<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Preparing JPEGs for the Web &#038; More Photoshop Tips	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2011/09/18/preparing-jpegs-for-the-web-more-photoshop-tips/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2011/09/18/preparing-jpegs-for-the-web-more-photoshop-tips/</link>
	<description>The blog of bird photographer Arthur Morris</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 20:15:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Troy		</title>
		<link>https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2011/09/18/preparing-jpegs-for-the-web-more-photoshop-tips/comment-page-1/#comment-98671</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Troy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2011 03:01:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/?p=6885#comment-98671</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Traditional landscape photos can be harder to get below the 200k limit because more of the photo has in focus/fine detail usually.
A lot of bird photography has a lot of bokeh or completely OOF areas that the jpg compression algorithm can compress greatly without any detectable decline in image quality.  This is the same sort of reason that raw files of higher iso are usually a higher file size than lower iso files, because the noise can&#039;t be compressed compared to the smoother low iso files.

&lt;font id=comreply&gt;Hi Troy,  I completely understand that but I do some landscapes and some bird images with tons of fine detail; the 200kb files look great....  I do agree that huge files will of course look better to some degree.  &lt;font&gt;  artie
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Traditional landscape photos can be harder to get below the 200k limit because more of the photo has in focus/fine detail usually.<br />
A lot of bird photography has a lot of bokeh or completely OOF areas that the jpg compression algorithm can compress greatly without any detectable decline in image quality.  This is the same sort of reason that raw files of higher iso are usually a higher file size than lower iso files, because the noise can&#8217;t be compressed compared to the smoother low iso files.</p>
<p><font id=comreply>Hi Troy,  I completely understand that but I do some landscapes and some bird images with tons of fine detail; the 200kb files look great&#8230;.  I do agree that huge files will of course look better to some degree.  </font><font>  artie<br />
</font></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Becky Field		</title>
		<link>https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2011/09/18/preparing-jpegs-for-the-web-more-photoshop-tips/comment-page-1/#comment-98229</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Becky Field]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:17:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/?p=6885#comment-98229</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I love these clean, white shots. By the way, greetings from Frank Nicoletti from Hawk Ridge in Duluth, MN. Met him in the banding blind this morning.

&lt;font id=comreply&gt;Hi Back to Frank.  It has been a while.  Is Dudley still around?   &lt;font&gt;  artie]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love these clean, white shots. By the way, greetings from Frank Nicoletti from Hawk Ridge in Duluth, MN. Met him in the banding blind this morning.</p>
<p><font id=comreply>Hi Back to Frank.  It has been a while.  Is Dudley still around?   </font><font>  artie</font></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
