Author Topic: Submitting photos for internet use (Read 1659 times)

ButlerFord45 · « **on:** December 27, 2002, 05:49:02 PM »

I gotta give it a try! :?

Butler Ford

ButlerFord45 · « **Reply #1 on:** December 27, 2002, 06:03:11 PM »

Ok, I got that one too big. Question for you that know, it seems simple enough, but since it's a computer, what I think is simple may not apply.

Is it a reasonably save assumption that at 100 pixel resolution you could expect about a 5"x4" picture on the screen if you have a 500x400 pixel jpg?

Butler Ford

spectr17 · « **Reply #2 on:** December 29, 2002, 02:00:03 PM »

Quote

A photo of 4X5 inches, at 110 dots per inch, will be 150 KB or less, which makes for quick downloading.

I'm stuck with a dial up at home and 150k pics kill me, especially having to upload them into email or sending them ftp to my website. If I try to read a post with 7 pics in it at 150k each it wil take several minutes to load. If I'm in a hurry I just click off and go to another post.

You can get most 4x5 images down to under 50k with no degradation with most image editing software using 72 dpi. Many people like me don't print our pics that much or at all, we just post them on the Internet or email them. Scanning pics at 110 dpi is not very useful for us.

One thing to remember is over 50% of the wild wild web users still are using a dial up modem. If you run a website or send email you have to keep this in consideration.

ButlerFord45 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 30, 2002, 01:27:31 AM »

Gatofeo,
Let me preface this with "this is my first digital camera and I have no concept of what I'm doing" :-D I took the picture, it was my first "exeperiment". I understand the hotspot. I admit that I took very little effort to set up the shot and didn't use a tripod so that would explain the shakies. The the camera's settings were: Image size- 1600x1200, picture quality-fine, white balance and iso were on auto (gotta play with thoese). The original photo was 1600x1200 and 764K. You are correct, that I changed the resolution before I croped. I'll remember to reverse the order of this operation.
I'd like to thank you for taking the time to help out with this, it is greatly appreciated.
I had thought of replying earlier with some comment that if the pic had been any good at all that you would have been able to read that it was a colt, not a S&W, but I wasn't sure that I could put enough smilies in it to let you know that I was laughing when I did, so I just didn't post.

Spectr, I'm on a dial-up, too. That is the reason for my little exercise here, I'm trying to figure size and resolution to share things I think are intresting. Did this picture cause you any problems? How long did it take you to download? If this one is causing problems with anyone getting in on the conversation, I'll gladly delete/remove it.

Butler Ford

Jack Crevalle · « **Reply #4 on:** December 31, 2002, 11:19:11 AM »

My $.02:

Don't just think in terms of two-dimensions when you're trying to edit pics to post or email.

If you have a choice between GIF, TIFF, JPEG, use JPEG, it has better compression. Also, check to see that whatever software you are using has it turned on. On the program I use you allows you to vary the amount of compression, so don't just assume that because you are using a compressed format that the output is compressed.

Don't stick to a standard size. If you are taking a picture of a longun for instance, crop it wide and short if your not interested in the backdrop.

Most compression algorithms rely on repeatability, the more of a certain value you have the more it can be compressed. What this means in this context is: don't shoot your subjects against a noisy background if you can avoid it. A noisy background is one that has a lot of random color and gradations of color in it. A checkerboard tablecloth looks busy but it has only two colors, a Christmas tree on the other hand has bright lights, different colors, different shades. Therefore, if you want to take a picture of a firearm for instance that Santa bought you, better to lay it on a nice solid tablecloth than to hold it in front of the tree if you want the smallest picture.

Digital pictures are 3 dimensional. They have a color depth. If you can save your image in thousands of colors instead of millions, without losing anything, you can keep the size smaller.

spectr17 · « **Reply #5 on:** January 04, 2003, 02:33:24 PM »

Hello ButlerFord45,

Your pic was no problem. Any pics under 75k don't take that long on a dial up to load. You start getting over 100k per pic and I really have to want to see the pic to wait for them to load.

The murals some people post that are 2x my screen width I never even bother, I just click off to another thread.

As Jack Crevalle pointed out, two pics of the same physical size and res can be way different in file size because of the background.

I'm using Adobe Photoshop 6.0 and I try and keep my pics to 500-600 pixels wide and under 75k in size. When I import my pics from my digital camera I save them in PS with a compression setting of "4" which seems to work the best for me on my webpags and sending in email.