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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
WARNING: This is a photograph
In article ,
Whiskers 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. it only needs to determine the display size and scale factor (e.g., retina or not), and perhaps if it's a phone for reduced bandwidth demands. 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? computers are there to do work for people, not the other way around. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
WARNING: This is a photograph
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
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? anyone who has set up a web server knows exactly what he meant (a clue was in the part you snipped). |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
WARNING: This is a photograph
On 1/24/2015 11:10 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
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 + $$$ I'm sorry but I don't think it is possible to present images caterering for both cellphones and 27" iMac 5k Retina displays. Even leaving out the question of the number of pixels, the size of the image is a major consideration in it's selection. But then, you were joking, weren't you? It is a large image and did not load fast. That, I have fixed, but I cannot give you an image which looks OK at cellphone size and still suits Davouds 27" iMac. That's when I thought you were joking (about the cellphone). Not looking for cellphone size. I often use a portable Wifi hot spot, which runs off of my cell phone service. -- PeterN |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
WARNING: This is a photograph
On 1/24/2015 11:17 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 22:38:39 -0500, PeterN wrote: On 1/24/2015 6:46 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 18:04:37 -0500, PeterN wrote: On 1/24/2015 4:36 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 12:21:18 -0500, PeterN wrote: On 1/24/2015 2:17 AM, Eric Stevens wrote: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../LR--00126.jpg 13 years ago, 5 Mpx. A paddle wheel on the Murray River Neat shot. A small request. I have high speed cable and the image loads slowly. Can you post smaller images in the future. Sorry about that. I overlooked that that was a print sized for an A4 output. This one should be better. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../LR--00126.jpg I like the way 'high-speed fibre' is slow. It's like the way the smallest tube of toothpaste is 'large' and the next size is 'giant family size'. Actually high speed fiber cable is pretty quick. However, if I am not at home, and am using my cell--- slow + $$$ 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 But Joey is an original image I created. -- PeterN |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
WARNING: This is a photograph
On 1/25/2015 10:05 AM, Savageduck wrote:
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 Yup! I have someitmes posted an image from my iPhone, and processed in a computer. Those files are small. -- PeterN |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
WARNING: This is a photograph
On 1/25/2015 3:45 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
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. \ Mosr people I know have a screen monitor @ 72 or 96 ppi. I could be wrong, wouldn't downloading a higher res image be a waste of bandwidth. -- PeterN |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
WARNING: This is a photograph
PeterN wrote:
On 1/25/2015 10:05 AM, Savageduck wrote: 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 Yup! I have someitmes posted an image from my iPhone, and processed in a computer. Those files are small. Well here is an iPhone shot, unprocessed, with no resizing, straight from the iPhone CameraRoll to Dropbox. It is a shot of the current state of my Mac, waiting for FedEx to deliver a new HDD. As I said my current usenet access is via iPad. https://www.dropbox.com/s/de4wow1tx1qyhxi/Photo%20Jan%2023%2C%2014%2032%2025.jpg?dl=0 -- Savageducki |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
WARNING: This is a photograph
PeterN wrote:
On 1/25/2015 3:45 AM, Eric Stevens wrote: 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. \ Mosr people I know have a screen monitor @ 72 or 96 ppi. I could be wrong, wouldn't downloading a higher res image be a waste of bandwidth. Since for online display purposes you are correct, 72, or 96 ppi is what the image would be displayed at regardless of the native ppi the file had when posted. However, there is no difference in the file size of a jpeg saved at 360 ppi, or 72 ppi. Usually the images I share are posted at 360 ppi, but are viewed by the recipient at 72, or 96 ppi. If they choose to download the file and print it rather than just view it, they have a 360 ppi file to work with. The file size is the same, and there is no bandwidth penalty Note: My iPhone pix all go out at 72 ppi, but sometimes there physical dimensions might not be correctly sized.. -- Savageduck |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
WARNING: This is a photograph
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:03:01 -0500, PeterN
wrote: On 1/24/2015 11:10 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: 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). Not looking for cellphone size. I often use a portable Wifi hot spot, which runs off of my cell phone service. Aah! Anyway the image is now much smaller. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
WARNING: This is a photograph
nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson 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? anyone who has set up a web server knows exactly what he meant (a clue was in the part you snipped). If you don't know the answer to the question, why say anything... -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Warning | Digital | Digital Photography | 8 | January 10th 08 12:55 AM |
Warning! If you get an email | Charles Schuler | Digital Photography | 38 | February 6th 06 09:18 AM |
When does a photograph stop becoming a photograph? | baker1 | Digital Photography | 41 | December 29th 05 07:04 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 |