Several things could be at play here. Save for web strips the file of EXIF data which is somewhere around 53kb in my camera. Depending on options used you may be viewing your photo in a different color space using save for web which could lead to the washed out look.
—
Have A Nice Day, 🙂
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/ wrote in message
I assumed that jpegs created with Save for Web and with the Save As
command would be the same, but I’ve compared some files and they appear to be quite different. With the same level of quality selected, Save for Web produces a file that has a much smaller size. Also, the color appears lighter and washed out with Save for Web, more obvious in some files than in others.
I’ve experimented with this on two computers, both Macs, one OS X and
one OS 9, and I got the same results.
Am I doing something incorrect to produce such different results?
Which method do most of you use for jpegs?
Thanks.
Thanks James. Stripping the EXIF data explains the file size differences.
I discovered my error regarding the washed-out appearance: I wasn’t checking ICC Profile in the Save for Web dialog. The Mac version of the Save As dialog refers to it as "Embed color profile," (I think the Windows version calls it "ICC," same as the Save for Web) and I missed the connection between these two because they’re labeled differently.
With the same level of quality selected…
Note that Save As has 12 levels.
And SFW has 100 levels.
Should 6=50?
Logically, yes, and seems as if it’s pretty close.
Also remember to compare fairly – there is Save Baseline/Save Optimized option in Save As. And "optimized" checkbox in SFW. and "progressive" checked either place makes file smaller (opposite of what one would think).
Oh, and do you have Save Preview to always in Prefs? That’s a biggie for Save As.
Assuming you DO get exact same quality settings, SFW will still always be smaller file size. No ppi tag, EXIF/IPTC, ICC profile (unless you tick it special), preview, probably something else I’ve forgotten.
Mac
Save for web strips the file of EXIF data which is somewhere around 53kb in my camera
Holy Moley, James. Did I read that right? EXIF data is 53KByres? I had no idea it was that big.
Bert
wrote:
I assumed that jpegs created with Save for Web and with the Save As command would be the same, but I’ve compared some files and they appear to be quite different. With the same level of quality selected, Save for Web produces a file that has a much smaller size. Also, the color appears lighter and washed out with Save for Web, more obvious in some files than in others.
I’ve experimented with this on two computers, both Macs, one OS X and one OS 9, and I got the same results.
Am I doing something incorrect to produce such different results? Which method do most of you use for jpegs?
Thanks.
Well, that depends on the use you have for the pictures. If you want to send them to dialup users, they would probably appreciate you using ‘save for web’, which produces a smaller image, and higher compression. For keeping on your HD, or for archive, ALWAYS USE SAVE AS, and select the highest quality setting.
Save for Web also strips any system icons and metadata as well, so that you wind up with a plain-Jane, fits anywhere image.
Kyle
I’ve never used Save for Web. I prepare hundreds of images for my website, and I always just downsample to 800×600 pixels and set JPEG quality to Medium (around 6). The images seem to load pretty fast at that size. Should I use Save for Web instead?
Hi Bert,
Using Save for Web (SfW) will save space on file size, but I don’t think you can batch process using SfW, so if you’re doing bunches of images you’re going to have a trade off between your time processing images and download time.
However, if you have a folder of images to run, try creating a simple web gallery. PSE2 builds a ‘site’ with all the images in a separate folder and the JPEG file sizes seem to be significantly smaller than those created using a regular batch process (same quality – Medium(6)). You can use the images as you will and toss the rest of the ‘site’.
Kyle
Kyle,
Thanks for the suggestions. I don’t do batch processing…I do level adjustments, cropping…sometimes I just use the Rectangular Marquee tool to select an 800×600 piece of the image, sometimes I just resample. At the end, I always do a mild sharpening using the USM. I treat every image differently, so there is no way I could batch process. It’s a slow process, but hey…it’s my hobby. I get a lot of pleasure out of seeing how much I can improve each picture.
At the end of it all, though, after I’ve got the 800×600 image, I could THEN do a SFW and maybe make the filesize smaller for faster download. Does that sound reasonable?
Bert
If I remember correctly the EXIF standard calls for a max of 64 or 65 kb, mine run around 53 but it will vary camera to camera as I understand it.
—
Have A Nice Day, 🙂
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/ wrote in message
Holy Moley, James. Did I read that right? EXIF data is 53KByres?
I had no idea it was that big.
Bert
James,
Okay, thanks. Sounds like I should be doing SFW. My main concern is that a lot of people who visit my website…friends and relatives…are on dialup modems, so I want to minimize their download time. I’m gonna try SFW and see how it works. Thanks for your help.
Bert
Without wanting to sound like our last President, It depends on your definition of better.
Save for Web always reduces the resolution to 72dpi.
Save as… saves based on the current resolution of the file before saving.
This is what is really causing your file sizes to vary a lot between the two save commands. If your original image is 300dpi then save for web will reduce the image a whole lot more than save as… The exif data and embedded thumbnails are pocket change compared to the potential difference in resolution a s result of the two different save methods.
So if you’re after high quality, save as is better. If the images are always for web presentation, save for web provides finer control over final file size and will save you more webspace.
JP
JP,
Thanks for your comment, but I am not sure I understand.
Resolution has no effect on file size. In fact, resolution is totally irrelevant for display on a monitor…i.e., display on a website. Resolution is totally ignored when an image is displayed on a monitor. If you don’t believe that, make two identical images, one with resolution set to 300 dpi and one set to 72 dpi. Display them both on a monitor. The will be identical.
Resolution will not affect file size either. All the resolution setting does is determine the SIZE of the pixels when an image is printed. But monitors just display pixels. Resolution setting stored in EXIF is totally ignored.
Bert
Save for Web always reduces the resolution to 72dpi.
No it doesn’t.
There is no ppi information saved at all in the header.
Most image editors open untagged files at 72ppi, that’s all.
This is what is really causing your file sizes to vary a lot between the two save commands.
No it isn’t. The pixel dimensions are the only relevant factor here. A 600×400 image (to pick a size) is exactly the same filesize whether saved at 72ppi or 7200ppi. And a webbrowser displays both at exactly the same size on screen, ie, 600×400 pixels. PPI means nothing to a browser (or screen display in general).
Mac
I see we were typing at same time, Bert 🙂
M
Mac,
Quit repeating what I say! 🙂
Bert
At the end of it all, though, after I’ve got the 800×600 image, I could THEN do a SFW and maybe make the filesize smaller for faster download. Does that sound reasonable? Bert
Sounds good to me Bert!
My problem is that it would take me about 3 months/image to do the fiddling to get ’em to look decent!
Kyle
Kyle,
I just did some experiments and found that I can save about 45 Kbytes per image by using SFW. That’s really significant, since most of the 400 images on my website are in the range of 100-200 Kbytes. Typically I would save about 30%. Sigh. If I just convert the existing JPEGs, I will lose some image quality when I re-save. To do it right, I need to go back to the originals and reprocess every one…a huge job. I feel really stupid about this. I should have looked into this before I started posting images.
Bert
So to review. After saving for web, if I reopen the file in PS the resolution of 72 in image, image size is bogus?
JP
I use ‘save as’ when I put my pictures on Pbase, because I need some there at high rez for my family to download, and no matter how big they are Pbase pages load like lightning!
For a web site I use SFW.
Why can Pbase load its pages so fast? When a regular site goes just as fast as how large the pictures are.
I’ve always wondered that.
Thanks,
Jane
Not "bogus", just that image is untagged for ANY ppi, so opens at 72, PE2 default.
PPI has no meaning except for printing.
And your web images aren’t going to be the same files you’d make for quality print output anyway (I hope!).
Mac
JP,
As Mac said, you definitely would not want to print from an image saved for the Web. And to repeat what Mac said in a slightly different way, resolution defines the SIZE of each pixel. Monitor pixels are fixed in size so the resolution setting is totally irrelevant. Only printers care about resolution, because they build each pixel out of tiny ink dots, so pixels can vary in size.
Bert
I have discovered that one of our older RIPs will not accept Jpegs from Photoshop 7 or CS, except when they are "save for web" generated.
It is a pity that there is no option on Save As to strip the EXIF data because when you are batch actioning the save for web, you lose the ability to batch file name changes using the "overide action save as" option in the batch command.
Do you think Photoshop intends to change the Save As to give you the option?
Paul
It’s probably the preview option hanging the RIP.
Use just Save As, without Thumnail option checked.
If that is grayed out, change thumbnail option in Prefs.
M
