RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Photograph Resources, Tips, Tutorials => Topic started by: Mike Morrell (NL) on Saturday 28 April 18 16:02 BST (UK)
-
Hi, I'm curious about the reasons why some restorers resize photos - either during the restoration process or before posting their restores. I'm not critical of this, just hoping to learn more!
I don't usually look at the details (dimensions, file size) of posted restores, just admire (and learn from) the quality and style of restored photos On the 'Joan Chapman' thread (http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=792406.0 (http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=792406.0)), I noticed that some restores had been resized to about 50% - 60% of the original dimensions (in pixels). In other words, the original scan resolution had been reduced by 40%-50% in the posted restores.
I've always thought that maintaining the highest (original) resolution - especially in fine details - is something to aim for. A loss of resolution probably won't be noticeable unless a photo is printed or viewed on a high resolution screen at some point. I accept that there is a trade-off between 'number of pixels' and 'JPEG compression level" to get the best quality photo that doesn't exceed Rootschat's 500 KB limit. But looking at the size of the posted restore files, resizing didn't seem to me to be related to reducing file size.
I can only think of two other reasons to resize (and reduce the original resolution by 40%-50%) other than reducing file size. One is that the photo then fits on the Rootschat screen (without horizontal scrolling). The second is that some editing tools (such as blur) can be more effective on smaller photos in achieving the desired results than on larger ones.
If you sometimes resize photos either during the restore process or before posting your restore, I'd be interested to read your reasons for this.
Thanks in advance,
Mike
-
It depends what you want to do with a photo. If you're going to print it (or send it to someone for printing), then the highest possible resolution is an advantage. If you're posting it on a web site, simply for people to look at, there would seem to be no point in having it larger than will fit on the screen: any larger is just an annoyance! And a JPEG quality of 75% is then quite enough.
-
Hi Hugh and thanks for your reply.
I wholeheartedly agree. I occasionally do some (voluntary) photography work and when delivering the results via internet, I resize of all my photos for 'high resolution screen use': resolution + file size.
I'm just making the point that - as restorers - we usually don't know what people who request restores might want to do with the photo (now and in the future). It's a safe bet that they'll post it online somewhere. But at some point, photo's might also get printed. The resolution of 'screens' is also steadily increasing. So my question is basically 'why reduce resolution when you don't need to?'
Mike
It depends what you want to do with a photo. If you're going to print it (or send it to someone for printing), then the highest possible resolution is an advantage. If you're posting it on a web site, simply for people to look at, there would seem to be no point in having it larger than will fit on the screen: any larger is just an annoyance! And a JPEG quality of 75% is then quite enough.
-
Mike, I do all my work on a 13 inch laptop which has an impact on resizing.
The reasons I resize:
The most common one is that the file size gets too big to post. For example this one grew to 1.5 mB: http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=792463.9 (http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=792463.9)
First I try to reduce the size of the image on screen (pixels across) to fit within the 500kB limit until it reaches about 720 pixels wide. If the file size is still too big I reduce the quality. (I don’t like reducing the width much more because it’s too hard to see it properly on my small screen… and too small to admire if it turns out OK. ;D)
Sometimes if a pic fits under the 500 kB at say 1000 pixels wide (after I’ve reduced it from say 2000 pixels wide) I’ll reduce it further so that you can see the whole picture in one image.
And sometimes I don’t. For example, if there are a lot of people in it, I’ll leave it as wide as possible so you can see all their faces (if the detail in the faces is any good).
And sometimes I upsize. If someone posts an image only 300 pixels wide, I’ll immediately increase its size so it’s easier to see and work on using my small screen. If when I finish, its file size is still small but the finished job is OK I’ll either leave it at the enlarged size or even increase it (to no bigger than a size that fits across the screen). (Of course if it looks rubbish I’ll either not post it or reduce it to the original smaller size. ;D)
I would imagine all restorers would make similar decisions, the extra dimension for me is the size of my screen.
Cheers,
Peter
-
Thanks for your reply, Peter.
I use a 17" laptop and I can see that working on a 13" screen gives you a smaller 'window'. I just tend to zoom out until photos fit on the screen. Saving photos with 15% compression usually gets me under the 500 KB limit. I'll experiment with resizing.
mike