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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |