Image Compression Image Problem From Photo LIbrary

[Artifice]

We have just purchased an image for use in a magazine from Fotosearch's website.

The problem is the image was listed with a file size of 28MB
and was 12 inches by nine at 300dpi.

Now the pixel size is fine the problem is that the image supplied after we paid for it was just 800kb in size and turns out to be a JPG file that was saved at a Photoshop setting of just 7.

When we questioned what was going on here we got the following reply which I do not understand. Can someone confirm this for me. To my mind you cannot save an 800kb JPG as a TIF file and suddenly have more detail appear from nowhere! Am I right about this? Shouldn't I be supplied wit hthe original TIF file?

If we are buying an image that costs us $179 then I would expect to receive a 28MB file and not a 800kb one. Is this too much to ask?

------------------------
message from Fotosearch
------------------------

Dear Valued Customer,

Image size and file size is not the same number. Images use a compression format, usually JPEG which makes the file size a smaller number. When you open a image in a photo program such as photoshop, you will see the uncompressed (larger)size in the lower left hand corner which will be the image size. You can always change the file to a TIFF file to unocmpress it. I show the file size is about 800k, image size is 31.1mb 13"x9" at 300dpi. Feel free to call me if you have any other questions.

 

[kiddpete]

A jpeg is a compressed image so that you can indeed get a larger size when it is uncompressed as it would be if opened in photoshop. Also, photoshop can save the file as a TIF or a PDS or whatever you want. One thing that should NOT be done is to save it again as a jpeg. When a file is compressed into the jpeg format, some of the original detail is lost and cannot be recovered. If it's saved a second time, even more of the image will be lost. Same for the third time, etc. As for whether you should get the original, uncompressed image, I guess that depends on the terms of the sale. If they gave you what they said they would, which they probably did, then you live and learn. It would be tough to send a 30meg image for a dial up connection which is probably what most of their customers use.

 

[tad1952]

It is common practice to save images for download as jpg to speed up transmission time.

As a test, I just set up a sample file in photoshop
12x9 cmyk at 300 dpi

uncompressed tif size is 37.1 mb
uncompressed eps size is 46.6 mb

image saved as jpg with setting of 12 is 7.1 mb

image saved as jpg with setting of 7 is 1.5 mg

image saved as jpg with setting of 5 is 1.1 mg

There is only a slight loss in detail when the 3 are compared side by side at 100%. If I am saving as jpg for my own internal use, I usually save with the highest setting of 12 in order to preserve as much detail as possible.

Open the file in Photoshop, save as a tif or eps with no compression & at 100%, that is the detail you can expect from the supplied image.

 

[Artifice]

Thanks tad1952 for the detailed reply.

However, I am aware of most of these details. What I am trying to establish is whether the detail you had in your original tif would be present in the smaller jpg saved at a setting of 7? I don't think it would be.

Imagine this, you start with a tif file of, say, 28 MB size, then you save it as a jpg at compression setting 7. If you then save that file as a tif and compare it to the original tif they are going to be different in quality. Surely, you cannot get detail back that you "compressed" out?

Kiddpete, the sales page said the file was 28MB in size - my day to day job is as senior art director on a monthly magazine and so I imagined that such an image would be very high quality - so I was surprised to get an 800kb jpg instead!

As for the size of the file - I don't think that anyone working in images that are 28MB in size and which cost $180 would be using dial-up so that is no excuse not to supply the image even at 28MB. Look at other image resources such as Corbis - they all use large size images.

I am still shocked that this has happened and am trying to work out what is going on....

Thanks for the replies,
Mark

 

[kiddpete]

Since you are an art director, you should know that a jpeg is a 'lossey' format. Some of the detail is thrown away, and the extent of the loss is controlled by the compression setting. Therefore, you are correct. The expanded file will be missing data that the original image had whether it was TIF or some other format. However, the response you received was correct. The expanded file will be larger, and is, I assume, the size promised. It is simply missing some of the detail that the original image had. Perhaps, you could not see the difference between the two images if you saw the before and after. There might, for example, be a large area of one color in the image. The compression could throw away these pixels, and still not lose any detail. Thus, it is possible that you got a good quality image. I'm not in your business, so I don't know what the customary terms and practices are. You may indeed have been ripped off, or maybe not.

 

[Artifice]

Hi KIdd,

I do know that a JPG is a lossy format.....however, I was promised a JPG that was 28MB in size and as such you have to assume that it must be saved at the highest JPG setting and as such the loss would be minimal. I was prepared to live with some loss in this image as it was the only image we could find thatw as suitable for the article, but I thought that a 28MB JPG would be minimal in it's loss. I have had to save my own illustrations as JPGs sometimes and have always done it at the 100% setting and loss is cut down substantially.

If I am promised a 28MB JPG I am right, I think, to be dismayed when in fact I get an 8oo KB JPG instead!

For the record, there are not solid areas of colour and the image I received was full of JPG artefacts and a lot of banding between colours. So, I don't think the compression was sympathetic with this image and especially not for the money charged.

Has anyone else has similar experiences?

Mark

 

[kiddpete]

Sounds like you got ripped off. Does Fotosearch have that reputation?

 

[Artifice]

I don't know, it is the first time I have dealt with them. I was wondering if anyone else has had problems.

 

[barehug]

If you were promised a jpeg that was 28MB in size, then you have been ripped off, but it seems that the company promised you an Image that was 28MB in size! the last few threads have explained to you quite exhaustively about the difference.
Contact the company and get them to send you a CD with the original image in an uncompressed format by post. You will have to pay for P&P(and a bit for the CD as well, maybe).
I'm guessing that you will probably not know the difference, when you get it and it will probably print in the same quality.

Moe: It could have been a real ugly situation, but luckily I managed to shoot him in the spine.

 

[kiddpete]

BTW, you never did say how big the file is when expanded in photoshop. So, how big is it?

 

[duncdude]

GET REAL! how the heck is the Fotosearch meant to send 28mb of raw data to people with modems? I think we all know that the image is 28mb when opened and conveniently shrunk using a JPG algorithm to enable it to be sent over the web. If it was a 28mb JPG it would open to around 300mb. You could use a picture that big for a bill poster!!! I once had some muppet ISDN me a 90mb TIFF file that took half a day of transmission when I asked for a picture that needed to be used at about 2 inches square. Thanks for that!

Duncan