Recalculate photo

[Joachim_L]

Oops, sorry of course the image will be "ruined" if JPG, PSD won't be touched.

[loukash]

<offtopic>

9 minutes ago, Juergen S said:

I strongly suspect you are from Hungary?

Nee, gebürtiger Tscheche. Ich mag den Svíčková-Rindsbraten mit böhmischen Semmelknödeln und dazu ausschliesslich Pilsner Urquell!
Die richtigen Ingredienzen sind allerdings nicht so leicht zu bekommen in der Schweiz, insbesondere das grobe Knödelmehl. Geht aber notfalls auch mit dem "doppelgriffigen Spätzlemehl" aus Südbaden…

</offtopic>

3 minutes ago, Juergen S said:

backfisch-mit-pommes-frites_2.psd

Danke, ich gucke es mir mal an.

[Juergen S]

That's really exciting. Lucás is probably now conjuring up an absolutely perfect result with AfPh. 😉

[Juergen S]

Svíčková-Rindsbraten mit böhmischen Semmelknödeln

That sounds delicious, we definitely have to try it. Do you have a recipe for it?

[loukash]

6 minutes ago, Juergen S said:

Do you have a recipe for it?

duckduckgo.com/?q=Svíčková+auf+deutsch

[Juergen S]

Dankeschön für den Link!

[loukash]

10 minutes ago, Juergen S said:

an absolutely perfect result with AfPh

Not absolutely perfect, but good enough.

Since you're not resizing, there's no need to use Lanczos for extra sharpening because it would add more artefacts in this scenario.
Just crop the original as you see fit and export as bilinear or bicubic @ quality 90:

If file size is not that much of an issue, I'd even go with PNG here because lossless:

And Photoshop with quality 40?!
Really?
No way:

 

By the way, I haven't used the "Export" persona but File > Export. There's the Preview button.
The Export persona is primarily useful if you need slices, especially multiple ones as batch export.

[loukash]

That all said…

There's one thing where Affinity is seriously lacking compared to Photoshop (and that feature dates back to the 1990s!) and that's the various PNG-8 algorithms:

[Juergen S]

Hello,

I have now done it exactly like this.

On the Mac, by the way, only one digit after the decimal point is displayed. It looks different with Lucás.

I rounded it up to 284 px height.

But ... even rounding up did not change the result for me. The image immediately becomes visibly blurred.

I'm beginning to think that this has something to do with the conversion to the Mac, because everything works perfectly on a PC, as you can see with Lucás and Joachim.

I don't have these problems in PS. It would be great if another Mac user could test this, to see if it's a genuine Mac problem.

Vielen Dank noch einmal an Dich Lucás! Thanks again to you Lucás!

Jürgen

 

[Juergen S]

And Photoshop with quality 40?!
Really?
No way:

Looks really great by me, no visible artefacts:

 

[Juergen S]

I'm going to make a "cut" and make myself something delicious to eat first instead! 😉

Bye and thank you for help!

Jürgen

[loukash]

47 minutes ago, Juergen S said:

no visible artefacts

You have to zoom in!

 

46 minutes ago, Juergen S said:

make myself something delicious to eat first instead

Hab inzwischen badische Spargeln vom Marktstand mit badischen Schupfnudeln vom Edeka-Regal zubereitet und meiner Frau serviert…

[lepr]

On 5/25/2021 at 3:49 PM, Juergen S said:

That [Joachim_L's bicubic 250px] looks great!

The question is: Can I make anything wrong or is it caused of my Mac platform? (I see you are working on a pc.)

I am using AP 1.9.3 on MacOS 10.14.6 and bicubic resampling gives me exactly the same result as Joachim_L.

[lepr]

2 hours ago, Juergen S said:

I'm beginning to think that this has something to do with the conversion to the Mac, because everything works perfectly on a PC, as you can see with Lucás and Joachim.

@loukash is using a Mac, as am I. Make sure you are using bicubic or Lanczos 3 (separable) instead of bilinear resampling. And do not use Lanczos 3 (non-separable) because its halo artefacts will be too pronounced.

[Juergen S]

"Make sure you are using bicubic or Lanczos 3 (separable)"

Hello anon2,

I have tried both options and I know that the biggest bug is always BEFORE the computer and not in it, but I have no idea what else I could do wrong now. I suspect it has something to do with my particular configuration.

Annoying, because I simply cannot work properly - in the sense of a workflow - in AfPh.

Jürgen

[Juergen S]

I have just meticulously tested it out again to rule out the possibility that I am saying something wrong.

The result:

For a JPG conversion that corresponds qualitatively (in the sense of the least possible noticeable artefacts) to a PS conversion of 40 percent, I have to set AfPh to exactly 70 percent. At 65 per cent, the result is already visibly worse than in PS.

In this particular case, however, the file size is not significantly larger. It is 76.75 KB compared to 113.01 in AfPh. This is hardly important for a single image, that is clear, but on a recipe page like our blog, the whole thing adds up, of course.

If a mobile user is on the move with 3G - and these are currently still the majority - the structure of a page can improve or deteriorate noticeably.

That's why I try to keep the JPGs as small as possible without any significant loss of quality. And according to my personal practical experience, these are the settings I mentioned above.

I could not find any significant difference between AfPh "progressive" and not "progressive". In any case, it makes no difference to the file size (113.01 to 113.14).

Cheers

Jürgen

P.S.: Of coure I've used "bikubisch" in AfPh.

[carl123]

1 hour ago, Juergen S said:

This is hardly important for a single image, that is clear, but on a recipe page like our blog, the whole thing adds up, of course.

If a mobile user is on the move with 3G - and these are currently still the majority - the structure of a page can improve or deteriorate noticeably.

Affinity has not (yet) been programmed to provide the best quality/size of exported JPGs

If exporting for use on the web where the smallest size versus quality is required, an external app is better suited to the task

Such as. https://www.jpegmini.com/

(Other optimisers are available)

Just export everything from Affinity at 100% quality then batch process all the files via JPEGmini before uploading to the web

There is a trial verion if you want to test it

 

[Juergen S]

Hello Carl,

thank you very much for your tip!

I own photoconvert 4 and it never occurred to me to use the app for JPG conversion.

I will try that right away. If the result is not good, I look at your tip very gladly.

Your footer statement:
Hahaha, why should you be better off than us? 😂

My statement is:

People always look at what separates them instead of what connects them!

Jürgen

[loukash]

2 hours ago, Juergen S said:

I simply cannot work properly - in the sense of a workflow - in AfPh

No worries, apparently you're also a victim of the Schmadobe Workflow Brainwash Indoctrication™, much like so many of us. Been there done that for two decades.
It takes time to regenerate the brain cells, just as with every other brainwashing and indoctrination process. Heck, it took me 6 years from the release and purchase of Designer 1.1 (and Photo a year later) until I was ready for the transition!

[Juergen S]

Haha, clearly ambiguous, I understand very very well what you mean!

Wie hat es Deiner Frau geschmeckt? Hat Sie dich gelobt oder verlassen? 😉
PS war immer mein Lieblingsprogramm, aber jetzt ist Schluss und Zeit, alte Zöpfe abzuschneiden. Ich will und ich werde mich mit AfPh einarbeiten.

[loukash]

57 minutes ago, carl123 said:

an external app is better suited to the task

On Mac, there's also the "Swiss Army knife of image editing", the venerable GraphicConverter. In my app arsenal since some 25 years now.
However, from my own tests just recently, GC turned out to be the worst of the three when it comes to JPEG compression. But perhaps I just wasn't patient enough to thoroughly test each of its about a dozen of JPEG compression algorithms: sometimes, having too many options in not the "best thing"…

[Juergen S]

JPG converter test

So I tried Photoconvert 4 and JPG Mini once now.

Photoconvert 4 does its job at least as well as PS and even produces slightly smaller files. Very good!

JPG Mini is killer in terms of quality, but unfortunately I don't think there's any way to set the quality level. ?? Everything runs fully automated. Or is that only the case with the demo, Carl?

The file size is too big for me with 151 KB, Photoconvert 4 produced an acceptable result with 74 KB at 40 percent, although it does not come close to the result of JPG mini in any way.

Jürgen

P.S.: Lass uns doch mal in Verbindung bleiben Lucás. Um es mit Humprey's Worten zu zitieren: "Vielleicht ist das ja der Beginn einer wunderbaren Freundschaft ..." 😁
post@gerne-kochen.de

[Juergen S]

Edit:

@Carl123

If I set the quality in Photoconvert to 70 percent, Photo Convert JPG mini even beats it in quality.

The file sizes are virtually identical at 151 to 156 KB.

[loukash]

1 hour ago, Juergen S said:

file size is too big for me with 151 KB

So, again, let's compare apples to apples.
Let's set the target size to 100 KB.
No metadata, no color profile, no other options, just pure JPEG pixels. (Stripped everything using the GC Browser from files that don't have the stripping options)
Then compare the results unscaled at 100% and at the "don't-fit-to-viewport" zoom factor in your browser.
Also keep in mind that the display resolution is a factor! I have a non-retina MacBook Pro, so 1 image pixel = 1 display pixel. Your mileage on retina displays may vary, possibly adding blur if not "@2x" etc. (I don't know, I've never worked with a retina display Mac yet.)

My candidates:

• Affinity, File>Export dialog (not Export persona), quality "51", resampler irrelevant because we're not resampling
  
   
• Photoshop, Save For Web, quality "40"
  
   
• GraphicConverter, Save For Web, quality "43%"
  
   
• Preview, quality "4th tick from the left" to give an approximate 100 KB file size
  

 

From what I can see here:

• Affinity will introduce slightly more artifacts at hard edges, but it attempts to keep the orange text sharp
• Photoshop has slighly less artifacts – negligible at 100% zoom factor – but the orange text is blurry
• GraphicConverter adds square artifacts in the gray background, orange text still remains quite sharp but with slightly jagged edges
• Preview always attempts to blur artifacts – good for a certain kind photos! – with the consequence of blurry orange text

[Juergen S]

Another quick newbie question, not worth starting a new thread for this:

Can I draw a rectangle with a certain aspect ratio or size in AfPh like in PS?

I couldn't find anything like that.

Thank you in advance

Jürgen