PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 5:51 AM
Subject: RE: PUG Stuff: Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of
artifacts?
I suggest you learn to live within the limitations of the PUG
for submissions to it, and put a link within your submission to
take the viewer to a larger size image
On Sunday, February 3, 2002, at 04:00 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
If it's unusuable, it also doesnt communicate the art.
I don't believe this to be the case at all. Very little of my work has
lost what I like about it when reduced to web size.
-Aaron
-
This message is from the
JCO,
Amen to that. It is quite common for me to pick an image for the PUG
and then reject it once it is sized down - too much loss of detail.
Perhaps we could suggest 2 sizes, 1 for slow connections and 1 for
fast connections. We would each submit our current size and 1 more at
a larger size.
You of course have a demo to share with us?
Otis
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 10:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why do my photos appear
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
IIt depends on the SCREEN RESOLUTION being used to display
the graphic. I use 1280X960 and can view an entire image
up to that size without scrolling. What screen resolution
are you using BTW??
I'm using 1280 x 960, so the 72 ppi PUG images are about the size of a
Nice scans, Shel. But as you point out, the scanner's resolution isn't a factor when
you're resizing for the web. Everything on the web is 72ppi. Of course, the 4000 ppi
will print far better at 11 x14 than the 1000 ppi, and it will look a bit better
than the 2800 ppi scan. I scan most of my
Hi Paul,
I`ve been saving scans as bmp`s. Is saving as a tiff better?
Steve Larson
Redondo Beach, California
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full
Dear PUG meister,
Sid sent me a copy of his original 73K jpg as he submitted to the PUG.
It sure is different from the 26K jpg on display in the gallery.
The dimensions on the original pix are 600 tall by 400+ pixels.
There was a bit of a ragged edge on the left side, but no real problem.
Are
,
I`ve been saving scans as bmp`s. Is saving as a tiff better?
Steve Larson
Redondo Beach, California
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full
On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 20:08:19 -0800, Sid Barras wrote:
I see a 600x410 picture with a size of 26K.
Didn't you say that you sent 75K?
Perhaps this accounts for your artifacts.
I suppose this is going over my head when we begin to talk about jpeg
compression, but is my file size is 74k when
At 02:52 3-2-2002 -0500, annsan wrote:
I'm most bothered by images that are so big
that I cant see the
whole picture on my monitor. I have it set at 800 x 640
because it is better
for my eyes. Every thing in large font too.
It is a rather elitist attitude to just make things work for
only those
And a lot of people don't *want* to have higher resolution versions of their
images available on the web.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Problem is, lots of us are drinking thru a very narrow straw.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I vote for larger picture dimentions and filesizes.
It's 2002 for
: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
Your jpeg for the PUG should be 75K stored and closed. When open, it will
be
around 700K. If you size your file to 75K open, you're seriously degrading
it.
The beauty of a jpeg format is that it compresses the file on disk but
allows
Hi Shel.I too am new to this digital and PS but
i
think you are correct in saying that saving or
saveing as,will result in poorer quality
images.I do however use the save to web option
when i send horse show orginazers some pictures
for their web sites and when i open them on
their site
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sonntag, 3. Februar 2002 15:15
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
Dear PUG meister,
Sid sent me a copy of his original 73K jpg as he submitted to the PUG
Jan van Wijk wrote:
On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 20:08:19 -0800, Sid Barras wrote:
I see a 600x410 picture with a size of 26K.
Didn't you say that you sent 75K?
Perhaps this accounts for your artifacts.
I suppose this is going over my head when we begin to talk about jpeg
compression, but is
Adelheid,
I certainly appreciate all the work you are doing to create the PUG. The
large number of images every month are a credit to it's popularity and the
value it adds to this discussion group.
I would appreciate knowing what it was about Sid's image that might have
caused it to be
Shel,
Very nice scans. I've been lusting for that scanner since they
hit the shelves. I've read some really good reviews of it.
I've been seriously considering acquiring one of them to archive
my negs to CD-ROM, and from what I have read, it's probably the
best available scanner for the price
On Saturday, February 2, 2002, at 10:53 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I strongly disagree. 600 pixel max is even less than
VGA resolution (640 by 480 ) which went out of style
about 10 YEARS ago.
Well, my three year old laptop has a max screen res of 800x600 on its
12 screen. I use it for
On Sunday, February 3, 2002, at 09:36 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I opened a tiff and then saved it as a bmp. The bmp was the same size
on disk
as the tiff. The only possible downside is that it's windows specific,
whereas
tiff is a more universal format.
Does the bmp format hold colour
On Sunday, February 3, 2002, at 11:41 AM, Steve Larson wrote:
I`m in. Why not an even 100K. You can`t really blow up a 100K image
anyway with any kind of results, and it would load fast enough on a 56K
modem. It would be a step into the 21st century.
Provided this will not cause a problem
On Sun, 3 Feb 2002 13:00:18 -0500, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
Does the bmp format hold colour profile information? tiff does, that's
why we prefer it over here for incoming print work.
No.
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to
Shel, wouldn't it suffice to crop a central portion of the scan
showing some nice detail at post these at 1:1, that would make it less
than 1MB ? All the photo-review-test servers are doing it this way.
2) Why the bigger seems mushy - are you sure you are looking at it at
1:1 - 100%
I didn't think of that, but IAC, I want people to see the whole picture,
so they can see how all the tones are rendered. Also, people with large
monitors might be able to see the who picture, which I think is
helpful. However, I'm going to put up a zipped version as well, which
cuts the file
OK, here it is. A straight 1000ppi scan made on a Nikon Coolscan 4000
scanner, both uncompressed and ZIPped.
The image was scanned on automatic, so there was no manipulation of it
at all. I trimmed the black border for downloading purposes and
slightly adjusted the gamma for this presentation.
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: RE: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
One of the other reasons for smaller sized scans in the PUG
is the very
real problem of image theft on the web -- if the image is
small enough,
it is unusable elsewhere
On Sun, 03 Feb 2002 11:05:11 -0500, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Hi Paul
The PUG submission page has the following:
Maximum file size is 75kb.
Maximum image dimension is 600 pixels on the longest side. Oversized
images will be resized.
You can submit a square image 600 x 600 as long as it is under
Hi Shel:
I just had a look at it in IE6, and at the default size (69.2%) the image
looked grainy. At 100% the image smoothed out considerably.
The settings reported are:
Resolution 100x100dpi
No compression
Size 355.3 x 239 mm
(Using my standard 256-colour screen)
Pixellation of the curves of
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Sid Barras wrote:
I suppose this is going over my head when we begin to talk about jpeg
compression, but is my file size is 74k when closed, and stored on the
server, does it suddenly take up more space on the server when it is open?
The important size is the size of
PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
Okay, Peir 2 is acceptable for web viewing, Peir 1 would be nice to print
from, at least up to about 8 x10. What's your point? You certainly aren't
suggesting that the best way to view this photo
Hi all,
I've started a new chain with this letter because I think it important
for some of us who may be confused with the rules regarding PUG submissions.
I started the older chain of conversation with this (condensed):
My photo in the PUG this month is a dissapointment for me due to its
Hi Sid ...
I'm new to scanning and Photoshop, and far be it from me to answer
your questions, but I do have a question or two and a comment.
First, what do you mean when you say your file is closed and stored on
the server? How does one close a JPEG file?
Someone once commented that saving a
Sid,
I may have this wrong, as I'm not a techie, but I believe different apps
can display the same jpeg slightly differently--Photoshop can display an
image quite differently than any other image viewer on you machine is
likely to, depending on how your preferences are set. Also, on a mac, the
Sid - Re the thumbnails -
Several have pointed out that Netscape 6.0 had some
problems.
I have 4.6 and all the thumbs show. What I don't know is why
several folk said MY thumbnail was the ONLY one to show on
their browser.
I'm using Epson Twain and Photo Deluxe 4.0 rather than
photoshop 5.0.
I
the limitations of the PUG
for submissions to it, and put a link within your submission to
take the viewer to a larger size image on a different server if
you think the image merits it.
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: RE: Why do my photos appear in PUG full
I suggest you learn to live within the limitations of the PUG
for submissions to it, and put a link within your submission to
take the viewer to a larger size image on a different server if
you think the image merits it.
William Robb
Great Idea, a link will do the trick.
But I dont
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Youve got to be kidding : Bullshit! ( pardon my language)
The more image pixels, the higher the resolution of the total image.
Yes, but you can only display so many on a monitor. For printing, hi-res is a
benefit. For viewing on a given monitor, more pixels only serve
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JCO,
Problem is, lots of us are drinking thru a very narrow straw.
Regards, Bob S.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I vote for larger picture dimentions and filesizes.
It's 2002 for christs sake, were using 1992 size
images.
JCO
-
IF you have your
38 matches
Mail list logo
