Image size

[The Merry MillerParticipant @themerrymiller]

[The Merry MillerParticipant @themerrymiller]

I seem to be having trouble uploading some jpeg images.

I haven’t had this problem before but I noticed from my albums that the images were only 150px wide.

I have never knowingly uploaded 150px wide pics so I assume the inbuilt software adjusts them to suit.

Anyway the file size of the images I am trying to upload is around 2MB.

 

Perhaps I didn’t wait long enough for the upload to take place.

 

Comments would be welcomed.

 

Len. P.

 

[NJHParticipant @njh]

Hi Len

 

If your file is 2MB it’s much too big. I do a lot of club photography and standard competition quality digital images are 1024 x 768 pixels at 72 dpi ( This is the screen size for your standard monitor and many projectors -although some of the newer ones may allow a little larger) I think, even at this size, the file should be no larger than 500 KB and may well be as small as 120K.

 

EDITORS It would be very useful to know the optimum size for posting

 

– ie Pixel size XXX by XXX , dpi and quality / maximum file size.

 

Any guidance please?

 

Regards

 

Norman

Edited By NJH on 24/01/2012 15:55:08

[Gray62Participant @gray62]

a 1024×768 image suitable for posting to any website should not really be any larger than around 100kb. This will provide sufficient detail for the image to be viewed at maximum resolution for most home laptops/monitors.

If Hi-res images are required, then the publisher should provide a link to a separate image repository where Hi-res images can be downloaded.

Any imaging software package (including MS Paint) can be used to save images in a suitable pixel resolution for web publishing.

There are a number of cheaply available image manipulation packages that provide more versatility, personally, I use Serif products as I have found them to be reasonably priced and feature rich – for the price. No affilitation, just a satisfied customer for many years ( I have used their DTP software from V1.0 – and I still have the floppy disks for installation!!!! – LOL )

 

regards

 

CB

[NJHParticipant @njh]

Coalburner – I still use Lotus Organiser 97 as the best calendar / diary / scheduler I’ve come across and, much to my surprise, it loaded faultlessly to Windows7 when I upgraded! Luckily it’s not on floppies though – I’ve nothing to read those now.

 

regards

 

N

[The Merry MillerParticipant @themerrymiller]

Well Norman, to confound most people, the files have just been uploaded in the original file/pixel size.

 

I checked them in CS3 and the resolution stated 314 px/inch, how it got to that one I don’t know!

Some were about 2.4MB most were about 1.8MB

 

Anyway it appears that the problem was not waiting long enough for the files to upload.

 

Patience is a virtue some say but not always.

 

Len. P.

 

 

[The Merry MillerParticipant @themerrymiller]

Coalburner,

 

I can’t believe you loaded up LO 97 onto Win 7 and it still worked.

 

I’ll have to dig out my old copies, s***t, just realised I haven’t got a floppy drive anymore.

 

Len. P.

 

[The Merry MillerParticipant @themerrymiller]

 

 

Norman,

 

Have just uploaded a 5.7MB image, took just a little longer.

 

Len. P.

 

[Sub MandrelParticipant @submandrel]

I used to be able to upload five ~2Mb images in one go. For the last couple of months I have to upload one at a time and reduce them to about 170kb or I get an error.

 

I do this by resaving as a jpec with ‘compression’ set quite high although any degradation is minimal.

 

I also note that the system appears to crop the images as viewed on line the maximum zoomed size is much smaller than the original.

 

Neil

[NJHParticipant @njh]

Hi Len

 

I guess that answers it then! I see that all your images of the DRO system are around 5K each so it seems that the site carries out the appropriate resizing. From your point of view though by reducing your file sizes you will, of course,reduce the transmission time.

 

Norman

[Anonymous]

When I first tried to upload a 4Mbyte picture ages ago the system fell over. Since then I’ve been uploading 1.5 to 2Mbyte pictures. Having just had a look at some of my albums the system seems to have re-sized them to about 100kbytes anyway. So I might as well start uploading smaller files.

 

At least it’ll be quicker, and it does have the advantage that it’ll help disguise any boo-boos in my pictures.

 

Regards,

 

Andrew

[VersabossParticipant @versaboss]

There are lots of (free) picture resizers around. For XP I use one which only needs a right-click on the picture, abd the resize order shows up in the context menu. A short Google search gave the impression that what I have works only on XP, but for ‘more modern’ (phew!) Windows versions there is e.g. this one:

http://imageresizer.codeplex.com/

It is quite pointless to upload large files over slow connections and leave the resizing task at the receiver’s end.

Greetings, Hansrudolf

[NJHParticipant @njh]

Hi Len and All

 

I have just added an album to “My Photos” showing the way I store my lathe chucks.

I took one shot of this and set it as a jpeg image 1024 x 768 at 72 ppi. I then saved it at 4 different “qualities” :- 624 K, 125 K, 76 K, 62 K. and loaded all to a new Album in My Photo’s entitled ” Chuck Storage”.

 

I think you will agree that there is no difference between any of these images. The original file is 4.5M TIFF ( converted from a 12M RAW file) and that too is identical on my pc to all the compressed files.

The moral seems to be keep your files small and save time on your uploads!

 

Regards

 

Norman

[Clive HartlandParticipant @clivehartland94829]

There is a very good picture re-sizer called, ‘PixResizer’ and its free to download.

You can choose any of the template sizes or set your own.

 

Clive

[FalcoParticipant @falco]

Another excellent free re-sizer is FastStone Photo Resizer 3.1.

 

It’s easy to use and you can add watermarks or logos to your photos too. You can adjust exposure and add text or borders ..etc…

 

John

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Posted by NJH on 25/01/2012 17:47:07:

Hi Len and All

 

I have just added an album to “My Photos”………………………………………………………………

 

I think you will agree that there is no difference between any of these images. The original file is 4.5M TIFF ( converted from a 12M RAW file) and that too is identical on my pc to all the compressed files.

The moral seems to be keep your files small and save time on your uploads!

 

Regards

 

Norman

Hi Norman, I’m sorry but I have to disagree with you. While looking at them one by one without clicking on the show full size tab, there is not much apparant difference between them, however, when you click the show full size tap and then use the zoom facility there is a difference, all be it very subtle between the 624K and the 125K pics, but when you view the 76k in the show full size and zoom facility, the fine details like the grain of the wood and scratches on the the board, start to blend into the background and finally when you view the 62K picture in the same way, the grain on the wood and some of the scratches all dissapper and different colour toned pixels are evident on the board and some of the metal parts.

 

Try viewing the 624K picture in full size and with the zoom facility followed by the 62K picture in the same way, and the difference is easy to see.

 

Regards Nick.

[NJHParticipant @njh]

Hi Nick

 

Please don’t apologise for disagreeing with me – I’m quite used to it – my wife does it all the time and, like her, you are right !

Let’s say that, when viewed without the “show full size” and zoom, there is little difference between them.

I’m not really advocating posting 64K image files but was trying to illustrate the point that 2M files are quite unnecessary. In the case of my chuck storage board I think the 124K file, even when enlarged, gives all the information needed. It might be interesting to post a 124K file of some intricate mechanism and see how this appears. It’s a bit cold in the workshop at present but maybe I’ll try a photo or two of some clock bits soon and see how they turn out.

Regards

 

Norman

Edited By NJH on 27/01/2012 17:22:18

[Ian S CParticipant @iansc]

Quite a few of the photos in my gallery were taken on an old web cam (proberbly 1 Mpix or less, cost $NZ 4). have not tried my new web cam, it can go to 12 M pix!, the rest of the photos are from my camera, and reduced, the 2 to 5 Mpix photos would not load, proberbly because I’m on dial up. Ian S C

[Author]

Posts