Resizing

[Ramsman]

What picture dimensions to people prefer for posting here? Most of my
attempts so far have been too large or too small, and I can never
remember from one time to the next what settings I used.

I've experimented with IrfanView and Digital Photo Professional.

First, there's the size in pixels. Get it too small and you end up with
a 30kb postage stamp. Too big and it falls off the screen after taking
ages to download. (I had to give up looking at the recent Space Shuttle
series as there just weren't enough hours in the day.) DSLRs are usually
3:2, but widescreen monitors are 16:9. Do people still use 4:3 CRTs any
more?

My originals come from an EOS 350D. It was the bee's knees when I bought
it 6 years ago, but it's practically Stone Age technology now. Original
file sizes vary from about 2.5kb to around the 4kb mark. 8 megapixels.

Then there's the scanning resolution. Too small and the image is fuzzy,
too high a count and it's a waste of bandwidth.

As I mentioned before, I don't like Thunderbird. I'll try Opera one of
these days. I used to use Turnpike, but V6 won't work under 64-bit Win 7
Home Premium and I haven't yet been able to track down a copy of V5.

The Duxford Air Show http://duxford.iwm.org.uk/server/show/conEvent.3563
this weekend, and Saturday's weather forecast is reasonable (for England
in September anyway), so a few good shots might be possible.
--
Peter

[Greasy Rider[_8_]]

On 8/31/2011 05:16, Ramsman wrote:
> What picture dimensions to people prefer for posting here? Most of my
> attempts so far have been too large or too small, and I can never
> remember from one time to the next what settings I used.

(snipped the rest)

If you can't remember what good would it do to tell you now...?

[Ramsman]

On 31/08/2011 15:44, Greasy Rider wrote:
> On 8/31/2011 05:16, Ramsman wrote:
>> What picture dimensions to people prefer for posting here? Most of my
>> attempts so far have been too large or too small, and I can never
>> remember from one time to the next what settings I used.
>
> (snipped the rest)
>
> If you can't remember what good would it do to tell you now...?

Because I'd then have it writted on a piece of paper (just like
Bluebottle did in case someone asked him the time).

I've been experimenting in this ng and elsewhere, but only occasionally.
I've decided to lurk less and post more, even though my efforts aren't
up to the standard of the best posters.

--
Peter

[Savageduck[_3_]]

On 2011-08-31 08:10:55 -0700, Ramsman > said:

> On 31/08/2011 15:44, Greasy Rider wrote:
>> On 8/31/2011 05:16, Ramsman wrote:
>>> What picture dimensions to people prefer for posting here? Most of my
>>> attempts so far have been too large or too small, and I can never
>>> remember from one time to the next what settings I used.
>>
>> (snipped the rest)
>>
>> If you can't remember what good would it do to tell you now...?
>
> Because I'd then have it writted on a piece of paper (just like
> Bluebottle did in case someone asked him the time).
>
> I've been experimenting in this ng and elsewhere, but only
> occasionally. I've decided to lurk less and post more, even though my
> efforts aren't up to the standard of the best posters.

If you resize to 800 x 600, 1024 x 768, or 1280 x 1024 you shouldn't
get too many complaints from most viewers.

As a rule of thumb limiting the long dimension of any image to 1024
should work and then saved with enough compression to bring the file
size to around 300Kb or less.

Here is a shot of a P-51D resized to 1280 x 868 and 293Kb:



--
Regards,

Savageduck

[RustY ©]

On 31/08/2011 10:16, Ramsman wrote:
> What picture dimensions to people prefer for posting here?

You should suit yourself on picture format as everyone has a different
shaped monitor these days so whatever you choose will not be perfect for
all. Most picture viewing software is made to accommodate these
variations anyway, we are used to different shapes and sizes.

> I've experimented with IrfanView and Digital Photo Professional.

I prefer Photoshop and use CS3 [well, about 1% of it].
>
> First, there's the size in pixels.....................

I started with 800x600 in the days of small monitors then 1064x768 as
the monitors got bigger and more folks changed their screen resolution.
Now, I lean towards 1600x900 as it suits my screen here but if you've
got a 2 1/4" square print from the 1960s you do whatever you can, we
still wanna see it!


> My originals come from an EOS 350D. It was the bee's knees when I bought
> it 6 years ago, but it's practically Stone Age technology now. Original
> file sizes vary from about 2.5kb to around the 4kb mark. 8 megapixels.

Your 350D is still a great camera. More megapixels does not always give
a 'better' photo. Buy better lenses first, that will show the greatest
improvement in your pics for the money. It looks like you meant MB
[megabyte] not kb [kilobit] for your image size (4kb is very small).

> Then there's the scanning resolution.

Sorry, I never scan prints so I can't say anything other than I would
assume, it is best to scan at max resolution and then reduce your file
size with software if required. And on file size - I have seen some
great shots posted here at less than 100KB. It depends on what you
start with.

[the Legend of LAX[_2_]]

On 8/31/2011 8:37 AM, Savageduck wrote:

>> I've been experimenting in this ng and elsewhere, but only
>> occasionally. I've decided to lurk less and post more, even though my
>> efforts aren't up to the standard of the best posters.
>
> If you resize to 800 x 600, 1024 x 768, or 1280 x 1024 you shouldn't get
> too many complaints from most viewers.
>
> As a rule of thumb limiting the long dimension of any image to 1024
> should work and then saved with enough compression to bring the file
> size to around 300Kb or less.
>
> Here is a shot of a P-51D resized to 1280 x 868 and 293Kb:
>
>

Savageduck: I've seen your posts on this & other news groups. I would
say they rank right up there with the best of them.

To the original poster: I use Irfanview to resize for news groups. I
have taken to using 1280 x 853, with a quality of 80%. Pics come out
approximately 100kb - 200kb. Going lower in percentage would probably
not affect the quality here noticeably, but would yield a smaller
picture still.

Lately I've been processing images with Capture One with no quality
reduction & resized to 1280 x 853. I then have to resize to the same
size but a reduction in quality of %80. These pictures come out 200kb -
300kb, a little larger than I like. I may consider downgrading further.


--
Dale G Elhardt
Cypress Ca
I welcome change. But I prefer bills.
http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=7702

[Savageduck[_3_]]

On 2011-08-31 11:27:21 -0700, the Legend of LAX > said:

> On 8/31/2011 8:37 AM, Savageduck wrote:
>
>>> I've been experimenting in this ng and elsewhere, but only
>>> occasionally. I've decided to lurk less and post more, even though my
>>> efforts aren't up to the standard of the best posters.
>>
>> If you resize to 800 x 600, 1024 x 768, or 1280 x 1024 you shouldn't get
>> too many complaints from most viewers.
>>
>> As a rule of thumb limiting the long dimension of any image to 1024
>> should work and then saved with enough compression to bring the file
>> size to around 300Kb or less.
>>
>> Here is a shot of a P-51D resized to 1280 x 868 and 293Kb:
>>
>>
>
> Savageduck: I've seen your posts on this & other news groups. I would
> say they rank right up there with the best of them.

Thanks for that Dale. I enjoy your more prolific output in the various
NGs I have shared with you.
....and I am somewhat envious of your proximity to so many fine subjects
at work.

>
> To the original poster: I use Irfanview to resize for news groups. I
> have taken to using 1280 x 853, with a quality of 80%. Pics come out
> approximately 100kb - 200kb. Going lower in percentage would probably
> not affect the quality here noticeably, but would yield a smaller
> picture still.
>
> Lately I've been processing images with Capture One with no quality
> reduction & resized to 1280 x 853. I then have to resize to the same
> size but a reduction in quality of %80. These pictures come out 200kb -
> 300kb, a little larger than I like. I may consider downgrading further.

I am a Mac user and do my editing with CS5 and usually save the
finished product with crop tool presets setting dimensional proportion
& size. I usually finish to a 12 x 8 crop, unless other
proportions/aspect ratio are needed for the intended result. I save the
CS5 created JPEG at maximum quality, with file sizes of anywhere
between 3-14Mb.

My default viewer on my Mac is "Preview". With that it is a simple
matter to resize for online distribution for both a decent screen size
Currently I use 1280 as a long edge dimension for most of my shared
images. (Preview has several convenient presets to use). I then save
the resulting reduced jpeg file usually to less than 300kb in this
case of a screenshot of one of my first bits of HDR experimentation
taken at Schipol in 2009, down to 184kb for a 1280 x 720 @ 72 ppi image.




--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Netko]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:37:24 +0100, Savageduck wrote
(in article <2011083108372416807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>):

> If you resize to 800 x 600, 1024 x 768, or 1280 x 1024 you shouldn't
> get too many complaints from most viewers.
>
> As a rule of thumb limiting the long dimension of any image to 1024

Using StatCounter's figures for the last three months (and making a few
somewhat heroic assumptions and simplifications), 98% of users have monitors
which are at least 1024 pixels wide and 68% have monitors at least 1280
pixels wide.

It follows that your rule of thumb will mean viewing pictures at full size
should not be a problem for two-thirds of people; nor should it involve too
much scrolling for almost everybody else.

[Bob (not my real pseudonym)]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:10:55 +0100, Ramsman >
wrote:

>On 31/08/2011 15:44, Greasy Rider wrote:
>> On 8/31/2011 05:16, Ramsman wrote:
>>> What picture dimensions to people prefer for posting here? Most of my
>>> attempts so far have been too large or too small, and I can never
>>> remember from one time to the next what settings I used.
>>
>> (snipped the rest)
>>
>> If you can't remember what good would it do to tell you now...?
>
>Because I'd then have it writted on a piece of paper (just like
>Bluebottle did in case someone asked him the time).
>
>I've been experimenting in this ng and elsewhere, but only occasionally.
>I've decided to lurk less and post more, even though my efforts aren't
>up to the standard of the best posters.

Perfect makes practice!

Please post - even if they aren't "Glenn" or "Legend" class, you
likely see things in places others can't get to.

Personally, I like 'em big - but many folks have limited bandwidth
and/or patience, so probably best to keep images to a size of around
1024 pixels wide or less. JPEG format, using a compression of 7~8 on
a scale of 10 being highest quality (every program seems to have its
own numbering system for JPEG compression.)

And unless you wear Kevlar® Fruit o' the Looms®, avoid using yEnc
encoding in whatever software you use to post... ;^}

Bob ^,,^

[Ramsman]

On 31/08/2011 17:08, RustY © wrote:
> On 31/08/2011 10:16, Ramsman wrote:
>> What picture dimensions to people prefer for posting here?
>
> You should suit yourself on picture format as everyone has a different
> shaped monitor these days so whatever you choose will not be perfect for
> all. Most picture viewing software is made to accommodate these
> variations anyway, we are used to different shapes and sizes.
>
>> I've experimented with IrfanView and Digital Photo Professional.
>
> I prefer Photoshop and use CS3 [well, about 1% of it].
>>
>> First, there's the size in pixels.....................
>
> I started with 800x600 in the days of small monitors then 1064x768 as
> the monitors got bigger and more folks changed their screen resolution.
> Now, I lean towards 1600x900 as it suits my screen here but if you've
> got a 2 1/4" square print from the 1960s you do whatever you can, we
> still wanna see it!
>
>
>> My originals come from an EOS 350D. It was the bee's knees when I bought
>> it 6 years ago, but it's practically Stone Age technology now. Original
>> file sizes vary from about 2.5kb to around the 4kb mark. 8 megapixels.
>
> Your 350D is still a great camera. More megapixels does not always give
> a 'better' photo. Buy better lenses first, that will show the greatest
> improvement in your pics for the money. It looks like you meant MB
> [megabyte] not kb [kilobit] for your image size (4kb is very small).
>
Thanks for the comments.

It's not that the 350D isn't any good, it's just that newer models have
better facilities. I'd been looking at the 60D just out of interest, and
a few days later discovered my nephew had one, so played with it a bit
at a family wedding. It's more convenient as far as the screen and the
settings display go, and a faster fps speed. As you say, the megapixel
count isn't important.

Better photos depend a lot on who's pushing the button. I've known
people with much fancier cameras than I've had in the past whose efforts
were consistently poor. My failures OTOH are due to the weather, people
getting their heads in the way, pilots flying at the wrong speed and the
phases of the tides and moon.

I did indeed mean MB. Win Exp was showing n,nnn KB as the file size and
I was thinking in terms of nnn KB for posted pics. Managed to confuse
myself.

Lenses I use are the Canon standard EFS 18-55 1:3.5-5.6 for when I need
a wider angle, EF 28-105 1:3.5-4.5 USM, and Sigma 50-500 1:4-6.3 APO.
The Sigma isn't the sharpest thing around, but it's acceptable,
especially if you can't afford better. I bought it second-hand for just
over half the normal price. Haven't tried printing bigger than A4 yet,
but I might one of these days.

>> Then there's the scanning resolution.
>
> Sorry, I never scan prints so I can't say anything other than I would
> assume, it is best to scan at max resolution and then reduce your file
> size with software if required. And on file size - I have seen some
> great shots posted here at less than 100KB. It depends on what you start
> with.
>
>
I meant the resolution when resizing. Should have made myself clearer.


Time to get cracking with the blower brush and fetch the big Lowepro
from the loft.

--
Peter

[Ramsman]

On 31/08/2011 21:42, Netko wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:37:24 +0100, Savageduck wrote
> (in article<2011083108372416807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>):
>
>> If you resize to 800 x 600, 1024 x 768, or 1280 x 1024 you shouldn't
>> get too many complaints from most viewers.
>>
>> As a rule of thumb limiting the long dimension of any image to 1024
>
> Using StatCounter's figures for the last three months (and making a few
> somewhat heroic assumptions and simplifications), 98% of users have monitors
> which are at least 1024 pixels wide and 68% have monitors at least 1280
> pixels wide.
>
> It follows that your rule of thumb will mean viewing pictures at full size
> should not be a problem for two-thirds of people; nor should it involve too
> much scrolling for almost everybody else.
>
>

Thanks for the information. I had to ask because obviously not everybody
has their monitor set to 1920 x 1080 as I do.

--
Peter

[Savageduck[_3_]]

On 2011-09-01 04:11:46 -0700, Ramsman > said:

> On 31/08/2011 21:42, Netko wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:37:24 +0100, Savageduck wrote
>> (in article<2011083108372416807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>):
>>
>>> If you resize to 800 x 600, 1024 x 768, or 1280 x 1024 you shouldn't
>>> get too many complaints from most viewers.
>>>
>>> As a rule of thumb limiting the long dimension of any image to 1024
>>
>> Using StatCounter's figures for the last three months (and making a few
>> somewhat heroic assumptions and simplifications), 98% of users have monitors
>> which are at least 1024 pixels wide and 68% have monitors at least 1280
>> pixels wide.
>>
>> It follows that your rule of thumb will mean viewing pictures at full size
>> should not be a problem for two-thirds of people; nor should it involve too
>> much scrolling for almost everybody else.
>>
>>
>
> Thanks for the information. I had to ask because obviously not
> everybody has their monitor set to 1920 x 1080 as I do.

Both my iMac and my MacBook Pro 17 have 1920 x 1080 displays. The thing
to remember is if you are just viewing the images there is little need
to see them at full screen or at the aspect ratio of that display.
Therefore a file configured large enough that any aspect ratio and
reasonably sized image can be viewed on most displays is good enough.
Hence my suggestion of maintaining a horizontal long dimension of 1024
to 1280, or a vertical dimension of 600 to 900, will allow most to view
your images comfortably.

If I get a request for a full screen 1920 x 1080 at less radical jpeg
compression, I will get the file to that individual using another
method such as this.
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEWc.jpg >


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Pat Heuvel]

On 31/08/2011 7:16 PM, Ramsman wrote:
> What picture dimensions to people prefer for posting here? Most of my
> attempts so far have been too large or too small, and I can never
> remember from one time to the next what settings I used.
>
> I've experimented with IrfanView and Digital Photo Professional.
>
I use both Irfanview and DPP, depending on what I'm trying to achieve.

For posting JPEGs, try 1200 x 800 and 90% quality. That should give a
reasonable file size, and was used for the attached image.

Good luck,
Pat