Pet forum for dogs cats and humans - Pets.ca

Pet forum for dogs cats and humans - Pets.ca (http://www.pets.ca/forum/index.php)
-   Suggestions & Improvements (http://www.pets.ca/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=28)
-   -   Pictures (http://www.pets.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=23512)

poodletalk February 1st, 2006 07:39 AM

Pictures
 
I have the hardest time posting pictures on pets.ca

I know they need to under 100 k, but I finally get them under that size, it's not worth posting because the picture are too small. I am wondering how people like Prin, Lucky, BMD, Badger post bigger pictures without it going over 100 k.

Lucky Rescue February 1st, 2006 09:01 AM

Or you can make it approx 500 x 500 pixels which is something like this:
[IMG]http://pic10.picturetrail.com/VOL320/1047157/1960669/122892683.jpg[/IMG]

marko February 1st, 2006 09:14 AM

1 Attachment(s)
There is no problem with a 100 k or less photo and you can use the free program located at irfanview.com to resize the pic.

Whe users have problems - It usually has to do with the QUALITY they saved their photo at.
The photo below is just under 100k and is saved at medium-high quality.

marko February 1st, 2006 09:17 AM

1 Attachment(s)
This is the same photo but saved at medium quality through the graphics program.
You cannot tell the difference.
But if this was a file that you dumped from your camera to your computer it would have easily been 5-20 times bigger and the board would have rejected it. Why? Because when you print a photo from a digital file - you need a lot of info (megapixels) in that file to get a good print.

This is NOT the case with the web as is clearly illustrated by the examples below - where 2 indentical looking photos are half the filesize of one another. Sooo in order so that the pages don't take forever to load (because a 500k file takes 5 times longer that a 100k file to load) and not to waste webspace for no reason - the limit is 100k.

Personally the files I upload are almost never more than 40k in jpeg or gif format.

Hope that helps.

I do realize this can be tricky for some.

poodletalk February 1st, 2006 09:36 AM

How do I change the quality of the pictures I save on? I don't actually take the pictures,the picutres are given to me and then I try to upload them, I am not succesful at all! I will try pictures on my lunch hour. Wish me luck!!

marko February 1st, 2006 09:47 AM

The quality of those pictures almost surely needs to be changed (reduced, so that you can get them to under 100k) and you'll need a graphics program to do it...try the free program mentioned in this thread.

It's best to just try it and learn - but if it's just a few photos and you're having trouble just email them to me and I'll do it for you, my pleasure.
[email]marko@pets.ca[/email]

I realize it's a pain for some - but it's painless once you learn how.

Thanks

marko

poodletalk February 1st, 2006 10:12 AM

I want to learn, it would make my life alot easier! Personally, I just find it hard!!!

Lucky Rescue February 1st, 2006 12:06 PM

Marko, I've looked all over the controls at Irfanview. Where do you find the place to change the quality??

marko February 1st, 2006 03:21 PM

Ok if you download irfanview, open your file in irfanview.

Go to Image - Resize/Resample - all I did was put the width at 500 pixels and clicked ok.
Then I went to File - Save as..... and chose JPG - - JPEG for their dropdown menu.

Once I did that a new window opened where there is a slider to choose higher or lower images.

Like I said - Personally I always use 40 or less

Then just save it.

This was just a quick way that I was able to do it in Irfanview, I'm sure there are equally good or better ways to do it in Irfanview or other graphics programs. Irfanview is a really easy program to play around with.

If others have input please post in this thread - we will make or add this to a posting sticky.

Lucky Rescue February 1st, 2006 04:42 PM

OH gee, that's the one place I didn't look.

Thank you Marko!:)

Prin February 1st, 2006 10:03 PM

I use Microsoft Picture Manager... I "resize" instead of compressing because compressing always makes them tiny. Also if there is a lot of background stuff, you can crop and keep the detail but reduce the pixels. My original growly one of Jemma is a huge pic but I crop just her face out, which is tiny in the original, so I keep all the detail, but it's under 100k.

But ya, resize, don't compress.

Marie-France February 20th, 2006 03:56 PM

Hi Lucky Rescue (or any who could help), I tried posting pictures, but the size is about 594 Kb ??? How do I make it fit the 100Kb?

Thanks

M-F

cpietra16 February 20th, 2006 03:59 PM

If you have microsoft you probably have hardware or atleast your camera came with some sort of program. Just go to the resize and make it smaller.

cpietra16 February 20th, 2006 04:02 PM

[url]http://www.irfanview.com/[/url] ...is the site that Lucky rescue has been telling people about. Good luck

joeysmama February 20th, 2006 04:15 PM

Oh boy---I am so lost with this kind fof thing. When my son comes home in March I'm going to have him walk me through it so I can post some pics. I love looking at other peoples babies and the one time I posted a pic of Cooper it came out in the tiny size.

marko February 20th, 2006 05:46 PM

Try the following directions from the new sticky in the photography forum.

In order to post pictures on our bulletin board your file cannot be more than 100K. If it is over 100k you will need a graphics program to reduce it. You can get a great free graphics program at [url]www.irfanview.com[/url]

Why can't I just put up my photo the way it is - why the hassle?

If you are trying to post a file that you dumped from your camera to your computer it is probably too large and the board will reject it. Why? Because when you print a photo from a digital file - you need a lot of info (megapixels) in that file to get a good print.

This is NOT the case with the web as is clearly illustrated by the examples here in this thread in posts #3 and 4 - where 2 indentical looking photos are half the filesize of one another.

So in order so that the pages don't take forever to load (because a 500k file takes 5 times longer that a 100k file to load) and not to waste webspace for no reason - the limit is 100k.

To resize an image in Irfanview

Ok if you download irfanview, open your file in irfanview.
Go to Image - Resize/Resample - all I did was put the width at 500 pixels and clicked ok.Then I went to File - Save as..... and chose JPG - - JPEG for their dropdown menu.

Once I did that a new window opened where there is a slider to choose higher or lower images.

Like I've said in other threads - Personally I always use 40 or less

Then just save it.

This was just a quick way that I was able to do it in Irfanview, I'm sure there are equally good or better ways to do it in Irfanview or other graphics programs. Irfanview is a really easy program to play around with.

What if I scan the image or the image was already scanned

If you are about to scan the image, scan it at 72 DPI or 72 PPI (dots per inch or pixels per inch). That will PROBABLY give you a file size of less than 100K.
If you scan at higher resolutions your file size will almost surely be too large. If so follow the directions above to reduce it. Resolution problems are talked about in greater detail in the following thread [url]http://www.pets.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=20694[/url]

hope that helps!

Marko

Lucky Rescue February 21st, 2006 10:54 AM

Okay, I'm really confused. The File Attachement here says Max Filesize 100.0KB - is that different than just "k"?

I know I have no trouble resizing pics to post, but obviously am mixed up with the different measurements.:(

marko February 21st, 2006 11:26 AM

kb and k are usually used interchangeably - same thing
1000k or 1000Kb = 1 meg or 1MB

marko February 21st, 2006 11:55 AM

Resolution vs pixel size vs file size
 
A concept that confuses people is the difference between the pixel size, resolution, and file size.

[B]Pixel size[/B] - this is the equivalent of inches or centimeters for images on the web. So if an image is 500 pixels by 500 pixels it will be a medium sized square on most monitors.
If it's 50x50 pixels - it will be a small thumbnail.
If it's 5000x5000 pixels it will be a humungous image and you will need to scroll up and down and sideways to see the image on most monitors. (Unless your monitor is the size of a huge TV)

[B]Resolution[/B] resolution refers to how much information lies between the pixels. It can be measured in pixels, dots per (DPI) inch etc.
So for example, you can have an image that is 500x500 pixels, the resolution refers to how many 'dots' make up that image. The more dots - the sharper the image. (For printed images you need a lot of resolution to get a sharp image - for the web you do not, and images that ARE too large take a LONG time to load)

[B]File size[/B] refers to the overall weight of the file based on pixel size and resolution. It is usually expressed in KB or K (kilobytes) or MB or meg (megabytes). It can easily be checked by right clicking on any image file and going down to properties.

Again for the purposes of uploading images on this board 100K is plenty - most of the images I upload are under 40k.

Hope that makes things a bit clearer :fingerscr

Marko
ADMIN

Prin February 21st, 2006 12:10 PM

1 Attachment(s)
But what I don't get is this:
Why is there no detail in this pic, when it is 635x717 and 96.9kb and...

Prin February 21st, 2006 12:11 PM

1 Attachment(s)
And this one is 502x589 and 80.2kb and has way more detail

marko February 21st, 2006 12:23 PM

[QUOTE]But what I don't get is this:
Why is there no detail in this pic, when it is 635x717 and 96.9kb and...[/QUOTE]

'Detail' is a relative term, and I think you are confusing it with sharpness versus blurriness. IMO your shot of the 2 dogs is out of focus OR if it was scanned, then it may not have been the best scan.

You must keep in mind that if the shot is out of focus or not perfectly sharp it will appear to have less detail.

The vast majority of digital cameras are point and shoot cameras and you cannot control the focus. The camera focuses for you and often does a good job...but not always. This type of focusing mechanism cannot compare with a traditional 35mm SLR or a higher end digital camera whose focus you can control.

Prin February 24th, 2006 02:08 AM

1 Attachment(s)
It was more in focus before I resized it and lost all the detail... Like if you take a huge pic and crop it, and take the same pic and resize it, the cropped one has more detail than the resized one. Now I take huge pics from very far away and then crop them to the subject I want. The size is small enough to post, but the detail is still there. You know? I just don't know why resizing causes so much detail loss.
See this is the same one, cropped instead of resized. It's a lot sharper. (Granted, it's still not in perfect focus.)

marko February 24th, 2006 07:53 PM

I think the cropped image looks sharper. I agree.

When you resize are you resizing 1 dimension (the length OR the width)?

That's what you should be doing. Choose 1 dimension and let the other dimension fill in automatically. OR reduce the image by a percentage.

I think the key in your case has to do with ratio. The image, when reduced must be reduced so that the ratio is exactly the same. It may well be that your settings are set so that the program is adding pixels (interpolation, I think it's called) and there is no reason the image should get fuzzier upon reduction.

Feel free to PM me about this. I'm sure I can help you solve it.

this NEVER happens to me

hope that helps

Prin February 24th, 2006 08:17 PM

I do the percentage. Maybe it's Microsoft pic manager that's crap. I mean, it's all I have on this computer (I'm no artist... :D ), so maybe with photoshop it would come out better.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.