Uploading pictures
- Thread starter Herc Driver
- Start date
Guess it worked...now I'll have to learn how to take pictures people would actually want to see :thumb:
Herc,
You can keep your pictures a little bigger (dimensions up to 640x480 are allowed) by degrading the quality. This is usually done by specifying a number when you select "advanced options" when saving, or when you "save for web" (depending on what program you are using.
You need less than 100dpi when displaying on screen (more if printing).
Andrew
You can keep your pictures a little bigger (dimensions up to 640x480 are allowed) by degrading the quality. This is usually done by specifying a number when you select "advanced options" when saving, or when you "save for web" (depending on what program you are using.
You need less than 100dpi when displaying on screen (more if printing).
Andrew
There is a "stickey' thread above to give you step-by-step instructions on how to keep your picture large enough (640 x 480 pixels) and as Andrew says, reduce the quality to meet the 65K file size requirement. There is also another thread here in the photo section, "new f3" that covers the same territory.
Thanks. I read through the sticky thread (btw...nice F3 pic) and tried to use the aforementioned steps with Adobe Photoshop...although I set that test pic to 640 x 480, I still had 300k file size. I adjusted it down to 64k and produced the picture I posted here but it automatically reduced to 47k when saved. I still need to "play" with the file sizes in Adobe and figure out what the program can do...maybe I'll break down and actually read the "help" menu about resizing. To be continued...
I took a look at your image, it got reduce to 290 x 218 pixels, which physically reduced the picture as well as the file size. You should be able to maintain a 640 x 480 (or thereabouts) physical size and reduce the quality to lower the file size. Photoshop should have a way of "optimizing" or "save to web" or something like that, and it should give you feedback on the proposed file size while maintaining the physical size.
That's a great pic - and as long as there are trains in any of them, I wouldn't say it is a "waste of space" 
Andrew
Andrew
I agree with Andrew, you can't waste space posting any kind of train pics.. It looks like you got the fomula down OK now...:thumb::thumb:
It looks like you got the fomula down OK now...:thumb::thumb:
Nothin' wrong with that one Herc. Another way to post a pic without restriction is to link to the pic somewhere else on the web (like your homepage or a photo hosting site etc.) using the "insert image" button above the text field when posting.
That is a good way to do it too, but in deference to those that do not have broadband, threads with a lot of high density, large pictures tend to discurage these people from opening up a thread. I know, I've been there and would usually hit the "stop" button when I saw pictures starting to "paint" themselves on the screen. The other negative about linking is that if the link is broken for any reason, the picture won't appear in the post. These are the reasons why I don't like links in the photo contests.SAL Comet said:
That having been said, it is an option for members to use if that's the way they want to do photos and does cut down on the storage space here on The Gauge.
I argee Don, I guess I made a poor chose of words, I didn't mean to sound like image size and file size were irrelivent. Only that "the gauge" limits didn't apply. I too I'm annoyed by giant pic's that won't fit the screen and make the entire thread that wide. I'm on a 28K dial up so I totally understand.