It used to be that saving for web did not use as good a compression
algorithm as just saving as a jpg.
I guess that's changed, not sure. But you are remembering correctly,
because a while back (maybe a long while back) I heard that too.
Marnie I never save for web. And I tend to save at ei
Facebook clobbers metadata in any case. The best method to preserve
image quality apart from saving as PNG is to stick to the FB standard
image dimensions to limit the effect of resizing engines.
https://www.facebook.com/CoverPhotoSize?filter=2
On 24 January 2014 10:13, Bruce wrote:
> When you
When you create an album to upload to, there is an option to make it Hi-Res.
All images uploaded to it are not mangled as badly.
--
Bruce
Sent from my iPad
> On Jan 23, 2014, at 11:57 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:
>
> Photoshelter posted a nice article on how to get around the terrible
> quality-m
Well I want all copies of any photo , whatever the format, to have the
same info imbedded - and Larry actually mentioned a few good reasons -
with me it is jsut a filing cabinet kind of thing
ann
On 1/23/2014 17:02, Paul Stenquist wrote:
On Jan 23, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
M
Well I went back and did a save for web on a file and learned that I
could see the camera data.. and copyright..
Hmmm... wonder if that was so way back in elements 2.0 and I just never
checked again. someonw lingering in the back of my socalled brain I
read something about saving in jpg but n
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 05:02:04PM -0500, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> On Jan 23, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
>
> > Maybe I'm misusing the term meta-data.. if I save for web in
> > adobe photoshop 5.0 the camera data disappears. so perhaps camera data is
> > not "meta-data”
> >
> You
Well I'm just saying that's how I save files when I put them on face
book - whether or no the 300 ppi or 72 ppi has practically "no meaning"
for my web page the images are 4 or 5 mgs 300ppi, and _if printed_ they
would be, say, 12" x 8. The same image, if I save it with a width of
800 px and
On Jan 23, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
> Maybe I'm misusing the term meta-data.. if I save for web in
> adobe photoshop 5.0 the camera data disappears. so perhaps camera data is not
> "meta-data”
>
You were correct. The camera data is meta data. I just don’t see the point of
savin
Camera data is metadata
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
> Maybe I'm misusing the term meta-data.. if I save for web in
> adobe photoshop 5.0 the camera data disappears. so perhaps camera data is
> not "meta-data"
>
> ann
>
>
> On 1/23/2014 16:26, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>
>>
Maybe I'm misusing the term meta-data.. if I save for web in
adobe photoshop 5.0 the camera data disappears. so perhaps camera data
is not "meta-data"
ann
On 1/23/2014 16:26, Paul Stenquist wrote:
On Jan 23, 2014, at 3:36 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
OTOH - improving the quality there may le
On Jan 23, 2014, at 4:39 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
> Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
>
>> I do “save for web” on all my web-sized images. The only meta data lost is
>> informational specs as far as I know.
>
> With recent versions of Photoshop you can choose what metadata is
> retained and what is di
Paul Stenquist wrote:
>I do save for web on all my web-sized images. The only meta data lost is
>informational specs as far as I know.
With recent versions of Photoshop you can choose what metadata is
retained and what is discarded when you "Save for Web".
You can choose:
Just copyright d
On Jan 23, 2014, at 3:36 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
> OTOH - improving the quality there may lead to more photo swiping.
>
> I send Facebook on jpgs at 72 ppi and no larger than 800 px across..
> but I don't do "save for web" because that clobbers some meta-data.
>
> ann
I do “save for web” on
Ann, just in case:
"ppi" dor a digital image has practically no meaning.
That's definitely the case when you upload images to FB.
It's only the total number of pixels that matters.
Igor
Thu Jan 23 15:36:09 EST 2014
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
> OTOH - improving the quality there may lead to more phot
OTOH - improving the quality there may lead to more photo swiping.
I send Facebook on jpgs at 72 ppi and no larger than 800 px across..
but I don't do "save for web" because that clobbers some meta-data.
ann
On 1/23/2014 14:57, Bruce Walker wrote:
Photoshelter posted a nice article on how to g
Excellent. Thanks, Bruce!
My experience with Facebook has been that the sharper the image is, the
more atrocious it looks when you upload it to Facebook.
-- Walt
On 1/23/2014 1:57 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
Photoshelter posted a nice article on how to get around the terrible
quality-mangling c
Photoshelter posted a nice article on how to get around the terrible
quality-mangling compression artifacts that Facebook introduces when
you upload images there. Curiously, the easy answer is upload PNG
files! Very counterintuitive, but apparently it helps.
http://blog.photoshelter.com/2014/01/fa
17 matches
Mail list logo
