After you have finished an image it is usually in tiff or xsif format.
What is the best way to save an image for posting on social media (astrobin, facebook, instagram)?
- format? jpeg, tiff etc.
- image size?
- 8/bit?
Also for printing/magazine?
- format?
- image size?
- 8/bit or 16 bit?
For some it might be obvius but not for me. Is there anything else I need to know?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Hi Daniel,
The best format for publishing images on the web for social media is JPEG. This format offers good image quality with relatively small file sizes, allowing for faster uploads and saving storage space. The TIFF file is great for high quality images without data loss, but has some disadvantages for web publishing, including larger file sizes, compatibility issues, and slower processing on devices with lower specifications or slower internet connections. Therefore, JPEG is generally more suitable for social media needs.
If you're printing images and need the highest quality, TIFF is the recommended format. However, remember that TIFF files can be much larger than JPEG files, so consider storage and transmission requirements when using this format.
KR
Timothy
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Timothy Prospero:
Hi Daniel,
The best format for publishing images on the web for social media is JPEG. This format offers good image quality with relatively small file sizes, allowing for faster uploads and saving storage space. The TIFF file is great for high quality images without data loss, but has some disadvantages for web publishing, including larger file sizes, compatibility issues, and slower processing on devices with lower specifications or slower internet connections. Therefore, JPEG is generally more suitable for social media needs.
If you're printing images and need the highest quality, TIFF is the recommended format. However, remember that TIFF files can be much larger than JPEG files, so consider storage and transmission requirements when using this format.
KR
Timothy
okey thank you!
How about what size of the image? does that matter? or is it enough to just save it as a jpeg? And should I always save it as a 8bit even for printing?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Daniel Renner:
Timothy Prospero:
Hi Daniel,
The best format for publishing images on the web for social media is JPEG. This format offers good image quality with relatively small file sizes, allowing for faster uploads and saving storage space. The TIFF file is great for high quality images without data loss, but has some disadvantages for web publishing, including larger file sizes, compatibility issues, and slower processing on devices with lower specifications or slower internet connections. Therefore, JPEG is generally more suitable for social media needs.
If you're printing images and need the highest quality, TIFF is the recommended format. However, remember that TIFF files can be much larger than JPEG files, so consider storage and transmission requirements when using this format.
KR
Timothy
okey thank you!
How about what size of the image? does that matter? or is it enough to just save it as a jpeg? And should I always save it as a 8bit even for printing?
When it comes to printing images, the choice between 8-bit and 16-bit depends on the level of detail and color accuracy you need for your print. 8-bit images offer 256 levels of color per channel (red, green, and blue), resulting in a total of approximately 16.7 million colors. This is generally sufficient for most everyday printing needs and is commonly used for images on the web and standard prints. However, if you require higher color accuracy and smoother gradients, especially for professional printing, 16-bit images are preferable. 16-bit images provide 65,536 levels of color per channel, offering significantly more color depth and a total of around 281 trillion colors.
hope this help,
KR
Timothy
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
It was suggested to me that using .png to publish images here is best. In my opinion, it retains more resolution than the .jepg format. I think Astrobin can handle up to 15MB image size. Hope this helps.
Patrick
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Patrick Graham:
I think Astrobin can handle up to 15MB image size
This is incorrect.
AstroBin does not put any artificial limits to file size for Ultimate subscribers. In practical terms, images above 150-200 MB risk crashing the thumbnail by making it run out of memory.
Additionally, for memory and security reasons (decompression bomb risk), images cannot exceed a total pixel count of 273439296 (equivalent to 16536 x 16536 pixels) on all subscriptions. Please note that this is a total count, and it doesn't matter if one axis has more pixels than the other.
To address Daniel's question with regards to online publishing: virtually all modern browsers do not have the ability to render TIFF files natively, and if you upload a TIFF file to AstroBin, AstroBin will convert it to JPEG. PNG files are fine but PNG is a format that's optimized for sharp lines and graphics, such as icons, text, and illustrations. In most cases the lessless compression it comes with is wasting a lot of bytes: most astrophographs lend themselves very well to JPEG compression (meaning that they can shed a lot of bytes while not showing any compression artifacts.
My recommendation to upload to AstroBin is JPEG with 95% quality (anything above 95 only disables parts of the compression algorithm which might not be necessary). Feel free to go down from 95% until you start seeing compression artifacts, and this might vary from image to image. Also, remember that "16-bit JPEG" is not a thing that exists.
Hope this helps!
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Salvatore Iovene:
Patrick Graham:
I think Astrobin can handle up to 15MB image size
This is incorrect.
AstroBin does not put any artificial limits to file size for Ultimate subscribers. In practical terms, images above 150-200 MB risk crashing the thumbnail by making it run out of memory.
Additionally, for memory and security reasons (decompression bomb risk), images cannot exceed a total pixel count of 273439296 (equivalent to 16536 x 16536 pixels) on all subscriptions. Please note that this is a total count, and it doesn't matter if one axis has more pixels than the other.
To address Daniel's question with regards to online publishing: virtually all modern browsers do not have the ability to render TIFF files natively, and if you upload a TIFF file to AstroBin, AstroBin will convert it to JPEG. PNG files are fine but PNG is a format that's optimized for sharp lines and graphics, such as icons, text, and illustrations. In most cases the lessless compression it comes with is wasting a lot of bytes: most astrophographs lend themselves very well to JPEG compression (meaning that they can shed a lot of bytes while not showing any compression artifacts.
My recommendation to upload to AstroBin is JPEG with 95% compression (anything above 95 only disables parts of the compression algorithm which might not be necessary). Feel free to go down from 95% until you start seeing compression artifacts, and this might vary from image to image. Also, remember that "16-bit JPEG" is not a thing that exists.
Hope this helps!
Thank you for sharing your knowlege about this! =) So when saving the file as an jpeg I should not drag the quality up to 100%? Do I need to scale the image down pixel wise? say from 4500pix to 3000pix wide?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Thanks for the clarification, Salvatore. My info was wrong
Patrick
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Daniel Renner:
So when saving the file as an jpeg I should not drag the quality up to 100%? Do I need to scale the image down pixel wise? say from 4500pix to 3000pix wide?
Hi Daniel,
this depends on the image. On most cases, anything above 95 is wasteful because it's unlikely to provide a visual benefit, while increasing the file size significantly. You should probably try on each image, and go as low as you can before artifacts become visible. Obviously you need a decent monitor for that.
Regarding scaling the image down, I recommend against it, at least for AstroBin. The goal of AstroBin is to preserve the data created by the amateur astrophotography community, both in terms of images and, of course, the data associated to them.
When you upload an image to AstroBin, it will generate multiple sizes for viewability purposes anyway, but it's good to have the original size available. If you scale it down before sharing, you are literally throwing information away.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Salvatore Iovene:
Daniel Renner:
So when saving the file as an jpeg I should not drag the quality up to 100%? Do I need to scale the image down pixel wise? say from 4500pix to 3000pix wide?
Hi Daniel,
this depends on the image. On most cases, anything above 95 is wasteful because it's unlikely to provide a visual benefit, while increasing the file size significantly. You should probably try on each image, and go as low as you can before artifacts become visible. Obviously you need a decent monitor for that.
Regarding scaling the image down, I recommend against it, at least for AstroBin. The goal of AstroBin is to preserve the data created by the amateur astrophotography community, both in terms of images and, of course, the data associated to them.
When you upload an image to AstroBin, it will generate multiple sizes for viewability purposes anyway, but it's good to have the original size available. If you scale it down before sharing, you are literally throwing information away.
Thank you Salvatore for the info! =)
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
|
Hey hi, you can resize images to fit platform specific requirement and use 8-bit color depth and for printing or magazine publication, TIFF format is preferred for higher image quality. It maintains a resolution of at least 300 DPI and adjust image size based on the intended print size. Use either 8-bit or 16-bit color depth depending on printing requirements and on the other hand for compressing you images you can use any online application such as Compress Jpeg it compress images with supporting different file format without losing their quality.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
1.91
1.81
5.70
0.00
