A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

WARNING: This is a photograph



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 25th 15, 05:10 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default WARNING: This is a photograph

On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 22:00:14 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/24/2015 6:46 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 18:04:37 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/24/2015 4:36 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 12:21:18 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/24/2015 2:17 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../LR--00126.jpg
13 years ago, 5 Mpx. A paddle wheel on the Murray River


Neat shot.
A small request. I have high speed cable and the image loads slowly. Can
you post smaller images in the future.

Sorry about that. I overlooked that that was a print sized for an A4
output. This one should be better.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../LR--00126.jpg


I like the way 'high-speed fibre' is slow. It's like the way the
smallest tube of toothpaste is 'large' and the next size is 'giant
family size'.



Actually high speed fiber cable is pretty quick. However, if I am not at
home, and am using my cell--- slow + $$$


I'm sorry but I don't think it is possible to present images
caterering for both cellphones and 27" iMac 5k Retina displays. Even
leaving out the question of the number of pixels, the size of the
image is a major consideration in it's selection.

But then, you were joking, weren't you?


It is a large image and did not load fast.


That, I have fixed, but I cannot give you an image which looks OK at
cellphone size and still suits Davouds 27" iMac. That's when I thought
you were joking (about the cellphone).
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #12  
Old January 25th 15, 05:13 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default WARNING: This is a photograph

On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 22:18:23 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I'm sorry but I don't think it is possible to present images
caterering for both cellphones and 27" iMac 5k Retina displays. Even
leaving out the question of the number of pixels, the size of the
image is a major consideration in it's selection.


of course it's possible but you need more than a direct link to a jpg.
the web server needs to serve up the appropriate image.


It's nothing to do with the technical problems of imaging and
everything to do human appreciation of imaging. Complex images need a
large screen to be appreciated and will be lost on a cellphone.
Conversely, anything which looks OK on a cellphone is likely to
present problems at the larger sizes.

I expect you to disagree but it is all a matter of personal taste.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #13  
Old January 25th 15, 05:17 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default WARNING: This is a photograph

On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 22:38:39 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/24/2015 6:46 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 18:04:37 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/24/2015 4:36 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 12:21:18 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/24/2015 2:17 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../LR--00126.jpg
13 years ago, 5 Mpx. A paddle wheel on the Murray River


Neat shot.
A small request. I have high speed cable and the image loads slowly. Can
you post smaller images in the future.

Sorry about that. I overlooked that that was a print sized for an A4
output. This one should be better.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../LR--00126.jpg


I like the way 'high-speed fibre' is slow. It's like the way the
smallest tube of toothpaste is 'large' and the next size is 'giant
family size'.



Actually high speed fiber cable is pretty quick. However, if I am not at
home, and am using my cell--- slow + $$$


I'm sorry but I don't think it is possible to present images
caterering for both cellphones and 27" iMac 5k Retina displays. Even
leaving out the question of the number of pixels, the size of the
image is a major consideration in it's selection.

But then, you were joking, weren't you?


It ya don show me mo respet a'll git ma fren joey atter u. ;-)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20131117_five%20pointz_0096.jpg



.... an I'll get my mum to deal with joey
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kV5xPg5kbU8/hqdefault.jpg
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #14  
Old January 25th 15, 06:43 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default WARNING: This is a photograph

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I'm sorry but I don't think it is possible to present images
caterering for both cellphones and 27" iMac 5k Retina displays. Even
leaving out the question of the number of pixels, the size of the
image is a major consideration in it's selection.


of course it's possible but you need more than a direct link to a jpg.
the web server needs to serve up the appropriate image.


It's nothing to do with the technical problems of imaging and
everything to do human appreciation of imaging. Complex images need a
large screen to be appreciated and will be lost on a cellphone.
Conversely, anything which looks OK on a cellphone is likely to
present problems at the larger sizes.

I expect you to disagree but it is all a matter of personal taste.


you're missing the point.

you don't send one image to everyone. what you do is send the
appropriate image for a given device.

if the user has a 5k display, send them the best you've got. if they're
on a cellphone, don't waste their data cap or time sending what they
can't see (or your web bandwidth for that matter). send something
smaller.
  #15  
Old January 25th 15, 09:45 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default WARNING: This is a photograph

On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 00:43:07 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I'm sorry but I don't think it is possible to present images
caterering for both cellphones and 27" iMac 5k Retina displays. Even
leaving out the question of the number of pixels, the size of the
image is a major consideration in it's selection.

of course it's possible but you need more than a direct link to a jpg.
the web server needs to serve up the appropriate image.


It's nothing to do with the technical problems of imaging and
everything to do human appreciation of imaging. Complex images need a
large screen to be appreciated and will be lost on a cellphone.
Conversely, anything which looks OK on a cellphone is likely to
present problems at the larger sizes.

I expect you to disagree but it is all a matter of personal taste.


you're missing the point.

you don't send one image to everyone. what you do is send the
appropriate image for a given device.


You haven't b been following. I sent one image and leff other people
to sort out how they wanted to look at it.

if the user has a 5k display, send them the best you've got. if they're
on a cellphone, don't waste their data cap or time sending what they
can't see (or your web bandwidth for that matter). send something
smaller.


If you have a cellphone don't waste time (and all that) trying to use
a cellphone trying to examine an image aimed at 20" monitors or
larger.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #16  
Old January 25th 15, 02:28 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Whiskers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 188
Default WARNING: This is a photograph

On 2015-01-25, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I'm sorry but I don't think it is possible to present images
caterering for both cellphones and 27" iMac 5k Retina displays. Even
leaving out the question of the number of pixels, the size of the
image is a major consideration in it's selection.


of course it's possible but you need more than a direct link to a jpg.
the web server needs to serve up the appropriate image.


That might work for some people, but web servers don't recognise all the
factors influencing the sort of image most suitable for each visitor.

I tend to use "imagemagick" or "graphicsmagick" to download image files
without the usual browser overheads.

Perhaps posters could consider providing URLs for images of different
sizes, so that people could choose for themselves? QVGA, VGA, 720p,
1080p, perhaps? Or just indicate the file size?

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
  #17  
Old January 25th 15, 04:05 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default WARNING: This is a photograph

Whiskers wrote:
On 2015-01-25, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I'm sorry but I don't think it is possible to present images
caterering for both cellphones and 27" iMac 5k Retina displays. Even
leaving out the question of the number of pixels, the size of the
image is a major consideration in it's selection.


of course it's possible but you need more than a direct link to a jpg.
the web server needs to serve up the appropriate image.


That might work for some people, but web servers don't recognise all the
factors influencing the sort of image most suitable for each visitor.

I tend to use "imagemagick" or "graphicsmagick" to download image files
without the usual browser overheads.

Perhaps posters could consider providing URLs for images of different
sizes, so that people could choose for themselves? QVGA, VGA, 720p,
1080p, perhaps? Or just indicate the file size?



In these NGs most of the regulars are sharing images of recent, or reedited
work, and each of us has a different motive for doing that. None of us are
sharing image files here for general publication. That said, I don't
particularly like image files which have been downsized to the point of
being useless. Also, I have a particular workflow, and if I am going to
resize an image file for online sharing I have a preset export
configuration in Lightroom which restricts the vertical dimension to
940-960px and the jpeg file size to a max of 800MB.
What I do not have the time for, and I am not going to do, is is post a
selection of sizes. If any of my images don't work for you on whatever
device/display you choose to use for viewing images, so be it.

As Eric, Peter, Tony, and others here know, if an original RAW or jpeg file
is requested we are prepared to share those within reason.

So the regulars here have probably seen this before, but for demo purposes,
and the benefit of newcomers, or lurkers, here is one of my images resized
with Lightroom to what I believe is a reasonable size.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ef7v7exxua1g805/DNC_5166-Edit-1.jpg?dl=0




--
Savageduck
  #18  
Old January 25th 15, 04:17 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default WARNING: This is a photograph

Whiskers wrote:
I tend to use "imagemagick" or "graphicsmagick" to download image files
without the usual browser overheads.


How do you use ImageMagick to download files?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
  #19  
Old January 25th 15, 04:51 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default WARNING: This is a photograph

| It's nothing to do with the technical problems of imaging and
| everything to do human appreciation of imaging. Complex images need a
| large screen to be appreciated and will be lost on a cellphone.
| Conversely, anything which looks OK on a cellphone is likely to
| present problems at the larger sizes.
|

I appreciate seeing these photos and unlike some
others my day is not actually scheduled down to
the second, so I can afford to "waste" a few of
them.

I like to see the high resolution photos. After all,
it *is* about looking closely at a photo -- not
something to be done on a cellphone. But what
you posted as reduced size is not bad.

I find it interesting that some people seem to be
headed in the direction of abstract art, with heavy
use of filters. Maybe that makes sense, since
extremely good detail has become relatively easy
to achieve.
Savageduck posted one awhile back, of a ship
coming into harbor. It was almost breathtakingly
cinematic in the way he had intensified the mood
through filters. This photo is not so "arresting",
but it does leave a wide berth to association and
evocation, to the point of being almost dreamy.
Yet the subject is almost technical. At first it struck
me as bland, but it gets more interesting as I look
at it.


  #20  
Old January 25th 15, 05:25 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default WARNING: This is a photograph

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I'm sorry but I don't think it is possible to present images
caterering for both cellphones and 27" iMac 5k Retina displays. Even
leaving out the question of the number of pixels, the size of the
image is a major consideration in it's selection.

of course it's possible but you need more than a direct link to a jpg.
the web server needs to serve up the appropriate image.

It's nothing to do with the technical problems of imaging and
everything to do human appreciation of imaging. Complex images need a
large screen to be appreciated and will be lost on a cellphone.
Conversely, anything which looks OK on a cellphone is likely to
present problems at the larger sizes.

I expect you to disagree but it is all a matter of personal taste.


you're missing the point.

you don't send one image to everyone. what you do is send the
appropriate image for a given device.


You haven't b been following.


yes i have

I sent one image and leff other people
to sort out how they wanted to look at it.


that's the whole problem. that's the wrong thing to do.

if the user has a 5k display, send them the best you've got. if they're
on a cellphone, don't waste their data cap or time sending what they
can't see (or your web bandwidth for that matter). send something
smaller.


If you have a cellphone don't waste time (and all that) trying to use
a cellphone trying to examine an image aimed at 20" monitors or
larger.


what if that's all someone has? what if they aren't interested in pixel
peeping and just want to look at the image?

the solution is for the web server to serve up the image that works
best on the device being used to access it, which is not all that
difficult. that way, *everyone* can see the image, using whatever
device they want, and not download data they can't see.

there's also no way to know its size until a download attempt is made
if you just post a random jpeg link.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Warning Digital Digital Photography 8 January 10th 08 01:55 AM
Warning! If you get an email Charles Schuler Digital Photography 38 February 6th 06 10:18 AM
When does a photograph stop becoming a photograph? baker1 Digital Photography 41 December 29th 05 08:04 PM
WARNING maark General Equipment For Sale 4 July 28th 03 07:38 PM
WARNING maark Digital Photo Equipment For Sale 3 July 28th 03 07:19 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.