Going Up

Jim Mountford said:

Original at:
http://www.pbase.com/image/15619378

Part of gallery at:
http://www.pbase.com/sailingjim/041803_a



--
I believe in the KISS principle, 'Keep It Simple Stupid' The more
junk you carry, the less effective you'll be because you're always
worried about the mechanics, instead of focusing on the subject.
See my gallery at:
http://www.pbase.com/sailingjim/galleries

Click to expand...

mike said:

I downloaded your image and learned that it is 353k filesize.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you tell me that my images that
I posted under the title "Holy Land USA" were too large to load?
All three of mine didn't add up to this large a filesize!

Happy Easter, Mike.

Jim Mountford said:

Original at:
http://www.pbase.com/image/15619378

Part of gallery at:
http://www.pbase.com/sailingjim/041803_a



--
I believe in the KISS principle, 'Keep It Simple Stupid' The more
junk you carry, the less effective you'll be because you're always
worried about the mechanics, instead of focusing on the subject.
See my gallery at:
http://www.pbase.com/sailingjim/galleries

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/mikefam/

Click to expand...

Jim Mountford said:

Original at:
http://www.pbase.com/image/15619378

Part of gallery at:
http://www.pbase.com/sailingjim/041803_a



--
I believe in the KISS principle, 'Keep It Simple Stupid' The more
junk you carry, the less effective you'll be because you're always
worried about the mechanics, instead of focusing on the subject.
See my gallery at:
http://www.pbase.com/sailingjim/galleries

Click to expand...

mike said:

Jim:

I downloaded your image and learned that it is 353k filesize.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you tell me that my images that
I posted under the title "Holy Land USA" were too large to load?
All three of mine didn't add up to this large a filesize!

Happy Easter, Mike.

Click to expand...

Jim Mountford said:

My file size is 85.5kb, as I stated, the file size when I
downloaded it is 90kb.

I don't know that much about photo software, other then a bit about
how photoshop works. Could it be you downloaded the page, instead
of just the image? Or your photo software is adding detail through
a default you have set up? The original one that I didn't post,
but resized it, as I stated in one followup email, and then changed
to 72dpi is 4.70mb. Through resizing to my computer screen, with
the vertical being no larger then 768 in all cases, and the mazimum
width being 1024, and the maximum DPI being 72 and saving it as a
photo for the web, it reduced the file size to 85.5kb. In saving
it, I can choose low, medium, high or maximum. The lowest
resolution I choose is medium at a quality of 30 (I'm not sure what
that means, but if I save it in any lower, I then have degradation
of the image.) The image size, as I'm looking at the "going up"
image in adobe photoshop, right now, says 88.25kb, if I change it
to high, it goes up to 175 with a quality of 60. I can't notice
any difference. On maximum it goes up to a quality of 80 at 299kb,
again, can't notice any difference. So I upload it at quality of
30, dpi at 72 and it turns out to be about 90kb, give or take.

In the following image, I uploaded it at high (60) and the image
size is only 66k. Reason I uploaded at high is because I can see a
slight difference in image, I would imagine that is because it
lacks any detail in the first place and needs all the help it can
get.

I think, at least from what I'm seeing, is the problem lies at your
end. As I stated, check your defaults, or check to make sure you
downloaded the image and not the whole page. I mean, I could be
wrong, but everything I'm seeing doesn't seem to indicate as such.

Peace
Jim

66K

mike said:

Jim:

I downloaded your image and learned that it is 353k filesize.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you tell me that my images that
I posted under the title "Holy Land USA" were too large to load?
All three of mine didn't add up to this large a filesize!

Happy Easter, Mike.

Click to expand...

--
I believe in the KISS principle, 'Keep It Simple Stupid' The more
junk you carry, the less effective you'll be because you're always
worried about the mechanics, instead of focusing on the subject.
See my gallery at:
http://www.pbase.com/sailingjim/galleries

Click to expand...

mike said:

I right click and "save image as" and it is saved as a 353k bitmap.
It has nothing to do with any software other than windows. The file
properties in windows reports that the file is 353k. There is no
misunderstanding as I just did it again with the same results.

It really isn't necessary to bicker over a few thousand bytes. My
point is that my 75k images are as small as I care to go with the
jpg compression and I don't think that it takes too long to
download them even with a 56k modem. This point is proven by the
reasonable speed at which your 353k image is displayed.

BTW, nice photo.

Mike.

Jim Mountford said:

Original at:
http://www.pbase.com/image/15619378

Part of gallery at:
http://www.pbase.com/sailingjim/041803_a



--
I believe in the KISS principle, 'Keep It Simple Stupid' The more
junk you carry, the less effective you'll be because you're always
worried about the mechanics, instead of focusing on the subject.
See my gallery at:
http://www.pbase.com/sailingjim/galleries

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/mikefam/

Click to expand...

mike said:

This is interesting. Did you right click the image and click on
"Save Picture As"? Do this and then go to the windows folder that
you downloaded the image to and right click and choose properties.
This is where you can see the actual filesize.

Even this photo of the eggs downloaded as a 312k bitmap.

I could email you the copy so that you see for yourself if you like.

Very interesting. I don't have much time to investigate this now.
It's just too nice outside and I've been in and out all day.

Mike.

Jim Mountford said:

My file size is 85.5kb, as I stated, the file size when I
downloaded it is 90kb.

I don't know that much about photo software, other then a bit about
how photoshop works. Could it be you downloaded the page, instead
of just the image? Or your photo software is adding detail through
a default you have set up? The original one that I didn't post,
but resized it, as I stated in one followup email, and then changed
to 72dpi is 4.70mb. Through resizing to my computer screen, with
the vertical being no larger then 768 in all cases, and the mazimum
width being 1024, and the maximum DPI being 72 and saving it as a
photo for the web, it reduced the file size to 85.5kb. In saving
it, I can choose low, medium, high or maximum. The lowest
resolution I choose is medium at a quality of 30 (I'm not sure what
that means, but if I save it in any lower, I then have degradation
of the image.) The image size, as I'm looking at the "going up"
image in adobe photoshop, right now, says 88.25kb, if I change it
to high, it goes up to 175 with a quality of 60. I can't notice
any difference. On maximum it goes up to a quality of 80 at 299kb,
again, can't notice any difference. So I upload it at quality of
30, dpi at 72 and it turns out to be about 90kb, give or take.

In the following image, I uploaded it at high (60) and the image
size is only 66k. Reason I uploaded at high is because I can see a
slight difference in image, I would imagine that is because it
lacks any detail in the first place and needs all the help it can
get.

I think, at least from what I'm seeing, is the problem lies at your
end. As I stated, check your defaults, or check to make sure you
downloaded the image and not the whole page. I mean, I could be
wrong, but everything I'm seeing doesn't seem to indicate as such.

Peace
Jim

66K

mike said:

Jim:

I downloaded your image and learned that it is 353k filesize.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you tell me that my images that
I posted under the title "Holy Land USA" were too large to load?
All three of mine didn't add up to this large a filesize!

Happy Easter, Mike.

Click to expand...

--
I believe in the KISS principle, 'Keep It Simple Stupid' The more
junk you carry, the less effective you'll be because you're always
worried about the mechanics, instead of focusing on the subject.
See my gallery at:
http://www.pbase.com/sailingjim/galleries

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/mikefam/

Click to expand...

Jim Mountford said:

It could be the way you have your software set up that is making
the image bigger. I don't really know. But, as I stated,
1024X768, that is my screen size or my notebook and 72 dpi, which
is the highest resolution that a computer will show.

Check your settings and get back to me.

Peace
Jim

mike said:

I downloaded your image and learned that it is 353k filesize.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you tell me that my images that
I posted under the title "Holy Land USA" were too large to load?
All three of mine didn't add up to this large a filesize!

Happy Easter, Mike.

Jim Mountford said:

Original at:
http://www.pbase.com/image/15619378

Part of gallery at:
http://www.pbase.com/sailingjim/041803_a



--
I believe in the KISS principle, 'Keep It Simple Stupid' The more
junk you carry, the less effective you'll be because you're always
worried about the mechanics, instead of focusing on the subject.
See my gallery at:
http://www.pbase.com/sailingjim/galleries

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Jim Mountford said:

Peace
Jim

mike said:

I right click and "save image as" and it is saved as a 353k bitmap.
It has nothing to do with any software other than windows. The file
properties in windows reports that the file is 353k. There is no
misunderstanding as I just did it again with the same results.

It really isn't necessary to bicker over a few thousand bytes. My
point is that my 75k images are as small as I care to go with the
jpg compression and I don't think that it takes too long to
download them even with a 56k modem. This point is proven by the
reasonable speed at which your 353k image is displayed.

BTW, nice photo.

Mike.

Jim Mountford said:

Original at:
http://www.pbase.com/image/15619378

Part of gallery at:
http://www.pbase.com/sailingjim/041803_a



--
I believe in the KISS principle, 'Keep It Simple Stupid' The more
junk you carry, the less effective you'll be because you're always
worried about the mechanics, instead of focusing on the subject.
See my gallery at:
http://www.pbase.com/sailingjim/galleries

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/mikefam/

Click to expand...

--
I believe in the KISS principle, 'Keep It Simple Stupid' The more
junk you carry, the less effective you'll be because you're always
worried about the mechanics, instead of focusing on the subject.
See my gallery at:
http://www.pbase.com/sailingjim/galleries

Click to expand...

mike said:

Yes, mystery solved. I didn't think of that. I-explorer stored it
as a bitmap by default.

Click to expand...

Ed Leys said:

Jim,

There might be some Internet Explorer strangeness going on here
combined with the way Pbase serves up images...

I am on a 56k modem. Even though the site wizard has chosen to
junk up his page design to the degree it almost makes it not worth
viewing through the use of a modem, it can often be discerned when
a complete page loads slowly due to clutter or when the effects are
due to a large photograph file. The image loaded slowly enough to
be somewhere in the 300K range. That wouldn't have worried me in
the slightest but I noticed the discussion between you and Mike.

To investigate, I decided to save the image (and the image only - I
know how to do this) using IE (5.5) and see what the filesize was.
IE wanted to save it with a '.bmp' suffix and gave me no other
choices. I overrode that and saved it with a '.jpg' suffix anyway.
362,454 bytes...rational given the load time. I double clicked on
the file and it came up only with an indication that it could not
display as a jpeg. I changed the suffix of the file to '.bmp' and
it came up in MS Paint, of all things, as a bitmap file, and it was
clearly the image as it was meant to be seen.

Next experiment.

Since I keep more than one browser about, I used Opera 6 to go to
the S&G forum page, and the image seemed to load more quickly. I
decided to save it with Opera and it chose to save it as a jpeg,
including the '.jpg' suffix. File size: 25, 725 bytes. Um, quite
a bit smaller.

That copy of the file also could be correctly brought up as a jpeg.

You bear no culpability. However, Bill Gates and Slug from Pbase
might.

My best,

Ed

Click to expand...

Ed Leys said:

IE doesn't try to save everything as a bitmap, however. I just
tried to save a photograph from one of my own posts using IE. I
have my own site and do not use Pbase. IE wanted to correctly save
mine as a jpeg. Not only that, but the image load time for Jim's
was slow enough that IE really thought it was a 300K file. (other
information in my post above)

My best,

Ed

mike said:

Yes, mystery solved. I didn't think of that. I-explorer stored it
as a bitmap by default.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

Click to expand...

Ed Leys said:

Jim, I know that mike has read both of my other posts in this
thread. Just to gain a bit more knowledge, you might do the same.

To you both...

Jim only uploads the version of the file Pbase tags as 'original'.
The various other sizings are Pbase constructs, and it makes them
on the fly. That is, it does not stash a 'small' or a 'medium' or
a ..., it makes a newly constructed image when it receives a
request for one. This is one of the things that can make Pbase
provided images such a pain on a site like this. They do not
always end up in your PC cache, so when you are traversing a thread
and come across the same image once again, it does not come out of
your home cache (which would be near enought to instantant), Pbase
once again constructs them.

Right now, Pbase seems to be having some issues. Even though, when
Pbase images are brought up in a seperate window, they show a
'.jpg' suffix, It just might be possible Pbase is providing a
'.bmp' file.

And Jim, my copy of IE 5.5 has no option controlling this in its
set of options. and like I said in my other post to this thread,
one of my photographs served from my web host to this site, does
download as a true jpeg. And that is the only option IE gives me
for its download.

My best,

Ed

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

Click to expand...

Ed Leys said:

Jim, I know that mike has read both of my other posts in this
thread. Just to gain a bit more knowledge, you might do the same.

To you both...

Jim only uploads the version of the file Pbase tags as 'original'.
The various other sizings are Pbase constructs, and it makes them
on the fly. That is, it does not stash a 'small' or a 'medium' or
a ..., it makes a newly constructed image when it receives a
request for one. This is one of the things that can make Pbase
provided images such a pain on a site like this. They do not
always end up in your PC cache, so when you are traversing a thread
and come across the same image once again, it does not come out of
your home cache (which would be near enought to instantant), Pbase
once again constructs them.

Right now, Pbase seems to be having some issues. Even though, when
Pbase images are brought up in a seperate window, they show a
'.jpg' suffix, It just might be possible Pbase is providing a
'.bmp' file.

And Jim, my copy of IE 5.5 has no option controlling this in its
set of options. and like I said in my other post to this thread,
one of my photographs served from my web host to this site, does
download as a true jpeg. And that is the only option IE gives me
for its download.

My best,

Ed

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

Click to expand...

stana said:

Hi Jim,

File size is not an issue for me. Image quality is.

I like the image posted here very much. I like the continuation of
the yellow in the reflection, the repeated lines and steps and
curves on the sides of the escalator, the almost vertical look of
the legs in relation to the angle of the steps, and the interesting
light that you managed to capture as well as the nice look of the
shadows. I would not have thought to rotate the camera or crop the
legs to create this interesting look. Thanks for the photographic
education.

--
Stan Abraham

Click to expand...