I thought I might share an experience with the production of personal brochures.
Putting aside the proposition that everything in the world should be Internet based and remembering that not everyone in the world believes in that principle, I wanted to produce a brochure of my properties that I could send out either by post or as an e-mail attachment. I was aware that some e-mail providers impose limits (usually 1 Mb) on the size of e-mails and/or their attachments.
Firstly, I prepared my brochure using MS Publisher – in effect Desk Top Publishing. The end result was extremely good but the file size was enormous - no less than 32,620 Kb. Also, even ignoring the file size, it really wasn’t any good as an e-mail attachment because very few people have MS Publisher and other applications can’t open or display Publisher files. A dead end!
Secondly, I prepared the same brochure using MS Word. Not as easy or as flexible as Publisher but the end result was more than satisfactory, except that the file size was still much too large - 11,241 Kb.
Thirdly, I optimised every single object and picture in the MS Word file, maintaining a balance between the result for printing and viewing on screen. There was no significant loss of quality for printing purposes but there was a large reduction in the size of the file - 2,582 Kb. Better, but still too large for e-mail transmission.
Fourthly and lastly, I converted the optimised Word file to PDF format using Adobe Acrobat Pro. There was no discernable difference from the Word file except that the PDF file was 743 Kb.
I achieved everything I wanted/needed but at the cost of a lot of time and effort.
It seems to me that there are lessons to be learned here about pictures, particularly for those who want to produce their own web sites. Pictures should not be taken straight from a scanner or a digital camera. They should be optimised for the use to which they are to be put.
Do you agree, or disagree? Do you have any hints or tips?
Alan
Personal brochures, PDFs and optimising pics
-
Alan Knighting
- Posts: 4120
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:26 am
- Location: Monflanquin, Lot-et-Garonne, France
I love Adobe acrobat - I use it a lot for creating PDF's but I find it does cut the file size down a lot.....
One thing I've found about photos into documents and file size - One of my colleagues did a powerpoint presentation with just 3 photographs in and she was amazed at how huge the file size was. I found out that she had taken the photos into powerpoint as they stood and manually resized them there. This decreased the image size but not the file size of the image. It makes a huge difference to scale the image down in a photo package (and as you say optimise as far as the quality allows) before you insert it into a document.
I get the odd person, say 2-3 per year who still want printed material despite everything being on the net - I guess they might find it easier for comparison reasons? Also, I've some older friends who are convinced it's costing them an arm and a leg per minute on their dial up accounts (I know, how quaint - dial up!!!) so wouldn't want to linger too long on the net. I've just formatted all of my info into a brochure which is easily posted, anything to keep the customers happy
One thing I've found about photos into documents and file size - One of my colleagues did a powerpoint presentation with just 3 photographs in and she was amazed at how huge the file size was. I found out that she had taken the photos into powerpoint as they stood and manually resized them there. This decreased the image size but not the file size of the image. It makes a huge difference to scale the image down in a photo package (and as you say optimise as far as the quality allows) before you insert it into a document.
I get the odd person, say 2-3 per year who still want printed material despite everything being on the net - I guess they might find it easier for comparison reasons? Also, I've some older friends who are convinced it's costing them an arm and a leg per minute on their dial up accounts (I know, how quaint - dial up!!!) so wouldn't want to linger too long on the net. I've just formatted all of my info into a brochure which is easily posted, anything to keep the customers happy
Yes, you must optimise pics for websites - publishing them straight from a digital camera is madness!
If you have Photoshop or a similar programme you can manipulate your pictures so you reach the right balance between file size and quality.
First thing to know is that no computer monitor shows a better resolution than 72 dpi (dots per inch). So set your image resolution to this. If you are printing pictures off you want a higher resolution than this, but for websites it's a waste of memory. Pictures from a digital camera or scanner have a default resolution of about 300 dpi.
Then you need to size the physical dimensions of the picture.
And then, if you are using PhotoShop I find it has a really useful function, which is under the File menu: 'Save for web'. This lets you slide a 'Quality' tog up and down, from minimum file size to maximum. You can judge the point at which reducing the file size makes a visible difference to the quality of the pic. This lets you get the smallest file size possible, while maintaining the quality you want.
Using this, here are two images, the top one is 40kb in size, the bottom one is 6kb in size:
No real loss in quality there.
If you need to make alterations to the brightness, colours, etc, do all this with the image at its maximum size, as it is easier to see the effect of what you are doing.
Another great Photoshop tool: Filter > Sharpen > Unsharp mask. I am not sure what this means but the effect it has is to make your pictures sharper and more focused. In fact when you remove the effect from a picture you've done, the picture then looks out of focus.
Normal:
Unsharp mask:
That's about all I know about image optimisation - I'm sure there are more tricks to the trade, so please add your tips.
If you have Photoshop or a similar programme you can manipulate your pictures so you reach the right balance between file size and quality.
First thing to know is that no computer monitor shows a better resolution than 72 dpi (dots per inch). So set your image resolution to this. If you are printing pictures off you want a higher resolution than this, but for websites it's a waste of memory. Pictures from a digital camera or scanner have a default resolution of about 300 dpi.
Then you need to size the physical dimensions of the picture.
And then, if you are using PhotoShop I find it has a really useful function, which is under the File menu: 'Save for web'. This lets you slide a 'Quality' tog up and down, from minimum file size to maximum. You can judge the point at which reducing the file size makes a visible difference to the quality of the pic. This lets you get the smallest file size possible, while maintaining the quality you want.
Using this, here are two images, the top one is 40kb in size, the bottom one is 6kb in size:
No real loss in quality there.
If you need to make alterations to the brightness, colours, etc, do all this with the image at its maximum size, as it is easier to see the effect of what you are doing.
Another great Photoshop tool: Filter > Sharpen > Unsharp mask. I am not sure what this means but the effect it has is to make your pictures sharper and more focused. In fact when you remove the effect from a picture you've done, the picture then looks out of focus.
Normal:
Unsharp mask:
That's about all I know about image optimisation - I'm sure there are more tricks to the trade, so please add your tips.
Paolo
Lay My Hat
Lay My Hat
Photoshop is great if you can get to grips with it as it has massive potential but can be a bit overwhelming for a novice. An easier (and much cheaper!) option is the cut down version - Adobe Photo Elements. This too has the "save for web" function which lets you preview the side by side images to ensure you're not degrading the quality too much. It has more "guidance" with it than Photoshop but not too idiot level I've found with some packages.
Sorry to cover ground you techies already know but a word about file types. You'd use JPEG's for the web (or GIFs) but if you're wanting to print out for brochures you'll get a better print out by saving it as a tiff which doesn't compress the image but will give a much bigger file size... I'll not go into psd files and layers...!!
Sorry to cover ground you techies already know but a word about file types. You'd use JPEG's for the web (or GIFs) but if you're wanting to print out for brochures you'll get a better print out by saving it as a tiff which doesn't compress the image but will give a much bigger file size... I'll not go into psd files and layers...!!
-
livinginitaly
- Posts: 202
- Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:46 pm
- Location: Italy (at last!)
- Contact:
Just another quick pointer.
A common mistake that is often made is that people often insert an image onto a 'webpage', then adjust or 'scale' the dimensions.
This results in the two problems... firstly the reduced size image still has the same 'filesize' as the larger image, but also the image suffers a little distortion too. It really is best to get the image to the right dimensions in your graphics package of choice, before exporting.
As has been mentioned, for web images the dpi should be set to 72 and normally saved as a jpg (for photo or high detail images) or gif (for logos or images with large 'same colour' areas). Increasingly, png's are being used due to their low file size and support for transparency, however their use is limited due to not being properly supported by Internet Explorer.
For print, tif format was / is the standard for really high dpi images, but pdf's are becoming the format of choice by magazines. Certainly, if i was producing a brochure to be downloaded or sent via email, pdf would be the preferred choice.
As for software, photoshop is great for 'heavyweight' blends and merges for use with print, but Macromedia Fireworks is the one i use mostly for web work (plus it's around a third of the cost).
Cheaper alternatives include Adobe Elements (as mentioned) and Paint Shop Pro.
A common mistake that is often made is that people often insert an image onto a 'webpage', then adjust or 'scale' the dimensions.
This results in the two problems... firstly the reduced size image still has the same 'filesize' as the larger image, but also the image suffers a little distortion too. It really is best to get the image to the right dimensions in your graphics package of choice, before exporting.
As has been mentioned, for web images the dpi should be set to 72 and normally saved as a jpg (for photo or high detail images) or gif (for logos or images with large 'same colour' areas). Increasingly, png's are being used due to their low file size and support for transparency, however their use is limited due to not being properly supported by Internet Explorer.
For print, tif format was / is the standard for really high dpi images, but pdf's are becoming the format of choice by magazines. Certainly, if i was producing a brochure to be downloaded or sent via email, pdf would be the preferred choice.
As for software, photoshop is great for 'heavyweight' blends and merges for use with print, but Macromedia Fireworks is the one i use mostly for web work (plus it's around a third of the cost).
Cheaper alternatives include Adobe Elements (as mentioned) and Paint Shop Pro.
THANK YOU....my husband is a photographer (photo journalist), one of the first to use satellite, then digital etc. etc. BUT never has he used internet - photoshop he is a whizz at but the near divorces we have had over pixels is quite incredible....they say a little knowledge is dangerous...NOW I understand! 
Save to web...and we've been manipulating for hours!
Save to web...and we've been manipulating for hours!
-
Alan Knighting
- Posts: 4120
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:26 am
- Location: Monflanquin, Lot-et-Garonne, France
Paolo,
The ideal is Adobe Acrobat Pro. Adobe invented the whole concept of PDF and remains the market leader but the product is quite expensive.
There are less capable but cheaper alternatives. One of them is CutePDF. It is a print option and converts a Word document to PDF format and saves it to disk.
To find alternatives I suggest you log onto http://shareware.cnet.com/
and run a search for PDF creators. Actually, on that site you can search and find just about any software that is available as freeware, shareware or evaluation version.
Alan
The ideal is Adobe Acrobat Pro. Adobe invented the whole concept of PDF and remains the market leader but the product is quite expensive.
There are less capable but cheaper alternatives. One of them is CutePDF. It is a print option and converts a Word document to PDF format and saves it to disk.
To find alternatives I suggest you log onto http://shareware.cnet.com/
and run a search for PDF creators. Actually, on that site you can search and find just about any software that is available as freeware, shareware or evaluation version.
Alan
-
livinginitaly
- Posts: 202
- Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:46 pm
- Location: Italy (at last!)
- Contact:
I'm guessing from your comments in other threads that you have a copy of Adobe Photoshop. If that's the case you can select 'Save as' and from the options choose 'pdf'.If I want to make a PDF brochure which is downloadable and printable as per your suggestion - what do I need? Is it Adobe Acrobat Pro? I'm looking for the least expenditure to get the job done.
At least you can in verson7, not sure about others. I personally, use Macromedia Freehand but only because I've had it for years.
Both these solutions only provide 'flattened' pdf's as far as i know you can't include hyperlinks or other interactivity though.
Thanks, chaps.
I think I do have Photoshop 7 on my laptop (don't ask me how I got it) so that's good, it should save me the $300 for Acrobat.
That shareware site looks terrific - thanks for the tip, Alan. I can see I am going to be spending some time there.
On a connected issue, if you download shareware, are you likely to be downloading any sort of spyware at the same time?
I think I do have Photoshop 7 on my laptop (don't ask me how I got it) so that's good, it should save me the $300 for Acrobat.
That shareware site looks terrific - thanks for the tip, Alan. I can see I am going to be spending some time there.
On a connected issue, if you download shareware, are you likely to be downloading any sort of spyware at the same time?
Paolo
Lay My Hat
Lay My Hat
-
Alan Knighting
- Posts: 4120
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:26 am
- Location: Monflanquin, Lot-et-Garonne, France
Paolo,
I think you will find that CNET is a highly respected organisation. It's unlikely that you will receive viruses or spyware when downloading anything they offer or recommend.
Having said that, you really should be running anti-virus and anti-spyware all the time. I run two anti-virus programs, Norton and AVG, and I run Webroot Spy Sweeper. Between them they keep my system as clean as a whistle. When I go onto ADSL a firewall will also come into the formula.
Alan
I think you will find that CNET is a highly respected organisation. It's unlikely that you will receive viruses or spyware when downloading anything they offer or recommend.
Having said that, you really should be running anti-virus and anti-spyware all the time. I run two anti-virus programs, Norton and AVG, and I run Webroot Spy Sweeper. Between them they keep my system as clean as a whistle. When I go onto ADSL a firewall will also come into the formula.
Alan
-
livinginitaly
- Posts: 202
- Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:46 pm
- Location: Italy (at last!)
- Contact:
Norton is very good at what it does and certainly i've never had any complaints through all the versions i've ever used.
That said, in additon to norton, like Alan i also run Webroot Spy Sweeper. Additionally, i have Zone Alarm Pro as my 'firewall' and i run sweeps with 'Ad-Aware' and 'Spyware Scanner' every few days.
I don't believe i'm being overly paranoid either. Each of the software has various roles. From disabling 'virus', to blocking 'unauthorised' connections and preventing companies from deciding which marketing i should be exposed to by diagnosing my 'browsing habits'!
Norton is only aimed at preventing 'virus' and 'trojans', if 'spyware' is installed as part of a download then it can only assume that you are making an 'informed choice'.
That said, in additon to norton, like Alan i also run Webroot Spy Sweeper. Additionally, i have Zone Alarm Pro as my 'firewall' and i run sweeps with 'Ad-Aware' and 'Spyware Scanner' every few days.
I don't believe i'm being overly paranoid either. Each of the software has various roles. From disabling 'virus', to blocking 'unauthorised' connections and preventing companies from deciding which marketing i should be exposed to by diagnosing my 'browsing habits'!
Norton is only aimed at preventing 'virus' and 'trojans', if 'spyware' is installed as part of a download then it can only assume that you are making an 'informed choice'.
-
Alan Knighting
- Posts: 4120
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:26 am
- Location: Monflanquin, Lot-et-Garonne, France
Paolo,
If you like CNET then you might also like the following:-
http://www.winxpnews.com/
It is largely devoted to MS XP and is an extremely comprehensive source of technical and semi-technical information.
Both CNET and WinXPnews have weekly e-mail newsletters you can sign up for, at no cost. They both have sponsors and banner advertising from which they make their money.
Alan
If you like CNET then you might also like the following:-
http://www.winxpnews.com/
It is largely devoted to MS XP and is an extremely comprehensive source of technical and semi-technical information.
Both CNET and WinXPnews have weekly e-mail newsletters you can sign up for, at no cost. They both have sponsors and banner advertising from which they make their money.
Alan