Discussion
doesn't your browser resize it ? 
740i said:
whats wrong with it Simpo?
1) It's nearly 1Mb. This not only wastes bandwidth but if anyone has dial up, they'll be sitting there for four minutes while it downloads - so they're not going to bother. TP wastes time and bandwidth uploading it, and so does everybody downloading it.
(Call me old-fashioned but it's a principle thing
) 2) It's 1504 pixels wide, twice what PH will display. Ted's autocruncher is exactly that; it serves a purpose but degrades image quality - so that even broadband users won't see the image at its best. It reduces image size but not file size.
That is why the sticky entitled 'Please read this before posting pics' is where it is.
Homework for tonight TP
: 1) Resizing images to 750px wide
2) Practicing JPG compression (software permitting) - file size doesn't need to be more than 100Kb, possibly 200Kb if complex.
If you can't figure this out, post for help or mail me - but do try it because it's fundamental to digital photography.
Protocol aside, thanks for posting the pic; it looks a little underexposed but that's pretty normal for a D70. In fact that gives me an idea for next week's homework
focusonme said:
[quote=740i]whats wrong with it Simpo?
Be patient coz I'm still a novice too, still puzzled by Simpo's explaination. The 1mb file size I do understand, as an adsl user must be mindful to be thoughful of the poor people when submiiting a picin the future. However, it's the pic dimensions that puzzle me, when I right click on the pic and go into properties it tells me the pic is 750 x 499 which I assumed was ok, where am I getting confused?
John
740i said:
focusonme said:
[quote=740i]whats wrong with it Simpo?
Be patient coz I'm still a novice too, still puzzled by Simpo's explaination. The 1mb file size I do understand, as an adsl user must be mindful to be thoughful of the poor people when submiiting a picin the future. However, it's the pic dimensions that puzzle me, when I right click on the pic and go into properties it tells me the pic is 750 x 499 which I assumed was ok, where am I getting confused?
John
The size you see is the auto sized picture - it has already been reduced in size by Teds software by the time you see it. I briefly saw the full size image as it downloaded - I'm only on 3MB broadband.
Try pasting the link to the pic directly into your browser address box - //ph.uncle-dave.co.uk/upload/images/leavesv1.jpg
True size is 1240x824 pixels - though it appears to be shrinking as I type!!!! Oh no, its just my browser resizing the pic. It is bigger than that.
>> Edited by victormeldrew on Saturday 29th October 21:19
740i said:
[quote=740i]whats wrong with it Simpo?
However, it's the pic dimensions that puzzle me, when I right click on the pic and go into properties it tells me the pic is 750 x 499 which I assumed was ok, where am I getting confused?
John
Thats just Teds wizardry programing.
740i said:
Be patient coz I'm still a novice too
Don't worry, everyone was once
740i said:
when I right click on the pic and go into properties it tells me the pic is 750 x 499 which I assumed was ok, where am I getting confused?
Victor Meldrew just beat me to it.
As for the underexposure, it's not the end of the world. Sometimes it's just the beginning, witness:
What did I do?
1) Rotate image to make the brickwork level
2) Use 'Levels' to correct exposure at both ends
3) Resize to 750px wide
4) Sharpen
5) Save for web and choose compression.
It now (IMHO) looks better and at 130Kb is 13% of the filesize of the original. Don't print it at A4, but for web it's all you need.
It also explains why one of my favourite saying is 'Pressing the button is only the beginning'. That's not to say you shouldn't always try to get it right in-camera, you should, but there are lots of things yuo can do afterwards as well
Edited to add: Victor has just demonstrated how the PH autocruncher leaves horrible jagged edges
>> Edited by simpo two on Saturday 29th October 21:23
Simpo
still trying to get my dumb head around this. I occasionally post pics on another forum where it is not neccessary to cut and paste as it is here, you just attach your file, but they do have a maximum file size limit of 57kb otherwise it just wont attach,isn't this a better way of doing it to prevent people uploading large files?
John
still trying to get my dumb head around this. I occasionally post pics on another forum where it is not neccessary to cut and paste as it is here, you just attach your file, but they do have a maximum file size limit of 57kb otherwise it just wont attach,isn't this a better way of doing it to prevent people uploading large files?
John
740i said:
I occasionally post pics on another forum where it is not neccessary to cut and paste as it is here, you just attach your file, but they do have a maximum file size limit of 57kb otherwise it just wont attach,isn't this a better way of doing it to prevent people uploading large files?
57Kb is a bit mean but yes, it's another way of doing it and probably easier. I suppose for the amount of photos posted on here versus Ted's bandwidth, he's OK with the current system. His autocruncher doesn't reduce filesize, just image size, so that his pages still fit onto screens and are easy to read. Some people assume that this means their photos are automatically made perfect for posting, but as I hope I've explained, this is certainly not the case.
740i said:
Simpo
still trying to get my dumb head around this. I occasionally post pics on another forum where it is not neccessary to cut and paste as it is here, you just attach your file, but they do have a maximum file size limit of 57kb otherwise it just wont attach,isn't this a better way of doing it to prevent people uploading large files?
John
Except of course no photos are actually posted here at all, only links to photos that reside in other places on the web. (edited to add... but you knew that)
>> Edited by GetCarter on Saturday 29th October 21:59
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff