Someone else asked this in a comment  yesterday or so, and it's something I've been tangling with myself, so I thought I'd bring it up here.  What is the best format/file size for uploading shots here?  I'm finding that the same apparent file "size" in Photoshop is much, much bigger than the other program I've been using.  But the image quality seems much poorer on the other, easier to use program.  So is there any guideline a person can use for this, without spending hours trying out different settings to see what finally comes through?  The posted rule of 4000x4000@512kB doesn't seem to hold true on the surface, because I've tried files that were much less than that and gotten the message that the file was too large.  Can anyone help this stupid newbie, or point me in the direction of some kind of tutorial?  Any and all advice will be greatly appreciated!

I resize my images around the 800 x 600 mark (portrait or landscape orientation)...give or take a few pixels either way.  I use the SAVE for WEB option in Photoshop CS3...and try to keep the file size under 250kb.  You can experiment with different JPG compression settings in realtime and see the results.  Note this option strips out the Exif data  too. (camera settings and whatnot) 

Here's a couple tutorials for reference.

www.elated.com/articles/the-save-for-web-feature/

www.impulseadventure.com/photo/save-as-save-for-web.html

Hope this helps a bit.

J:woot:e

Thanks, that's some useful information.  What I don't really understand is how some people can upload what seem to be HUGE photos when you click on full size, and full of the most amazing detail.   I know there must be some trick that I just haven't any clue about...

I always save as a JPEG

max size...no more than 1000 pixels on the larger side..

In Photoshop, depending on the image quality of 6 to 9

The other option is "save for the web" as Joe mentioned

Are you talking about size as in width and height or is size of pixels.
If you have seen really big images maybe they have used the save for web and reduced the quality of the image.
I always use save for web in Photoshop and generally stick to around 480 kb.My images are usually 1200 x 798.
If you want to send me an image that has been refused and I will look at it.
Send to
eddie@landscape-images.co.uk

I resize in Corel Photo, about 1000 on the larger side, and save as JPEG and it usually comes out between 280 and 450 kb. Strips off the exif too. (I have no idea yet how to do it with PS, one thing at a time!)

Hi durleybeachbum,
I first re size the image to save...Photoshop doesnt like saving massive size files for the web
If you have photoshop ( depending on what version ) go to FILE - Save for web.
Up comes a new window and below the image it tells you the files size.
The is an option for things like jpeg...gif etc.
Select jpeg and move the quality slider and as you move it the file size indicator will change. 
When you happy just save the file...I usually save the new file into a different folder...mines called Rosity.Then when you are back on the original image if photoshop asks you if you want to save the changes say no as you have already saved the file under a new name...also prevents you from saving your pride and joy as a new file and realising you just wrecked it.

Thanks for that, ejn! You are so kind to bother.
Another mystery bites the dust!
If the geeks that write manuals and instructions for computer programmes were actually fully human all these things would be obvious.
Everything I've learned has been from real people on RR!

I always resize in PSP9.  Cant live without it.. It has JPEG wizard and I can resize it how I think it will be best in size or compression, so it fits the RR site. I use very different sizes or compressions, after how texturized og colored the image is. But I never use compression higher that  25%, then I prefare resizing the image instead.

 Hi durleybeachbum,
No problem.
I agree with you on the geeks.A lot of what I have learnt is by playing with Photoshop and from the people on Rosity.
I recently tried to understand layer masks from a huge book and in the end just said "what the hell are you talking about" 
Some of the video tutorials from "Digital Photo" are very good.I get it when I see something that interests me. 
I am no expert by a loooooooonnnnng way but if you want to ask me anything I will always try to help if I can...just mail me.
If you dont want to go thru the Forum just mail me direct at
avlf77@dsl.pipex.com

Eddie

You guys are awesome...that helps me tons!  And Eddie, layer masks are awesome, I only just learned them from an online course I took.  Not sure I could explain them, but I can send you the lesson if you like.

Hi MrsRatbag,
I would really appreciate you sending me the lesson if that is possible.
Hope it's in 10 year old language and not geek...only joking...or was I.
I get a thing in my head and then I have to do it. 
Yes if you can send it please do...love to learn it...bored with levels and hue :-)
Eddie

Ok so how/what size would I post some panoramics I took while on my recent trip. I have one that I actually think is a great shot, that I'd like to share with you all, but if I shrink it down to fit the 500 kb mark, it gets all mussied up.

@Diadalos;
Please be considerate of those who are on dial-up connections.
If you insist on "shrinking" your uploads to the maximum 500kb....you will be losing almost all of the folks who are still on dial-up.  I for one will be very reluctant to wait for a 500kb image to load unless the thumb is a real stunner.

For your info, here is a discussion we had a while back regarding image sizes;

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2747600

I routinely compress 36MB TIFF files for upload here...they end up being around 200kb...if they're "mussied" up...it's because of my lack of photographic skills, not compression.....

Gradient it seems that the preferred image size is around 800x600 or so, and around 200 kb in size correct?

I still have the old 200kb limit in my mind and never go over 200 with posts to forums.  Actually, I generally try to stay closer to 150kb or less if a small image(pixel wise).  I really see little degradation of the image if kept in this range and not larger than 800pixel in large direction.

The dial up folks do suffer with larger images and as mentioned, if download is very long may skip the image altogether.

Just to clarify:  my question is regarding the galleries, not the forums.  I know forum uploads need to be much smaller....

Looks like you have answers for both here. 

@Diadalos:
There is really no "preferred" size...you can load up whatever Rendo allows. I was merely pointing out that dial-up folks will likely skip waiting for a 500kb image to load...so, you lost a viewer.  As for pixel dimensions...same thing....load right up to the Rendo limits if you so desire.  But bear in mind that unless people have the resize option checked here at Rendo, they will have to scroll to see the whole image.  If you have to scroll, you generally lose the impact of the image.

Another point to consider here....the larger your image size....the more value it will have to rippers that may want to steal your image. Again, the choice is yours......

@MrsRatbag;

My comments apply to both galleries and forum uploads.

Gradient I asked if that would be  "preferred" size, precisely because I was trying to take into account users who are not on highspeed.

Especially given the point you make about "scrolling". I myself hate it when an image blows up like that and I have to scroll all over the place to look at it.

And your points about rippers is a very valid one also. 

Thanks for your feedback/advice.  I'll put it to good use as I begin to upload to the photo gallery.

Daidalos

Quote - @Diadalos;
Please be considerate of those who are on dial-up connections.
If you insist on "shrinking" your uploads to the maximum 500kb....you will be losing almost all of the folks who are still on dial-up.  I for one will be very reluctant to wait for a 500kb image to load unless the thumb is a real stunner.

Interesting thoughts.

I'm one of the spoiled ones on broadband.  As a matter of fact, I have more broadband than I know what to do with.  Due to my wife's business which requires massive bandwidth, we have required twin FiOS (fiber optic) connections installed in our home (20mbps and 50mbps) plus a residential DSL line provisioned at 3mbps that is used for other non-business purposes.

Guess which one I use?

You raise a very good point in that many people tend to size their images rather large, and I'm probably one of them here, tending to average well over 300k.  I suppose it's easy to forget there are dial-up users out there who are still using it for one reason or another; lack of broadband availability or cost of high-speed access.  From a business standpoint, the FiOS that is installed in our home is fairly cheap at less than $220 per month for both circuits.  The 3mbps DSL is tied with the residential phone and is less than $40 per month.

Pew performed an interesting poll earlier this year on availability of and desire to have broadband access in the U.S. ...

NEW YORK — A new study suggests that attitude rather than availability may be the key reason why more Americans don't have high-speed Internet access.

The findings from the Pew Internet and American Life Project challenge the argument that broadband providers need to more aggressively roll out supply to meet demand.  Only 14 percent of dial-up users say they're stuck with the older, slower connection technology because they can't get broadband in their neighborhoods, Pew reported Wednesday.

Thirty-five percent say they're still on dial-up because broadband prices are too high, while another 19 percent say nothing would persuade them to upgrade. The remainder have other reasons or do not know.

"That suggests that solving the supply problem where there are availability gaps is only going to go so far," said John Horrigan, the study's author. "It's going to have to be a process of getting people more engaged with information technology and demonstrating to people it's worth it for them to make the investment of time and money."

Nonetheless, the Pew study does support concerns that rural Americans have more trouble getting faster Internet connections, which bring greater opportunities to work from home or log into classes at distant universities. Twenty-four percent of rural dial-up users say they would get broadband if it becomes available, compared with 11 percent for suburbanites and 3 percent for city dwellers.

Vint Cerf, one of the Internet's key inventors and an advocate for the idea that the government should be more active in expanding broadband, suspects that many more dial-up users would be interested in going high-speed if they had a better idea of what they're missing. He pointed out that broadband access is available from only one provider in many areas, keeping prices high and speeds low.

"Some residential users may not see a need for higher speeds because they don't know about or don't have ability to use high speeds," Cerf said. "My enthusiasm for video conferencing improved dramatically when all family members had MacBook Pros with built-in video cameras, for example."

Overall, Pew found that 55 percent of American adults now have broadband access at home, up from 47 percent a year earlier and 42 percent in March 2007. By contrast, only 10 percent of Americans now have dial-up access.

Despite the increase in overall broadband adoption, though, growth has been flat among blacks and poorer Americans.

Of the Americans with no Internet access at all, about a third say they have no interest in logging on, even at dial-up speeds. Nearly 20 percent of nonusers had access in the past but dropped it. Older and lower-income Americans are most likely to be offline.
 

Pew's telephone study of 2,251 U.S. adults, including 1,553 Internet users, was conducted April 8 to May 11 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2 percentage points. The error margins for subgroups are higher — plus or minus 7 percentage points for the dial-up sample.

www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/07/02/1633414-study-says-many-dial-up-users-dont-want-broadband

Regards.