Photo Question - GoFuckYourself.com

Elli · 12-18-2005, 12:22 PM

Hey folks! I'm feeling out of date and out of touch. My photo processing process is horribly behind the times, and I'm relearning a bunch of stuff.

For those of you who process photos to post online, do you use "Save as" in photoshop to make a jpg, or do you use the "Save for Web" option? And if you do the save to web, what quality level do you use for the big members area high quality photos? Just trying to find what an industry standard is these days for photo kb size and whatnot. Any help is much appreciated!

gangbangjoe · 12-18-2005, 12:25 PM

aaaaaah i thought i would open this thread and see a sexy elli pic i have to judge....

Chio · 12-18-2005, 12:27 PM

YARGH! I be usin' Save for web. Usually at 75 to 80

Halcyon · 12-18-2005, 12:28 PM

I usually save at about a 8-9.

And I usually don't use the "web" option simply because it takes longer. I'm sure I could get smaller files if I did.

Chio · 12-18-2005, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halcyon

I usually save at about a 8-9.

And I usually don't use the "web" option simply because it takes longer. I'm sure I could get smaller files if I did.

YARGH! Make an action. Run it in batch mode.

Elli · 12-18-2005, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gangbangjoe

aaaaaah i thought i would open this thread and see a sexy elli pic i have to judge....

Alright, here's a sneak peek at what I'm working on.

Chio · 12-18-2005, 12:32 PM

YARGH! A merry christmas indeed.

Elli · 12-18-2005, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chio

YARGH! Make an action. Run it in batch mode.

Aye aye, Cap'n Chio. I just want to make sure I have the actions right before I apply them to 80 photos.

K that one above is a hybrid. I saved at 90% in the Save to Web funtion, then resized and rotated in ACDSee and threw it online. It's about 95kb.

tASSy · 12-18-2005, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chio

YARGH! Make an action. Run it in batch mode.

i do that sometimes or i save for web and the files are significantly smaller. batching saves you some time though, especially if you have a whole lot of pictures in a set. =)

NoCarrier · 12-18-2005, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elli

Alright, here's a sneak peek at what I'm working on.

Nice! Is that for your new BBW site?

Tricksy · 12-18-2005, 12:50 PM

I use "Save for Web" option because it gives more advanced options...

tASSy · 12-18-2005, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoCarrier

Nice! Is that for your new BBW site?

you're kidding right?!

calibra · 12-18-2005, 12:59 PM

Can we have more great X-mas pics

, please!

Elli · 12-18-2005, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoCarrier

Nice! Is that for your new BBW site?

You have the dubious honour of being the third person to join my ignore list. Congratulations.

NoCarrier · 12-18-2005, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elli

You have the dubious honour of being the third person to join my ignore list. Congratulations.

Violetta · 12-18-2005, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elli

You have the dubious honour of being the third person to join my ignore list. Congratulations.

hehe.... who are the two others?

Elli · 12-18-2005, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockatansky

hehe.... who are the two others?

MasterBlogger
Sig Whore

pornpf69 · 12-18-2005, 01:56 PM

save for web....

Azlord · 12-18-2005, 03:22 PM

Save for web is the way to go! Optimize those images. The web can only display 72 dpi images anyway. So if you are saving at like 150-300dpi (which is for print) it doesn't display any better than a 72 dpi image would on the web, so all that extra file size would be for nothing.

Penthouse Tony · 12-18-2005, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azlord

Save for web is the way to go! Optimize those images. The web can only display 72 dpi images anyway. So if you are saving at like 150-300dpi (which is for print) it doesn't display any better than a 72 dpi image would on the web, so all that extra file size would be for nothing.

never knew that. thanks

pornguy · 12-18-2005, 04:40 PM

Is that an un edited photo?

Elli · 12-18-2005, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornguy

Is that an un edited photo?

No, the unedited photo is 18MB and has harsh contrast problems with it.

Elli · 12-18-2005, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azlord

Save for web is the way to go! Optimize those images. The web can only display 72 dpi images anyway. So if you are saving at like 150-300dpi (which is for print) it doesn't display any better than a 72 dpi image would on the web, so all that extra file size would be for nothing.

Yeah, I work in 72dpi right from the get-go unless I'm making something for printing.

Anthony · 12-18-2005, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elli

Alright, here's a sneak peek at what I'm working on.

You are so well porportioned, that's it's a shock to see how petite you are in real life.

Pictures look great, as usual!

pornguy · 12-18-2005, 04:45 PM

When you use PS, you can sometimes save the photo at a lot less than 75% and it will stll look good. But if you have done a lot of touch up work to the photo, then the higher the % the better.

Elli · 12-18-2005, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornguy

Is that an un edited photo?

Here's the unedited version. The only edits I've done are rotate, resize, and compress a wee bit:

Rob · 12-18-2005, 04:46 PM

Save for web is the best option if it's not for print.

Elli · 12-18-2005, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornguy

When you use PS, you can sometimes save the photo at a lot less than 75% and it will stll look good. But if you have done a lot of touch up work to the photo, then the higher the % the better.

Good to know, thank you!

And thanks you too, Rob!

Elli · 12-18-2005, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony

You are so well porportioned, that's it's a shock to see how petite you are in real life.

Pictures look great, as usual!

I'm not *that* small, am I?

Hell Puppy · 12-18-2005, 04:53 PM

I end up keeping 4-5 versions of every photo we take.

1 is raw right out of the camera, freaking huge. That way I can always go back to the "source" material.

Then I do any color correction and retouching that needs to be done, and again save at full size. This is my corrected source.

Then I save two more versions for use on the web with watermarks, etc.

1) Save at 80-90% via save for web, these are for members area, tour, etc.

2) Save another at 40-50% via save for web, these are for thumb galleries. It'll cut the size in half, even if you dont reduce the image size. Saves a ton of bandwidth for TGP action.

Anthony · 12-18-2005, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elli

I'm not *that* small, am I?

It's a sexy small!

I'm pretty big, so yes, you'd be small, compared to me.

Elli · 12-18-2005, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hell Puppy

I end up keeping 4-5 versions of every photo we take.

1 is raw right out of the camera, freaking huge. That way I can always go back to the "source" material.

Then I do any color correction and retouching that needs to be done, and again save at full size. This is my corrected source.

Then I save two more versions for use on the web with watermarks, etc.

1) Save at 80-90% via save for web, these are for members area, tour, etc.

2) Save another at 40-50% via save for web, these are for thumb galleries. It'll cut the size in half, even if you dont reduce the image size. Saves a ton of bandwidth for TGP action.

I guess I'm not as behind the times as I thought.

hehe I keep multiple versions, too, and boy am I ever glad. I've been able to fix my old masters up so they look even better than when I first posted them. Nowadays I keep my RAWs, my retouched but still original size, and then the two sizes and the watermarked version.

Thanks for the 50% tip, I hadn't thought of that. Woot!

Cheers!

Hell Puppy · 12-18-2005, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elli

Here's the unedited version. The only edits I've done are rotate, resize, and compress a wee bit:

Smoking hot.

But if you wanna save yourself some retouch work, add more light. You can never have enough when shooting inside. You've got great skin tones, show it off.

I'm guessing you've already got a speedlight on the camera to get it looking that good. If you shoot a lot in a place where you can set it up (home studio, etc), external flash kit with the big umbrella lights pays for itself.

If you're working with a Nikon, you can also setup multiple speed lights in a master/slave setup and have them spread around the room. Two plus the built in flash on the camera makes a hell of a difference.

Elli · 12-18-2005, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hell Puppy

Smoking hot.

But if you wanna save yourself some retouch work, add more light. You can never have enough when shooting inside. You've got great skin tones, show it off.

I'm guessing you've already got a speedlight on the camera to get it looking that good. If you shoot a lot in a place where you can set it up (home studio, etc), external flash kit with the big umbrella lights pays for itself.

If you're working with a Nikon, you can also setup multiple speed lights in a master/slave setup and have them spread around the room. Two plus the built in flash on the camera makes a hell of a difference.

Don't get me started. I personally own a Nikon D70 with the SB800 speedlight, and I have a couple hotlights on stands. However this photog who has been very kind to shoot for me has a Canon and uses kinoflo lights, and for some reason all his pictures come out very contrasty and dark. He doesn't use the flash at all. I haven't figured out what's going wrong, and neither has he.

latinasojourn · 12-18-2005, 05:13 PM

correct these shots by raised gamma then autobalance levels.

when shooting raw and then correcting the raw save the correction as a "tif" file. this become your new digital "negative". resaving the raw file as a jpg starts losing quality pretty fast in successive resaves.

when putting images on the web, crop extraneous image area which adds nothing to the shot to save file size, then resize the pix at the image size you want for presentation, today's surfer can handle about 120-150kb per image which gives a high quality shot. always "save for web" as this optimizes for 72 and give lowest file size/best image quality compromise.

although these shots are not lit properly too much light is just as bad as too little. the majority of shooters use too much light. use a gray card and expose on that and check camera histogram to see if you are blowing out highlights.

throw away the on camera flash, it is for shooting puppies, not glamour girls.

Natalia.Taffarel · 10-23-2006, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azlord

Save for web is the way to go! Optimize those images. The web can only display 72 dpi images anyway. So if you are saving at like 150-300dpi (which is for print) it doesn't display any better than a 72 dpi image would on the web, so all that extra file size would be for nothing.

That's just what I was going to say. Save for web is the right one

marketsmart · 10-23-2006, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gangbangjoe

aaaaaah i thought i would open this thread and see a sexy elli pic i have to judge....

that would have been fun

Crasy Bitch · 10-23-2006, 09:27 AM

Verry nice pic girl

donross · 10-23-2006, 12:12 PM

nice pic.. makes me wanna hit it..

Aneros Josh · 10-23-2006, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elli

Alright, here's a sneak peek at what I'm working on.

Also, it helps if you save it in the .clothesoff extension...it's in the save for web options

Brad Gosse · 10-23-2006, 12:21 PM

I find save as jpg allows you to embed a color profile and the tones are better. Save for web always washes my pictures out a little (just my experience)

OG LennyT · 10-23-2006, 12:34 PM

I know it saves time but I dislike the batching process of Photochop and I dont use 'save for the web' as it takes away the quality.

Most galleries I've made have 150x100 jpgs, 18-30kb in size - open to at least 800x600, anywhere from 100-250 kb.

oh yeah *edit* Elli is the beautiful

yum

12-18-2005, 12:22 PM	#1
Elli Reach for those stars! Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 17,991	Photo Question Hey folks! I'm feeling out of date and out of touch. My photo processing process is horribly behind the times, and I'm relearning a bunch of stuff. For those of you who process photos to post online, do you use "Save as" in photoshop to make a jpg, or do you use the "Save for Web" option? And if you do the save to web, what quality level do you use for the big members area high quality photos? Just trying to find what an industry standard is these days for photo kb size and whatnot. Any help is much appreciated! __________________ Make More Money with Cams and Dating at FFN.com! email: [email protected]

12-18-2005, 12:25 PM	#2
gangbangjoe Ronin Join Date: May 2004 Location: Live by the code Die by the code Posts: 17,693	aaaaaah i thought i would open this thread and see a sexy elli pic i have to judge.... __________________ NichePay - $30 on all trials - Killer Ratios .................................................. Female Ejaculation - Hairy - Shemale Puffy Nipples - Huge Clits - And More! ..................................................

12-18-2005, 12:27 PM	#3
Chio Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: ICQ: 39-183769 Posts: 8,002	YARGH! I be usin' Save for web. Usually at 75 to 80 __________________ I seo'd my hair yesterday and today it's pr7! RIP Texas Dreams Are you a content producer or program owner sick of tube sites? Contact me on ICQ: 39-183769

12-18-2005, 12:28 PM	#4
Halcyon Spread The Pink! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: TrampStampStudios.com Posts: 8,609	I usually save at about a 8-9. And I usually don't use the "web" option simply because it takes longer. I'm sure I could get smaller files if I did. __________________ HAL on TEDx:

12-18-2005, 12:32 PM	#7
Chio Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: ICQ: 39-183769 Posts: 8,002	YARGH! A merry christmas indeed. __________________ I seo'd my hair yesterday and today it's pr7! RIP Texas Dreams Are you a content producer or program owner sick of tube sites? Contact me on ICQ: 39-183769

12-18-2005, 12:50 PM	#11
Tricksy Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: USA Posts: 2,601	I use "Save for Web" option because it gives more advanced options... __________________ Real-Bucks.com - Real Bucks for Real Webmasters.

12-18-2005, 12:59 PM	#13
calibra Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 4,357	Can we have more great X-mas pics , please! __________________ GetCyberCash.com

12-18-2005, 01:56 PM	#18
pornpf69 Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Brasil Posts: 15,778	save for web.... __________________ Do you need cheap, fast and reliable porn website hosting? Host Head is the way to go!! Asian Gay Special \| Live on MSN - Live Webcam Chat \| Live Adult Webcam Performances \| MY SWEET BLACKS LIVE ON CAM Cash X \| OK Pay \| Pukka Ropes \| Pukka Fetish \| STRAPED BLOG \| Male Bound and Fucked Pukka Tranny \| Tattooed Shemales \| She's A He \| Menu Porno \| Porn Performances \| All Chubby MY ICQ# 169833797

12-18-2005, 03:22 PM	#19
Azlord Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: City... City of Satan Posts: 2,651	Save for web is the way to go! Optimize those images. The web can only display 72 dpi images anyway. So if you are saving at like 150-300dpi (which is for print) it doesn't display any better than a 72 dpi image would on the web, so all that extra file size would be for nothing.

12-18-2005, 04:40 PM	#21
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	Is that an un edited photo? __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

12-18-2005, 04:45 PM	#25
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	When you use PS, you can sometimes save the photo at a lot less than 75% and it will stll look good. But if you have done a lot of touch up work to the photo, then the higher the % the better. __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

12-18-2005, 04:46 PM	#27
Rob I'm a great bowler. Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Right Outside of Normal. Posts: 13,309	Save for web is the best option if it's not for print. __________________

12-18-2005, 04:53 PM	#30
Hell Puppy Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Hotlanta, Georgia Posts: 183	I end up keeping 4-5 versions of every photo we take. 1 is raw right out of the camera, freaking huge. That way I can always go back to the "source" material. Then I do any color correction and retouching that needs to be done, and again save at full size. This is my corrected source. Then I save two more versions for use on the web with watermarks, etc. 1) Save at 80-90% via save for web, these are for members area, tour, etc. 2) Save another at 40-50% via save for web, these are for thumb galleries. It'll cut the size in half, even if you dont reduce the image size. Saves a ton of bandwidth for TGP action.

12-18-2005, 05:13 PM	#35
latinasojourn Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 3,191	correct these shots by raised gamma then autobalance levels. when shooting raw and then correcting the raw save the correction as a "tif" file. this become your new digital "negative". resaving the raw file as a jpg starts losing quality pretty fast in successive resaves. when putting images on the web, crop extraneous image area which adds nothing to the shot to save file size, then resize the pix at the image size you want for presentation, today's surfer can handle about 120-150kb per image which gives a high quality shot. always "save for web" as this optimizes for 72 and give lowest file size/best image quality compromise. although these shots are not lit properly too much light is just as bad as too little. the majority of shooters use too much light. use a gray card and expose on that and check camera histogram to see if you are blowing out highlights. throw away the on camera flash, it is for shooting puppies, not glamour girls.

10-23-2006, 09:27 AM	#38
Crasy Bitch Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 598	Verry nice pic girl __________________ Behind every great woman, is a guy looking at her ass.

10-23-2006, 12:12 PM	#39
donross Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,295	nice pic.. makes me wanna hit it.. __________________ Email: [email protected] \| Skype: ross.alcazar

10-23-2006, 12:21 PM	#41
Brad Gosse Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Carpal Tunnel Posts: 2,616	I find save as jpg allows you to embed a color profile and the tones are better. Save for web always washes my pictures out a little (just my experience)

10-23-2006, 12:34 PM	#42
OG LennyT Wall Street Pimp Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 14,345	I know it saves time but I dislike the batching process of Photochop and I dont use 'save for the web' as it takes away the quality. Most galleries I've made have 150x100 jpgs, 18-30kb in size - open to at least 800x600, anywhere from 100-250 kb. oh yeah edit Elli is the beautiful yum __________________ Tradeking - my online broker \| 4.95 a trade \| make real $$ Last edited by OG LennyT; 10-23-2006 at 12:37 PM..