Need Pointers on how to Optimize for Web like a P

[Brsynk]

Hey all
I am new to this forum but I look forward to being an active poster.

I am needing any tricks, tricks, pointers, tutorials, books or site referrals on how to best
optimize photos for the web.

I have a photo website that scales the image proportionally with the browser window within a fluid layout.
so the file needs to be rather large in size (1700px wide)
because of this I really need to get the file size as low as possible for decent loading times.

up to now I have been using the save for web option in Photoshop CS4 and while the results are pretty
good I do see better examples online and I would desperately like to know how to get my photos to look
as good as some that I see.

are there programs better at doing this the PS? (I am on a mac)
is Fireworks any good at such things?

would this be something that a action may be useful for?
(should I condense using a stepped approach like when I am enlarging)

is there a more efficient way to optimize the color palate?

in some cases I see that 80 % of the photo can take a large reduction in size without affecting the quality much
but the other 20% looks awful...

Is there a way to selectively optimize (sorta like masking) or combining 2 optimized versions in to a median?

really any tips would be greatly appreciated.

thanks.

[DannyRaphael]

Welcome to RP...

I don't know anything about website design, etc., but to get the conversation going...

Originally Posted by Brsynk

up to now I have been using the save for web option in Photoshop CS4...the results are pretty good

Have you tried experimenting with the image quality setting in the SFW dialog?

============================================

...would this be something that a action may be useful for?

If you can find a suitable Quality settting, a Save for web command can indeed be recorded in an action for "one at a time" or batch processing (multiple images from one or more folders or individual images selected in Bridge).

Things to watch out for if you intend to batch process:
* Do not change the file name in the SFW save dialog, otherwise all files processed with the action will be assigned the same (recorded) file name
* The location (Desktop or folder) recorded in the SFW dialog is THE location where processed files will be saved. Set in stone, if you will, unless you re-record the SFW command specifying a different location. Unlike a Save as... (.jpg) command, location cannot be overridden in the Batch dialog.

Hope this helps...

[TommyO]

Brysnk,

I don't know that others are doing anything magical when preparing theirs for the web. Typically, most set their ppi a little higher than average, i.e. 110 rather than 72. This accounts for the higher resolutions more common today. Also, many embed the profile, whereas in years past it was not necessary since browsers were not color managed. They also may enhance the color saturation a bit knowing that it simply looks better on the average screen. Sharpening is also a consideration.

However, to help with batch conversions of larger numbers of files, many find the utility from Irfan Skiljan very useful. It's called IrfanView and is available free from his site http://www.irfanview.net/.

Below are some screen shots to give you an idea of its flexibility in saving images. And these are only from the "Batch" routine; there are many other utilities within. It's definitely worth downloading and trying out. Some of the options are accessed from buttons, that are not always popping out at you. So, it takes a little playing to find them all.

[Brsynk]

I use a mac and could find a download for Irfanview. Also, how does setting the ppi to 110 help when to average screen resolution is only 72 ppi. this seems to make to file size better without and real affect in quality.

Does anyone think its better to just use image size to downsize images for the web instead of using save for web?

I've also noticed that websites what have good images, the images often has a max pixel high/width of 800, does anyone else find this to be normal?
Is this how the make a better image by keeping the dimension smaller then increase to quality of the image?

[lurch]

Average screen resolution hasn't been 72 ppi for 20 years or so. Nowadays it's in the range of 96-120, give or take.

I've been told that it's better to use image size to re-size, then use save for web to optimize. Keeping the dimension smaller (800 ppi on the long side, for example) and increasing image quality does seem to create better web images.