can't prevent someone from taking your images if they want to.

[Eve1285]

thanks for the advice!