Hi there, everyone! I haven’t poked my head in for awhile, but it is because i’m busy, and that’s a good thing!
I have a question regarding Save for Web. I don’t know if i’m just being a whiner, but if there is an answer to this, i’d sure love to know it.
When I click File > Save for Web, my dialog box comes up just fine. If i’m making a JPG, though, the Color Table tab is on top, so i have to click the Image size one to change the image size. Is there something that i can set so that the Image Size tab will be on top by default? It seems that it once was, but isn’t anymore. Thank you for any light you can shed on this for me! Always me, Janee
— http://www.myjanee.com for Janee’s PS Tutorials and PS Resource Links, Janee’s Monthly Art Challenge, Gallery, and more!
If you like my answers or my website, you may want to have a look at my books! Photoshop Elements 2: Most Wanted, PS 7: Professional Photographic Techniques, and PS 7: Trade Secrets. Read about them at http://www.myjanee.com/graphiccreations/publications.htm
Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!
What is the difference between Save for Web and Save As (jpeg)? I tried to save a 50 mb psd file as a best jpeg file with Save for Web, and got an error message, "The image exceeds the size Save for Web was designed for." Using Save As (jpeg) worked just fine.
Save for Web is a way of saving an image at a size appropriate for web sites or email attachments. It’s not designed for print-sized images. Your 50 MB file would be huge onscreen, requiring much scrolling around to see it all.
If what you want is an image for the web, first re-size it to 72 ppi and no wider than 800 pixels, preferable a lot smaller. Then run Save for Web. You can squeeze out up to 90% of the file size with almost no change in the look of the image. YMMV. If you just want to save your 50 MB file as a JPG, then Save As is the way to go.
Tom Nelson Tom Nelson Photography
In article wrote:
What is the difference between Save for Web and Save As (jpeg)? I tried to save a 50 mb psd file as a best jpeg file with Save for Web, and got an error message, "The image exceeds the size Save for Web was designed for." Using Save As (jpeg) worked just fine.
Another benefit of the ‘save for web’ facility is the four windows that open, so you can see the effect of the reduction in file sizes against the original image
wrote in message
What is the difference between Save for Web and Save As (jpeg)? I tried to save a 50 mb psd file as a best jpeg file with Save for Web, and got an error message, "The image exceeds the size Save for Web was designed for." Using Save As (jpeg) worked just fine.
If what you want is an image for the web, first re-size it to 72 ppi and no wider than 800 pixels, preferable a lot smaller. Then run Save for Web. You can squeeze out up to 90% of the file size with almost no change in the look of the image. YMMV. If you just want to save your 50 MB file as a JPG, then Save As is the way to go.
No need to resize because "save for web" automatically resizes any image with higher ppi than 72 to 72. although why Adobe chose that figure I don’t know, you can put a pic on the web at 1 ppi (turn resample off of course!)
No need to resize because "save for web" automatically resizes any image with higher ppi than 72 to 72. although why Adobe chose that figure I don’t know, you can put a pic on the web at 1 ppi (turn resample off of course!)
Are you trolling?
FWIW, my version of CS does no such thing. Save for Web does not change the number of pixels.
No need to resize because "save for web" automatically resizes any image with higher ppi than 72 to 72. although why Adobe chose that figure I don’t know, you can put a pic on the web at 1 ppi (turn resample off of course!)
Are you trolling?
FWIW, my version of CS does no such thing. Save for Web does not change the number of pixels.
Ever since PS introduced the "save for web" command (version 5.5, I think) its changed it to 72 ppi, I just did it on a 300 ppi image and yup, the created jpeg is 72 ppi.
Ever since PS introduced the "save for web" command (version 5.5, I think) its changed it to 72 ppi, I just did it on a 300 ppi image and yup, the created jpeg is 72 ppi.
Correct, but it does not change the NUMBER OF PIXELS.
It simply removes the resolution information. This is because Web browsers do not look at resolution information; the resolution is discarded, and the image is displayed at the resolution of the computer monitor.
In a browser, a 400-pixel by 300-pixel image at 72 pixels per inch is identical to a 400-pixel by 300-pixel image at 300 pixels per inch is identical to a 400-pixel by 300-pixel image at 6,000,000,000 pixels per inch. They all display exactly the same, and at exactly the same size. Browsers disregard resolution. — Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more: http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Correct, but it does not change the NUMBER OF PIXELS.
It simply removes the resolution information. This is because Web browsers do not look at resolution information; the resolution is discarded, and the image is displayed at the resolution of the computer monitor.
In a browser, a 400-pixel by 300-pixel image at 72 pixels per inch is identical to a 400-pixel by 300-pixel image at 300 pixels per inch is identical to a 400-pixel by 300-pixel image at 6,000,000,000 pixels per inch. They all display exactly the same, and at exactly the same size. Browsers disregard resolution.
I think most people in here would understand that browsers disregard resolution, you control that with your own computer, but where is the number 72 coming from? PS must be inserting that as I know I’m not.
I think most people in here would understand that browsers disregard resolution, you control that with your own computer, but where is the number 72 coming from? PS must be inserting that as I know I’m not.
72 is a "default’ resolution assigned to images with no resolution, or on which resolution is irrelevant. That particular number is used for historical reasons; namely, because in the days of the early "beige toaster" Macontishes in the mid-1980s, Macs had a screen resolution of 72 pixels per inch.
"Save For Web" gives you the ability to preview, but is specifically used with web graphics in mind. This is because CS will export the JPEG image at a 72ppi resolution used onscreen. "Save As" will not change the image resolution and would be best suited if you are intending to print the JPEG later.
72ppi is the resolution used by your monitor to display images. Even if the graphic is 1600ppi it will be displayed by your monitor at 72ppi. Because your monitor cannot display resolution higher than 72ppi there is no added benefit for a web graphic to have higher resolution. Higher ppi will only benefit a printed graphic.
If you happen to be on a Mac then the screen resolution is 96ppi. This is why images appear to be brighter or more colorful on a Mac when compared to a PC. This is also why some Mac users overcompress their images as the JPEG artifacts are not as apparent at higher resolutions.
"Save For Web" gives you the ability to preview, but is specifically used with web graphics in mind. This is because CS will export the JPEG image at a 72ppi resolution used onscreen. "Save As" will not change the image resolution and would be best suited if you are intending to print the JPEG later.
There is no such thing as Image Resolution. There are pixels. Period.
72ppi is the resolution used by your monitor to display images.
Now the poor folks with 96 and 120 ‘ppi’ monitors are confused, too.
Even if the graphic is 1600ppi it will be displayed by your monitor at 72ppi.
Uninformed readers of your post are now spinning towards the conceptual drain.
If you happen to be on a Mac then the screen resolution is 96ppi.
Really? Not 110 or 120?
This is why images appear to be brighter or more colorful on a Mac when compared to a PC.
Might that ‘apparent’ brightness be due to your color settings? Might it be due to the different GAMMA settings on each platform? You really must calibrate for the masses. Or not.
72ppi is the resolution used by your monitor to display images.
Incorrect. It was the resolution used by the early "beiige toaster" black-and-white Macs; it has not been the standard screen resolution since 1992 or so. A picture displayed on the screen has no resolution; it is displayed at the screen’s resolution, which varies from monitor to monitor and varies with different screen resolution settings on the same monitor.
Because your monitor cannot display resolution higher than 72ppi there is no added benefit for a web graphic to have higher resolution.
Web images have a resolution of 72 pixels per inch assigned for historical reasons. When a browser displays an image, the resolution of the image is stripped off and discarded; the browser cares only what the pixel dimension of the image is. A browser displays a 600 by 400 pixel image that is 72 pixels per inch absolutely identically to a 600 by 400 pixel image that is 300 pixels per inch.
If you happen to be on a Mac then the screen resolution is 96ppi. This is why images appear to be brighter or more colorful on a Mac when compared to a PC.
Absolutely incorrect, and completely off base. The resolution of an image does not in any way, shape, or form, under any circumstances, affect the brightness or color of an image, ever.
Images on a Mac look brighter and more colorful because a Mac’s default gamma is 1.8, whereas the default gamma of a PC monitor is closer to 2.2, and because on a Mac, color management is built into the operating system, whereas it is not on Windows. A properly calibrated Windows system displays color just as bright and vivid as a properly calibrated Mac system.
Using CS2, I save photos for web at 600px on the longest side. After compression they appear in my msn photo group at approx. 185kb. I set SFW at jpg, max. quality and 100%. I posted another at 500px and a third at 400px to determine what the optimum size should be for dial-up users. Yet when they appear and I rt. click and check properties, the sizes show up in inverse order. The 600 shows the smallest kb, the 500 second smallest and the 400 at the largest kb. In appearance the 600 is large, the 500 medium and the 400 small as it should be. I cannot understand why this is so. Can anyone tell me?
Using CS2, I save photos for web at 600px on the longest side. After
compression they appear in my msn photo group at approx. 185kb. I set SFW at jpg, max. quality and 100%.
I posted another at 500px and a third at 400px to determine what the
optimum size should be for dial-up users. Yet when they appear and I rt. click and check properties, the sizes show up in inverse order. The 600 shows the smallest kb, the 500 second smallest and the 400 at the largest kb.
In appearance the 600 is large, the 500 medium and the 400 small as it
Are you making jpgs out of jpgs, or are you going back to the same original every time.
Each time you make a jpg, it gets a little worse quality, even at 100%. And that loss of quality means that the compression cannot be as smooth the next time. I don’t know if this would be enough to make the smaller image a bigger file, but perhaps.
Finally, I don’t know if you need 100% quality for web presentation. I usually find that 60% is fine (you might need the higher quality if you are going to print output).
For this test, I am making jpg out of jpg. Usually I save as tiff to prevent multiple openings. I think I was careless the first time. I am trying again, very carefully using 80%. Will let you know if these are consistent and thanks for the reply Don. Harry
Can someone tell me why it is that I can right clk. on a photo on the web and it shows a size of 80kb. I save that image to my computer, then open it in CS2 and check Image Size and the size is 710kb and a size of 2×1" at 300 resolution? There is something I don’t understand here, can someone please enlighten me? Thanks, Harry
An over simplified explantion (as it was once related to me):
It’s because of the way a file occupies the data segments on a hard drive. Each of the segments may not actually be filled with data. Therefore the larger figure represents the amount of disk space a file takes up when saved. Whereas the smaller figure represents the actual file size.
Thanks Chris, I think. Does that mean the servers that contain my web photo are superior to the hard drive on my computer? IOW the data segments on the server are fully filled whereas my hard drive does not have that capability? Harry
The image on hard disk (check with Windows Explorer) is probably the same or similar to the size on the web – I imagine you’re mixing this up with the displayed size in ‘Image size’ which is the uncompressed image size.
Harry. I was recounting what was relayed to me once.
But now you’ve got me thinking about it, It seems I was talking a load of, erm, "round objects" and that that explanation was born of a different question altogether. 8-\
Here’s the real deal:
When you right click the web based image, you are given the file size in KB and of course, as a Jpeg there will be a degree of compression.
Open that file in Photoshop and the IMAGE>SIZE dialogue will compute the size based solely on the pixel dimensions i.e. uncompressed.
EDIT As Steven correctly posted whilst I was still working it out 🙂
Chris, I think you were talking about the cluster size – for single files this would only add a few kb to the filesize.
It makes more of a difference when you have lots of tiny files, eg:spacer.gifs, html files, etc, as the minimum size one file can occupy on disk depends on the cluster size (4kb by default in XP ntfs).
So to continue with the example;a 50 byte spacer.gif will occupy 4kb hdd space.
An 8-bit/channel RGB 1" x 2" image at 300 ppi contains 540,000 bytes of image data. (1 in * 300 px/in) * (2 in * 300 px/in) = 180,000 pixels. Each pixel has three bytes of information (R, G, and B), so the image contains 180,000 px * 3 B/px = 540,000 bytes of image data. The image file is typically much smaller than that due to compression, which is inherent in the JPEG image format, so your 540,000 byte image can be contained (in lossily compressed form) in a small fraction of 540,000 bytes, such as your 80k file. When you open a compressed image in Photoshop, you are working with the uncompressed image, which requires the 540,000 pixels that are reconstructed when you opened the file. In addition, the image file typically contains some overhead data (metadata) that is loaded into Photoshop when the file is opened. On top of that, Photoshop includes some metadata of its own, including the working color profile, such as sRGB, that will become part of the file once Photoshop saves it, and that may explain why Photoshop says the image takes up 700k or so. If you save the image in an uncompressed format, such as uncompressed TIFF, Windows Bitmap, etc., the file will be on the order of 700KB. If you save it in a compressed format, such as JPEG, it will be much smaller even with the added metadata; how much smaller depends on how much compression you use. For the smallest size, use Save For Web, which allows you to exclude all of the metadata and even the profile, and you can pick the amount of compression and see how big the file will be even before saving.
I find it convient to use this option to save png, gif and jpg for local powerpoint use and I have mutiple old macros in these Powerpoint that require certain file names. I am forced to remove the hyphens since rewrtting all the macros are a bit of a pain
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 06:55:22 -0700, Bob Levine wrote:
Why do you want it to? You can’t have spaces in file names for the web. Bob
