WARNING: This is a photograph

On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 03:28:28 GMT, Savageduck
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 22:56:48 GMT, Savageduck
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
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?

With my desktop out of operation until Tuesday I am not sure quite how to
respond to your remarks regarding sharpness, as for now I can only open the
DB link on my iPad in various apps, and it seems to be as it last appeared
on my desktop when I exported it to DB via Lightroom.

The sky was blue, not a cloud anywhere that day. I have posted other images
from that shoot and this is the first time that sort of observation has
been made.
That said, here is the same P-38L this time passing left to right, and a
few frames away from the "not so sharp" shot. There might be an issue using
the Dropbox iOS app to get the link, but I just don't know how that could
cause problems with a jpeg on their server.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4pnva6zxuz6u43m/DNC_5153-Edit-2-1.jpg?dl=0

The question is, what does Drop Box do with it? I tried to download it
but Drop Box required that I sign in and presented me with a giant
immovable form which vastly overflowed my screen. I couldn't see more
than a quarter of it, let alone complete it. :-(


That is odd. I sent that as a public link which all viewers should be able
to viewer in a browser, or download without having an open DB account.

As for what DB does with it, that is an area where I can say I don't have a
clue.

That's no good for a detective.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , PeterN wrote:

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 so you know, the old 96/72 ppi thing hasn't been applicable in thirty
years now.

The ppi (pixels per inch) is different from monitor to monitor, not a fixed
value set by the operating system. Going to Best Buy's homepage and listing
monitors on "best selling":

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/computer-monitors/all-monitors/pcmcat143700050048.c?id=pcmcat143700050048

You'll see these PPI's:

HP 20" @ 1600x900: 92 PPI
AOC 19.5" @ 1600x900: 94 PPI
HP 21.5" @ 1920x1080: 102 PPI
HP 25" @ 1920x1080: 88 PPI

Etc, etc.

The old 72 PPI vs 96 PPI came from the fact that the original Mac had a
72PPI screen.

Microsoft, not having a built in screen, still needed to report an internal
PPI (points per inch, not pixels) and wrote their software and treated the
physical screen as displaying 4/3 of what it could actually display, in
spite of most screens at the time (i.e. 30 years ago) were about 72PPI. So
Microsoft's software "assumed" every screen was 96 PPI (i.e 72 + (72/3)).
This allowed for bitmap fonts to be created with greater detail, but it
also meant that on every 72" screen (i.e. most), all text would be rendered
1/3 larger, but the 1:1 relation between screen and printer that Mac
users "enjoyed" was lost.

And, like I said, this was only relevant 30 years ago. Today, with vector
fonts and high resolution displays, this is no longer a problem, so people
don't have their displays set to 72 or 96 ppi.

--
Sandman[.net]

On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 23:05:32 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/25/2015 10:12 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 20:55:00 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/25/2015 5:13 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
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?


Nope. I saw that guy shadow boxing in an area that used to be full of
grafitti. He had just finished his workout, but was happy to go at it
again. Here is what part of the area looked like.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/five%20pointz%20partial.jpg

That's all been cleaned off now, hasn't it?


Defacedd is a more accurte work. that was an art school. The lease was
up. The owner whitewashed the building to keep it from being called
"significant art." The building demolished. That whole are has become
yuppified.

I thought something like that had happened.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

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 misunderstood what he meant and you wont admit it. it's that simple.

What are you ranting about? I have no idea what he
meant! That is exactly why I asked!
You don't have any idea either, or you would answer the
question.

i know what he meant.

But you can't tell anyone, eh?

Giggle snort...

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

wrong on that too.

his wording was not precise but it's clear to anyone who has done this
before what he meant and how it works. you obviously have not and are
thoroughly confused (or just want to argue).

I want to know what he meant. If you would get over wanting to
argue, maybe you could answer the question.

i'm not arguing. i'm simply pointing out that you missed the obvious.

Apparently I nailed it with that question. The OP can't
answer it, and neither can you.

But it seems that as usual, you know nothing and just argue.

The fact is that what he said was:

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

Personally I use wget for that purpose, and I have no idea
how one would do it with ImageMagick.

the thread is about serving up images in an appropriate size, which is
one use for imagemagick. i'm surprised you don't know that.

The statement was about downloading images using
ImageMagick instead of a browser. I'm not surprised at
all that you didn't bother to read that, and have no
clue what you are talking about.

And we can trust that I probably know far more about
using ImageMagick tools for resizing images that you can
even begin to imagine. Here is, or example, a line from
the script that I use to downsize an image. You
wouldn't know how to change it for upsizing, and
wouldn't have a clue why half of the options are even
used!

convert input_file.jpg -depth 32 -gamma 0.454545 \
-filter Lanczos -sampling-factor 1x1 -resize 900x600 \
-quality 89 -gamma 2.2 -depth 8 -density 360 \
-units PixelsPerInch output_file.jpg

Go ahead, tell me what you think that does! We need
some humor here!

he's no doubt using it server-side to resize an image for a *user* to
download.

That is not what he said.

he's not using it himself to download (nor could he).

That is what he said.

You still haven't understood what the question was about,
and couldn't answer it if you did. What a hoot!

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

In article , Whiskers wrote:

Eric Stevens:
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.

nospam:
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.

Mine does - i.e. I send a normal resolution image to a normal display and a
2x or 3x resolution image to a "retina" display. I wrote about it he

http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/webblog/2012-08-30/Atlas_Har_Stod_For_Retina-grafik

In swedish, though. But looking at the screendumps, you can see the
difference. This is done server-side, to save bandwidth.

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

I use imagemagick exclusively.

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?

Indeed, but it's easier doing it like nospam said - link to a web page,
which itself handles all that.

Consider this page, for instance:
http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/arkivet/2014-08-15/Josef_Tina__Elias

Visiting that from a normal desktop browser will send you image files that
are 561 pixels wide. Visiting it from a mobile phone will send you images
that are 300 pixels wide, but, visiting it from a retina mobile phone, will
send you a 600 pixels wide image.



--
Sandman[.net]

Sandman wrote:
Indeed, but it's easier doing it like nospam said - link to a web page,
which itself handles all that.

Consider this page, for instance:
http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/arkivet/2014-08-15/Josef_Tina__Elias

Visiting that from a normal desktop browser will send you image files that
are 561 pixels wide. Visiting it from a mobile phone will send you images
that are 300 pixels wide, but, visiting it from a retina mobile phone, will
send you a 600 pixels wide image.

A total waste of time on your part at the server.

Regardless of which of those images is sent, the chances
are great that the display will have to resize the image
anyway. No matter which specific hardware you aim it
at, there are many others that are different, and some
of the ones that are what you target will need a
slightly different display size simply because the user
has changed the screen to something other than the
default.

If the display mechanism has to resize it anyway, what
you did to start with, for size differences like the
those shown, is redundant. It it were for a size
difference large enough to significantly affect download
time things would be different, but that isn't the case
for 300x vs 561x vs 600x pixel dimensions.

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

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

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? --

Depends, the image he linked to is 1457x940, which is 60% of your screen,
if you zoomed it up to cover your entire screen, it would be fuzzy.



--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Sandman:
Indeed, but it's easier doing it like nospam said - link to a web
page, which itself handles all that.

Consider this page, for instance:
http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/arkivet/2014-08-15/Josef_Tina__Elias

Visiting that from a normal desktop browser will send you image
files that are 561 pixels wide. Visiting it from a mobile phone
will send you images that are 300 pixels wide, but, visiting it
from a retina mobile phone, will send you a 600 pixels wide image.

A total waste of time on your part at the server.

Incorrect.

Regardless of which of those images is sent, the chances are great
that the display will have to resize the image anyway.

Incorrect.

No matter which specific hardware you aim it at, there are many others
that are different, and some of the ones that are what you target will
need a slightly different display size simply because the user has
changed the screen to something other than the default.

Irrelevant. On a desktop, the image will always be 561 pixels wide,
regardless of what resolution the monitor is set to.

If the display mechanism has to resize it anyway, what you did to
start with, for size differences like the those shown, is redundant.

I.e. it isn't.

It it were for a size difference large enough to significantly
affect download time things would be different, but that isn't the
case for 300x vs 561x vs 600x pixel dimensions.

The image is resized to fit the recieving device to be displayed as
properly as possible. This is done server-side so that resizing is not
needed client-side.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

The statement was about downloading images using ImageMagick instead
of a browser. I'm not surprised at all that you didn't bother to
read that, and have no clue what you are talking about.

And we can trust that I probably know far more about using
ImageMagick tools for resizing images that you can even begin to
imagine. Here is, or example, a line from the script that I use to
downsize an image. You wouldn't know how to change it for upsizing,
and wouldn't have a clue why half of the options are even used!

convert input_file.jpg -depth 32 -gamma 0.454545 -filter
Lanczos -sampling-factor 1x1 -resize 900x600 -quality 89
-gamma 2.2 -depth 8 -density 360 -units PixelsPerInch
output_file.jpg

Go ahead, tell me what you think that does! We need some humor
here!

This is classic Floyd - post a very basic rudimentary imagemagick command
and claim he knows more about imagemagick than other people based on it.
You are a computer illiterate, Floyd, and have very shallow knowledge about
anything regarding computers.

And for those that think this is somehow an "advanced" command, here's what
it does.

1. It opens "input_file.jpg"
2. set the bit depth to 32
3. Set's the gamma
4. Sets the resizing filter (needlessly, it defaults to Lanczos)
5. Sets the chroma-subsampler to 1x1
6. Resize the image so that it fits within a 900x600 area, while keepipng
ratio
7. Sets JPG compression to 89%
8. Changes the gamma, again
9. Changes the bit depth, again
10. Sets the DPI to 360
11. Sets the resolution unit
12. Saves to output_file.jpg

Only Floyd could think this is advanced usage of imagemagick.

--
Sandman[.net]

Sandman wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Sandman:
Indeed, but it's easier doing it like nospam said - link to a web
page, which itself handles all that.

Consider this page, for instance:
http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/arkivet/2014-08-15/Josef_Tina__Elias

Visiting that from a normal desktop browser will send you image
files that are 561 pixels wide. Visiting it from a mobile phone
will send you images that are 300 pixels wide, but, visiting it
from a retina mobile phone, will send you a 600 pixels wide image.

A total waste of time on your part at the server.

Incorrect.

Regardless of which of those images is sent, the chances are great
that the display will have to resize the image anyway.

Incorrect.

No matter which specific hardware you aim it at, there are many others
that are different, and some of the ones that are what you target will
need a slightly different display size simply because the user has
changed the screen to something other than the default.

Irrelevant. On a desktop, the image will always be 561 pixels wide,
regardless of what resolution the monitor is set to.

The monitor resolution has nothing to do with it.

How big is the window the browser is displaying it in has
everything to do with it. It is very unlikely that any given
image is not resampled for display.

If the display mechanism has to resize it anyway, what you did to
start with, for size differences like the those shown, is redundant.

I.e. it isn't.

It it were for a size difference large enough to significantly
affect download time things would be different, but that isn't the
case for 300x vs 561x vs 600x pixel dimensions.

The image is resized to fit the recieving device to be displayed as
properly as possible. This is done server-side so that resizing is not
needed client-side.

You can determine what the client's monitor is, maybe... but you
can't determine how big the screen window it will be displayed in
happens to be.

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