WARNING: This is a photograph

Savageduck wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 1/25/2015 3:45 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
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.

Just for viewing, yes.

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.

Actually you don't post an image at 360 or 72 or
whatever PPI. You might tag it as that, but the tag has
no significance at all. It is ignored.

That is true for display, but also for printing.

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

They do no matter what you tag it as. The tag is
ignored, and all that counts is what pixel dimension you
of the downloaded image. If there are enough pixels, it
looks fine and if not it doesn't.

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..

Actually they are almost never "correctly sized" in
terms of the PPI tag. Whether it is a display driver or
a print driver the tag is ignored and the image is
resampled to the size that is specified.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 11:25:52 -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.

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.

Are you proposing that usenet be modified so that screen size be
registered to enable senders to restrict their images to what they
regard as suitable screens?

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?

Tough. Besides, a large screen doesn't mean 'pixel peeping'. A large
screen means a large image e.g.
http://www.rembrandthuis.nl/media/im...htwachtrh.jpeg
A small screen means a small image e.g. http://tinyurl.com/lpcsj6n

You couldn't properly appreciate the large image in a small format.
Nor would the small image be at all improved if it was enlarged to the
size of the large image.

Each image works best at it's particular size and there is a limit to
which you can either shrink or expand them without losing their
original impact.

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.

The potential range of sizes is too large to be able to predict the
device that is going to be used to view the image.

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

"it's" referring to what? The image or the device?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:17:55 -0500, 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.

It's pixels that matter, not just pixels per inch. For that you to
know screen size. It may or may not be a waste of bandwidth, it all
depends on the intended purpose of the image and whether or not the
sender feels like resampling the image for download purposes.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

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...

that's the question i ask of you, since you did exactly that!

you obviously do not know and you will as usual, won't admit you didn't
understand what he meant. i even gave you a clue where to look.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

Are you proposing that usenet be modified so that screen size be
registered to enable senders to restrict their images to what they
regard as suitable screens?

it has nothing to do with usenet.

don't post direct jpeg links. post a link to a web page that sends the
appropriate sized image, including ones sized for retina displays.

this stuff is standard web design and anyone who has set up a web site
knows how to do this.

here's a start:
https://bensmann.no/the-hidpi-web/

https://developer.apple.com/library/...NetworkingInte
rnet/Conceptual/SafariImageDeliveryBestPractices/ServingImagestoRetinaDi
splays/ServingImagestoRetinaDisplays.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40012449-
CH3-SW1

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?

Tough. Besides, a large screen doesn't mean 'pixel peeping'.

they are if they are 'trying to examine an image'.

A large
screen means a large image e.g.
http://www.rembrandthuis.nl/media/im...htwachtrh.jpeg
A small screen means a small image e.g. http://tinyurl.com/lpcsj6n

nope. those are two different size images, which can be viewed on any
size display the user wants.

You couldn't properly appreciate the large image in a small format.

nonsense.

Nor would the small image be at all improved if it was enlarged to the
size of the large image.

no need to do that.

Each image works best at it's particular size and there is a limit to
which you can either shrink or expand them without losing their
original impact.

you're *still* missing the point.

someone reading this thread on an iphone or ipad is *not* going to want
to download a huge image when they can't see the difference, but they
might want to download it again *later*, when they're at home and on a
larger display.

the web server should serve up whatever image looks best on the device
they're currently using and if they like what they see they can come
back and 'examine it' (pixel peep) on a hi-dpi display.

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.

The potential range of sizes is too large to be able to predict the
device that is going to be used to view the image.

nonsense. nobody has to predict anything. the computer can figure it
out *for* you. it's *really* good at that.

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

"it's" referring to what? The image or the device?

the image.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 15:05:59 GMT, 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

I'm looking at it on a 24" screen 1920 x 1200 at about 95 dpi. Your
image has a brilliant blue sky as a background, a sharply delineated
subject, and yet it still doesn't look as sharp as I have come to
expect from you. Have you overdone the down-sizing or is it an
artifact of Drop Box?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:06:20 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

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.

I didn't realise that. It's rather good. Did you apply any of the
graffiti?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

nospam wrote:

Le Snip

it has nothing to do with usenet.

don't post direct jpeg links. post a link to a web page that sends the
appropriate sized image, including ones sized for retina displays.

this stuff is standard web design and anyone who has set up a web site
knows how to do this.

here's a start:
https://bensmann.no/the-hidpi-web/

https://developer.apple.com/library/...NetworkingInte
rnet/Conceptual/SafariImageDeliveryBestPractices/ServingImagestoRetinaDi
splays/ServingImagestoRetinaDisplays.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40012449-
CH3-SW1



Now those actually made some interesting reading.
However, that might apply to web design, I fail to see just how it applies
to those of us tinkering about with our images, and then choosing to share
them with others here, just using cloud services such as Dropbox, Adobe
Creative Cloud, or any of the photo sharing services, at an acceptable
viewing size.




--
Savageduck

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...

that's the question i ask of you, since you did exactly that!

you obviously do not know and you will as usual, won't admit you didn't
understand what he meant. i even gave you a clue where to look.

Are you drinking?

I am the one who asked the question. I do not know of
any way to download images from the net using
ImageMagick tools. It was stated that it could be done,
and I asked how.

You don't know how, you don't even know what the
question is or who asked it!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article

, Savageduck wrote:

it has nothing to do with usenet.

don't post direct jpeg links. post a link to a web page that sends the
appropriate sized image, including ones sized for retina displays.

this stuff is standard web design and anyone who has set up a web site
knows how to do this.

here's a start:
https://bensmann.no/the-hidpi-web/

https://developer.apple.com/library/...NetworkingInte
rnet/Conceptual/SafariImageDeliveryBestPractices/ServingImagestoRetinaDi
splays/ServingImagestoRetinaDisplays.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40012449-
CH3-SW1


Now those actually made some interesting reading.
However, that might apply to web design, I fail to see just how it applies
to those of us tinkering about with our images, and then choosing to share
them with others here, just using cloud services such as Dropbox, Adobe
Creative Cloud, or any of the photo sharing services, at an acceptable
viewing size.

someone sharing photos could set up their own server for sharing them
(it's not that hard) or they could use a service that can do the above
automatically.