22 replies to this topic

[lonestranger]

Since I have exceeded the storage space and don't want to delete my old photos, I am exploring the other upload options. Feel free to do some testing of your own.

This first pic is uploaded using imgur.com as per the instructions in the FAQ thread in the Help Me Identify a Bird section. The photo has been resized to 600x453 as a starting size to see how it fits.

[lonestranger]

This second pic is the same pic, but much larger, 4096x3084 with a file size of 2.4MB. I'm curious to see how it compares to the first.

[lonestranger]

Well that was interesting, the smaller file is the same size when clicked on, but the larger file fills the width of the message area and is way too big to view when clicked on, at least for my computer settings. Let's try one more in the middle and see if it's the magic size that looks good in the message and still looks good when clicked on, 1200x903, 278kb, same image.

[lonestranger]

Yep, a width of 1200 seems to be a good size to me, it's large enough to actually be enlarged when clicked on, but not so large that it becomes difficult to view when clicked on.

Feel free to do your own tests, and practice uploads here.

[canon eos]

Thanks, lonestanger. It's been ambiguous (to me at least) regarding posting images. I'm fairly up-to-speed in all this (forums and posting) but not here, it seems! And lately when I thought I was posting an image (full size) it was only a thumbnail requiring click-to-enlargement!

[canon eos]

Let's try this............... Pre-sized to 1500x750, uploaded via Imgur

[cabirds]

The stylesheet is 95% of the width of your browser display. Your browser is going to resize the image regardless if it exceeds the browser window size - and it's always going to do a crummy job of it.

There is rarely a good reason to be pummeling web pages with multi-megapixel images. Consider people on mobile devices.

Do you really need an image wider than 900px? If you do - a link to the enlargement is probably adequate. Depending upon aspect ratio, I generally post 800x600 or 900x700 _max_. Portrait orientation, I don't exceed 768px in order to support 1024x768 displays, which still grossly exceeds most mobile devices.

[canon eos]

And all this varies so much. One person is on a mobile device, another on dialup, another with a calibrated photographic monitor...........

[lonestranger]

The stylesheet is 95% of the width of your browser display. Your browser is going to resize the image regardless if it exceeds the browser window size - and it's always going to do a crummy job of it.

There is rarely a good reason to be pummeling web pages with multi-megapixel images. Consider people on mobile devices.

Do you really need an image wider than 900px? If you do - a link to the enlargement is probably adequate. Depending upon aspect ratio, I generally post 800x600 or 900x700 _max_. Portrait orientation, I don't exceed 768px in order to support 1024x768 displays, which still grossly exceeds most mobile devices.

I hear what you're saying, cabirds, but there are times when you want to share a photo that has exceptional detail that can only be appreciated by enlarging the image. As an example, this older photo should look fine in the message box, but once it's clicked on, you should be able to see finer details, such as the legs of an adult mixed in with the larvae in the chickadee's mouth. My apologies to those using mobile devices.

[lonestranger]

Okay, I have to admit that 2181x1958 is more than needed for that example, but you should be able to see what I am driving at.

[cabirds]

And that's why we provide a link to the fullsize image in our gallery instead of making everyone download 2/3 of a MB, right? It's not bad when there's one, but when there's 30 on a page...

Besides which, "no one" can display an image that large. Even on double 24" monitors, I can't. Only quad monitors could - and that's not terribly common. So we either end-up scaling it again (losing more quality since the scaler in the browser is only nearest-neighbor instead of at least bicubic scaling from a decent editor) or we lose the framing and don't get to experience the photo anyway.

[cabirds]

Another potential issue to consider: you've just reduced the commercial value of the image to zero. No stock house would ever get near it.that's printable to 8x10 trivially, and at least double with Wavlets.

[lonestranger]

And that's why we provide a link to the fullsize image in our gallery instead of making everyone download 2/3 of a MB, right? It's not bad when there's one, but when there's 30 on a page...

Besides which, "no one" can display an image that large. Even on double 24" monitors, I can't. Only quad monitors could - and that's not terribly common. So we either end-up scaling it again (losing more quality since the scaler in the browser is only nearest-neighbor instead of at least bicubic scaling from a decent editor) or we lose the framing and don't get to experience the photo anyway.

As many members have mentioned before, a link to an image often goes ignored, many people just don't want to click a link, especially after being accustomed to seeing a reasonably sized image that would open a larger image in the old forum. The best comparison I can make to explain why I like being able to click on an image to enlarge it, is the same reason I view my images in my photo editor(Picasa) at 100%. When viewing my 4096x3084 raw images at 100%, I can't view the entire image but I can see how sharp the image is(or most often, isn't) and how much detail there is. When I see that one of my photos stands up to scrutiny when viewed at 100% in my editor, I sometimes share that photo here in Whatbird, and if I think the image is sharp enough, I admit to wanting to show off the detail the same way I viewed it at 100% in the editor. Now I will admit to being out of my league when it comes to post processing, I shoot raw and usually just resize and convert to jpg to meet the upload limits while using the "preserve orginal image quality" option. I know there are ways to post a quality image that would more than fill the screen in the old forums while only being 50-60kb in size. Unfortunately I don't have the skill or the know how of the photographers that can produce such a large image with so much detail at such a small file size. Since the forum change I am more sensitive to the bandwith issue though and thanks to you, now the the mobile devices too, and will keep that in mind for future reference.

Another potential issue to consider: you've just reduced the commercial value of the image to zero. No stock house would ever get near it.that's printable to 8x10 trivially, and at least double with Wavlets.

Although I only understood half of what you said here, I just want to make it clear, there is NO commercial value in my photographs...none...nada...zilch. My photography, for all that is, is strictly a hobby of pleasure and sometimes that pleasure includes sharing my photos here on Whatbird.

[Liam]

Just a test for ol' Bigfoot.

[Bigfoot]

Liam this appears as an image... not as a link to an Image. Yes this is good

BF

[zoutedrop]

Another potential issue to consider: you've just reduced the commercial value of the image to zero. No stock house would ever get near it.that's printable to 8x10 trivially, and at least double with Wavlets.

I appreciate lonestranger's observation to this comment (similar to mine), I don't understand the technical aspects of this statement. Can you explain for me cabirds?

[cabirds]

I think LoneStranger undersells some of the value of his imagery, but since you asked for the technical... :

A "commercial print" generally starts at about 300dpi. A web image is acceptable at 72dpi or even less.

Monitors don't see images the same way that a printer does. In general - multiply the size you would like to print at (in each axis) by 300 and you get a commercially viable size.

If you want a 4x5 image, 4 * 300 = 1200 5 * 300 = 1500. A commercial 300dpi image will have a screen resolution that appears to be 1200x1500 pixels. Want an 8x10? 8 * 300 = 2400 10 * 300 = 3000 :: 2400 x 3000 is a commercial 8x10 print.

If you post something that is 640 x 480, "no one" is going to be able to print it with acceptable quality above 640 / 300 & 480 / 300 = 2 x 1.6, or what we'd call "a postage stamp". By the same token, my 640x480 images display just fine here, with adequate detail, in general, to get the point across and be reasonably enjoyable.

"No one" is quoted because there are methodologies for extracting more resolution (over-sampling) an image that can provide for acceptable commercial prints. In the "old days", I had to do a fair bit of that in astrophotography to extract enough data to interest stock houses - especially for calendar photography where 600dpi or more is the norm.

Once you've "given it away", even though you technically maintain copyright, stock houses won't get near the image because its commercial value has been degraded. Why would I buy your stock when I could just right click on it and get the full resolution image for "free"? It's too much risk for them. And they do search. (TinEye comes to mind)

Look at Doug Herr's photos he posts here at around the same resolution I do. They're stunning on the monitor - and you should see them "in the flesh" on a wall-sized print! He, of course, has the "best of both worlds" going because he "does it right"

Here's a full-crop image of mine displayed at just 640x480. Is it "stunning"? No. But it conveys the point on a monitor - and it maintains its commercial viability (having sold several times I use it as an example):



I encourage people to keep their options open. We're all far more critical of our own work than others are, I promise!

Does this address your question, Matt?

[sandylee]

(I hope it's ok for me to make a quick "jump in" here...)

Well done Jodie!
Although I don't understand all the technical info, you have shown here many times that your images ARE stunning as displayed on this medium, and are considerate of all viewers, while preserving your ownership.

[zoutedrop]

Jodie, exactly what I was looking for. I now have to reverse engineer this to see where I am at. I am putting together a calendar to give to friends next Christmas. I will translate what you have posted and regurgitate to see if I got it right.

I have a sizable gallery on WhatBird. Many of the shots are from my irrational exuberance stage (first year of birding). I have already started deleting and this dialogue really helps.

great input

[Liam]

Test for Bigfoot/Helen.