Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.146.221.231

Forum Moderators: not2easy

Message Too Old, No Replies

Photoshop 6 selective jpg compression

     
7:04 pm on Jan 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tedster is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:May 26, 2000
posts:37301
votes: 0


I've tried the selective compression feature for jpg in Photoshop 6 (well, in ImageReady to be precise). But I can't get it to work as advertised. I get more artifacts and a bigger file size than when use the built-in compression algorithms.

Any tips on getting the best out of this feature?

8:58 am on Jan 23, 2002 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 22, 2002
posts:9
votes: 0


The Photoshop 6 Classroom in a book series has three full chapters on image ready & is well worth reading if you want to get to grips with this package. I now use IR all the time & consider it to be a more sophisticated tool than fireworks, though in reality they both do the same things.
6:47 pm on Jan 23, 2002 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member mivox is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 6, 2000
posts:3928
votes: 0


Haven't played with ImageReady in a while... I'll have to check that out and see what I can squeeze out of it.
2:40 pm on Jan 25, 2002 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:July 6, 2001
posts:410
votes: 0


tedster- I make it a policy to never read manuals. Even when I should. I don't use the built-in compression utilities.

Go ahead and laugh - I use Ulead SmartSaver. Only because it's brainlessly easy and does a pretty fair job (including batch conversions) on .gifs, .jpegs, and .png's.

I also have DeBabelizer. But I don't use it.

6:13 pm on Jan 25, 2002 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tedster is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:May 26, 2000
posts:37301
votes: 0


I used to use Ulead all the time. It served me very well.

But the algos in Image Ready are now rather awesome. Common scenario -- a layer of type over a photo. You know how sharp edged type attracts jpg artifacts, but the limitations of gif for photos are also rather daunting.

My "premier" solution has been to use absolute position and the z-index -- stacking a gif with transparency (for the type) over a jpg (for the photo). But you should see what a nice job IR does in preserving those sharp edges even with relatively high compression. In all but the most important spots, I'm now a convert to IR and one image.

I still don't use IR for gif compression. I've learned too much about gifs to yield control to any automation. But the jpeg format is mysterious to me, and IR handles it very well. It's just that I get better results letting the algo do its thing than when I try to protect sharp edges from artifacts using the selective compression mask feature.

6:39 pm on Jan 25, 2002 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member mivox is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 6, 2000
posts:3928
votes: 0


How much does IR's compression vary from PS6's Save for Web command? I got hooked on Save for Web with 5.5 (and a home computer that can't handle opening ImageReady while PS is running)... Didn't occur to me that IR might actually be using different algos for its compression routines.
6:45 pm on Jan 25, 2002 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tedster is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:May 26, 2000
posts:37301
votes: 0


"Save for the Web" is ImageReady.
7:05 pm on Jan 25, 2002 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member mivox is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 6, 2000
posts:3928
votes: 0


Ahh... I thought maybe you needed to actually click the "go to ImageReady" button, and use IR's somewhat more confusing interface. :) It would seem exceptionally silly for the two programs to have different compression algos, though.