A message about BIG PICTURES

[doctorwayne]

Just a brief note to tell everyone, especially those with dial-up, that I have resized all photos that I have posted in any of the Forums on The Gauge. I didn't bump them up because I don't want to presume that this will draw a big audience: rather this is part of my apology to any and all who may have been irritated/annoyed by my inability to learn how to resize the images. Please check them out if you've had trouble viewing them in the past. All future posts will also be at this more manageable size. Thanks to all for your indulgence.

Wayne

 

[ezdays]

Wayne,

We all have learning curves doing things we've never done before. No need to apologize, we're just glad you got the hang of it, that's all.

 

[Chessie6459]

Glad you got the hang of it Wayne.

 

[Woodie]

Want an easy way to resize your pics for the net? No software or know-how needed. Just use hotmail.

Send an email to yourself, and use "attach picture" ( not file) and it will resize them accordingly and automatically for you, specifically for use on the net. Doesn't matter what the orignal size/resolution/etc is. resizes any pic to 640 * 480 and to about 30K.

 

[Marxed]

oh i don't mind large images at all, i actually enjoy them due to the more detail

 

[Woodie]

Marxed,

Anything about 640 * 480 and about 30K, when viewing on a computer, Marxed, is a waste of of time. How much of your screen the pic takes up is not really associated with the resolution, or size. A standard "photo" scanned at 75 dip (or your digital camera set to 300 ( or .3) is all that is needed to view on a computer screen. You won't see any finer detail in the photo, even if the resoluiton is higher. You computer screen is not capable of displaying that sorta resolution. The only benefit of higher resolution is if you want to zoom in on a small section of the photo. at 300 (or .3) you won't see the fine detail when zooming in, using, say a photo editing tool.

 

[ezdays]

Those with smaller resolution screens can't view a "big picture" without using the scroll bars. That takes a lot of the fun out of it. I've got a 1280 x 1024 resolution, and many times, I find myself scrolling through some pics people have posted here. I can only imagin what someone with a smaller screen resolution goes through.

I've got a tutorial on how to resize your pics and how to upload them to here. Uploaded is the safest bet since it doesn't rely on linking to another site. Go with 640 x 480 and under 65K and you can't go wrong.

 

[Marxed]

Marxed,

Anything about 640 * 480 and about 30K, when viewing on a computer, Marxed, is a waste of of time. How much of your screen the pic takes up is not really associated with the resolution, or size. A standard "photo" scanned at 75 dip (or your digital camera set to 300 ( or .3) is all that is needed to view on a computer screen. You won't see any finer detail in the photo, even if the resoluiton is higher. You computer screen is not capable of displaying that sorta resolution. The only benefit of higher resolution is if you want to zoom in on a small section of the photo. at 300 (or .3) you won't see the fine detail when zooming in, using, say a photo editing tool.

i was stating my personal preference <--


woodie: he didn't mention resoultion as in pixel/inch, for which i'm assuming your talking about that????




i was talking about size as in inchs on your screen... because last time i checked smaller images (inch-wise) show less detail.... and unless if you enjoy looking at thumbnails??


i wasn't stating that bigger images (inch-wise) were better in general for sharing, i was stating my personal preference


if anyone noticed i never post anything bigger than 600x480 in pixels, and as a professional in the media world, when i produce webpages or any content/flash programs/videos, i create everything to fit on a 600x800 screen without side scrolling as there are people out there who still have that out there.... but that will vary depending on the average computer specs of the targeted audience



EDIT: ezday, you replied while i was typing... i was stating a personal preference, not a general assumption for everyone... check around and my photos and you'll see that every one is under 600x480 and has a low file size

 

[ezdays]

EDIT: ezday, you replied while i was typing... i was stating a personal preference, not a general assumption for everyone... check around and my photos and you'll see that every one is under 600x480 and has a low file size

I understand that this was your personal preference and I agree, I've not seen any of your pics oversized here. I just wanted everyone to know why we have the restrictions we do on size. In addition to taking up bandwidth, they are difficult to view. Linked pics don't have these restrictions, but Woodie is right, once you get down to the 640 x 480 resolution for viewing on the screen, you don't need high-desity large file sizes as well. There are many who cannot view them because they only have a low-speed connection. I've got a cable connection that pings at around 3500 kbps, and still some of these linked photos here will "paint" on my screen so I wonder what it's like for those with a dial-up connection...

 

[Ralph]

I have to admit Wayne that while your photos were spectacular I sometimes avoided clicking on your threads because my dial up would take time and then I'd have to scroll around to see the image. Your work is great to look at so I'm glad you discovered how to resize. Cool! Show us some more!
Ralph

 

[spitfire]

Thanks Wayne - all those on dial-up or slower connections will appreciate it.

As far as the issue Woodie raises, computer screens only display at 72 pixels per inch, so for web use (or computer games) he's right that anything above 72 dpi is a waste. However, with image editing software you can zoom in on downloaded images to get a closer look. The higher rez those images are, the more you can zoom in without seeing the actually pixels so Marxed is right when he says higher resolution is more detail.

In other words both Woodie and Marxed are correct, but above all, Wayne scores by being a considerate poster, and taking pity on those with slower connections.

Val