Reading mode: Light Dark

Are my pictures too big?

Go to last post
OK. I changed it back to 800 x 600.

I use a screen resolution of 1600 x 1200. What do you use?

I was hoping that most photographers used at least 1024 x 768 and more likely 1280 x 1024 or better. I guessed wrong?

--
Gary Coombs
My Profile contains my Equipment List
http://GaryCoombs.com/10D/New
 
Mine is set for 1152x864.

Even at 800x600, that's a big download at dialup modem speeds. Your pictures were downloading very slowly. Your thumbnails are small, but also take a long time to download. I don't know why.

I'd upsize your thumbnails, and downsize further your samples. The option to download a full size is still there.
Gary Coombs said:
OK. I changed it back to 800 x 600.

I use a screen resolution of 1600 x 1200. What do you use?

I was hoping that most photographers used at least 1024 x 768 and
more likely 1280 x 1024 or better. I guessed wrong?

--
Gary Coombs
My Profile contains my Equipment List
http://GaryCoombs.com/10D/New
Click to expand...
 
i dont have any problem with the size of the image, it is the compression that is horrid!

the thumbnails are around 6-7kb and the should be no more than around 2kb. and your bigger images are about 3500kb and should be about 50-80kb.

when you sre saving them as jpeg you just have to move the slider down to where your images dont have much quality loss but are still small enough. photoshop actions are good and you can do it in batches or use the generate web gallery. below is a link for my cemetery part of my web site and it was done by photoshop web gallery and there are many different templates

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/davies138/graves/graves.htm

this is my spain site, some of the file sizes are bigger than i mentioned, i just did it as a quicky
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/davies138/spain.htm

i hope some of this helps

glenn
 
the real problem is that a 300kb file image should appear in a few seconds cause of my cable connection, but yours took a minute or two. are you running a server of your own on a 56K line?

glenn
 
Glenn D said:
i dont have any problem with the size of the image, it is the
compression that is horrid!

the thumbnails are around 6-7kb and the should be no more than
around 2kb. and your bigger images are about 3500kb and should be
about 50-80kb.
when you sre saving them as jpeg you just have to move the slider
down to where your images dont have much quality loss but are still
small enough. photoshop actions are good and you can do it in
batches or use the generate web gallery. below is a link for my
cemetery part of my web site and it was done by photoshop web
gallery and there are many different templates

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/davies138/graves/graves.htm

this is my spain site, some of the file sizes are bigger than i
mentioned, i just did it as a quicky
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/davies138/spain.htm

i hope some of this helps
Click to expand...
Yes, you have been VERY helpful. I wasn't paying any attention to the file size at all. Now I have resized everything except the original full size files. Now the whole site should work faster.

I have run my web site on my own server on my DSL connection for several years now. I've gotten few complaints on download speed until recently. That was when I decided that I would go for minimum JPG compression in order to get maximum quality. Not a good idea for web viewing and it appears there is literally no loss of quality on the web at 50% compression. I've gone down to file sizes of 30 to 80Kb now.

Hopefully this helps a good bit.

Thank you very much!
--
Gary Coombs
My Profile contains my Equipment List
http://GaryCoombs.com/10D/New
 
Gary Coombs said:
OK. I changed it back to 800 x 600.

I use a screen resolution of 1600 x 1200. What do you use?

I was hoping that most photographers used at least 1024 x 768 and
more likely 1280 x 1024 or better. I guessed wrong?
Click to expand...
I think you did. I use 1600x1200 on a 21" CRT, or 1400x1050
on a 15" laptop. On those your thumbnails are far too small.
Also, I don't usually use the whole screen for a web browser
(the point for me of lots of screen area is to have several things
open) so 800x600 is about right for my default web browser size.

--
for equipment see profile.
 
Brian Kennedy said:
A good rule of thumb is to limit them to 600 pixels on the longest
side.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I went back to 800 x 600.

But a lot of the nice detail is lost then.

Oh well, the nice thing about the software I'm using is that you can allow it to point to the full size file. If someone really wants to see what your lens & camera is capable of, they can patiently grab the whole original file.
--
Gary Coombs
My Profile contains my Equipment List
http://GaryCoombs.com/10D/New
 
one thing bad about having large image sizes is the fact that people are more likely to steal them or to print them without your permission.

i e-mailed my sister a cool but small pic of a building here in Philly. she sent it to her friend and her friend said that she really liked it and tried to print it out but it looked crappy. i did not say anything but it was a very eye opening experience.
 
Gary,

Two things to consider:
1) download speed
2) Your rights as a photgrapher

1) People often don't have broadband or a fast line to download on so file sizes more than a couple hundred kilobytes will be very slow.

2) if you put images up at high resolution there are people who will violate you copyrights and make print. From a 800x600 image you can get a pretty darn good 5x7 print made. Now if you don't mind your images being copied then don't worry about it. The few images that I looked at were worth protecting (in my opinion). By the way, you have copyrights inherent by the fact you took the photo (at least in the US) but you still have to protect them.

Rodney
Gary Coombs said:
http://GaryCoombs.com/10D/New

--
Gary Coombs
My Profile contains my Equipment List
Click to expand...
 
Gary Coombs said:
[-snip-]
Click to expand...
This is getting a little OT, but the posts about the danger of someone taking the picture and printing it made me think of a time a couple of years ago that I went to a relative's house across the country and saw several of my photos of Greece in frames in their kitchen (small prints, probably just 4x6, maybe slightly larger). They looked great, and I was flattered -- they did a great job with presentation, probably nicer than anything I have around here ;-). I wondered where they came from, though, because I didn't remember sending them prints. They couldn't have been the little 400x600 JPGs from the website, could they?

It turns out they were from the website. The husband is a newspaper reporter, and he explained that he had the paper's PS guru pull them off the site and print them. I was amazed at the quality, and now I understand why you see some very distinguished photographers use poor quality 200x300 or smaller JPGs on their sites! If the shots were my source of income, I may have been concerned. But they're not, and this was family, anyway -- I would have sent them prints if they had asked. Still, it goes to show you how easy it is to do.

--
Brian Kennedy
http://www.briankennedy.net/
 
You'd be surprised just how good (not great) even an 8x10 can look (not up close) from a 400x600 image.

While you or I wouldn't be satisfied, MANY other people would. Especially for FREE!

I've had one or two girls confess to me that they literally papered their walls with my shots of the Wilkinsons that they printed off their inkjet printers from my website.
Brian Kennedy said:
This is getting a little OT, but the posts about the danger of
someone taking the picture and printing it made me think of a time
a couple of years ago that I went to a relative's house across the
country and saw several of my photos of Greece in frames in their
kitchen (small prints, probably just 4x6, maybe slightly larger).
They looked great, and I was flattered -- they did a great job with
presentation, probably nicer than anything I have around here ;-).
I wondered where they came from, though, because I didn't remember
sending them prints. They couldn't have been the little 400x600
JPGs from the website, could they?

It turns out they were from the website. The husband is a
newspaper reporter, and he explained that he had the paper's PS
guru pull them off the site and print them. I was amazed at the
quality, and now I understand why you see some very distinguished
photographers use poor quality 200x300 or smaller JPGs on their
sites! If the shots were my source of income, I may have been
concerned. But they're not, and this was family, anyway -- I would
have sent them prints if they had asked. Still, it goes to show you
how easy it is to do.
Click to expand...
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Yes, this is ON-TOPIC!
 
Seriosly any image is judged by its intended use. For example, it is generally accepted in the conventional art world that the human form should not be placed on a wall larger than life size.

Side note - I believe it was Whistler who said "If you can't make it good, make it big." Not implying yours are not good - I quite like them. But "too big" for what - a magazine page - yes. A billboard - no. A wall portrait - depends. Wall decorations a la Andy Warhol - depends on the shot.

willie408
'Violence never settled anything' - Genghis Khan
 
You guys are really scaring me!

actually some of my clients that i scan for have me incorporate a white border on the bottom of the scans with copyright information. my question is what does he think that his client will do with his 90 megabyte scan, put it on the web? dont think so! i don't question it cause we charge 6 bucks a pop for the copyright.
i am the scanner, retoucher at my job.
glenn
DavidP said:
While you or I wouldn't be satisfied, MANY other people would.
Especially for FREE!

I've had one or two girls confess to me that they literally papered
their walls with my shots of the Wilkinsons that they printed off
their inkjet printers from my website.
Brian Kennedy said:
This is getting a little OT, but the posts about the danger of
someone taking the picture and printing it made me think of a time
a couple of years ago that I went to a relative's house across the
country and saw several of my photos of Greece in frames in their
kitchen (small prints, probably just 4x6, maybe slightly larger).
They looked great, and I was flattered -- they did a great job with
presentation, probably nicer than anything I have around here ;-).
I wondered where they came from, though, because I didn't remember
sending them prints. They couldn't have been the little 400x600
JPGs from the website, could they?

It turns out they were from the website. The husband is a
newspaper reporter, and he explained that he had the paper's PS
guru pull them off the site and print them. I was amazed at the
quality, and now I understand why you see some very distinguished
photographers use poor quality 200x300 or smaller JPGs on their
sites! If the shots were my source of income, I may have been
concerned. But they're not, and this was family, anyway -- I would
have sent them prints if they had asked. Still, it goes to show you
how easy it is to do.
Click to expand...
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Yes, this is ON-TOPIC!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top