More Picture Space Added

[Frank Hagan]

When I set up messing-about on the current server, I allotted 150 MB for pictures ... well, it looks like we have about 149.8 MB of pictures posted now!

So I upped the allotment, and you should be able to post pictures again.

[Howard]

Semi related question. I'm shopping for a new digital camera (for work....but will do double duty on boats) and was surprised to discover the minimum file size in some cameras exceeds 1 MB.

What file sizes do most of you take your pictures in? Does the software that runs this site reduce file size to something that can be viewed easily on screen?

I didn't have much luck convincing the salesman that not everyone is going to print 8 x 10 glossy's and that sending those 5 MB files as email attachments wasn't a good idea. Especially to someone with a dial up modem.

[umop_apisdn]

I didn't have much luck convincing the salesman that not everyone is going to print 8 x 10 glossy's and that sending those 5 MB files as email attachments wasn't a good idea.

I take all my pictures with the assumption that this picture is going to be THE PICTURE that I want to keep forever. Camera memory is cheap, so I put a half gig card in my camera. After downloading to the computer they are then deleted or reduced if needed. There are a number of photo manipulation programs available for free, some of which will resize batches of photos all at once.

It's easier to reduce a file that is too big than it is to blow that 800x600 "perfect picture" up to 8x10 for printing.

Doing it this way also allows me to crop prior to reducing. This is expecially nice for sailing pictures, which generally have a lot of water and scenery around the boat. Sometimes you just want the boat, so you can take that 5 MB original, crop just the boat out, then reduce that to 800x600. You will have a much better picture than if you set your camera to 800x600 for the original picture.

Noel.

[Dave R1]

Frank, thanks for upping the allotment. That is a good thing. Especially since we have some boat launchings coming up and the rest of us would like to see the pictures.

I agree with Noel. It is better to save to the camera's memory at the highest resolution and adjust the size as needed later. My 8 megapixel camera creates JPGs that average just under 4MB. That's already compressed by the camera into the JPG format. That is generally acceptable, though, even for larger prints. If I really want higher quality I adjust the camera for a non compressed image format.

Noel's point about cropping is a good one. Personally, I dislike the digital zoom function on cameras because it reduces image quality by a great deal. It uses a smaller portion of the imaging chip to create the image and the effective focal length is increased to the point that it is nearly impossible to eliminate camera movement during the exposure.

I prefer to crop the image at the computer instead starting with the best image my camera can create.

[Frank Hagan]

There are two schools of thought on this ... use the largest size (and buy the most expensive camera) because you might want to enlarge a picture, or buy an inexpensive 3 megapixel camera for $125 if you are only going to post to the web or send via email. It all depends on your intended use. The inexpensive route is the way to go if you are taking the camera on a boat, in my opinion, having already destroyed two digital cameras (they are bit more sensitive to water than your average "point and shoot" camera). I have a more expensive one that I don't take on the boat.

Whatever you choose, you don't need anything over 72dpi resolution for anything viewed in a forum or in email (some monitors go to 76dpi). 400 x 300 pixels at 100dpi is fine for most monitors, a size that keeps the picture file size at under 20kb and takes up most of a 800 x 600 resolution screen.

Whatever camera you choose, use software to reduce the pic before sending it to be viewed on a monitor. I like Fookes Software's free, easy and excellent "EZ Thumbs" software found at: http://www.fookes.com/ezthumbs/index.php

Some versions of Windows also have a image thumbnailer that will allow you to make thumbnails of pics.

BTW - if you are saving your 4mb files for future use, don't save them in JPG or any other "lossy" format. You lose resolution every time you open and close the file according to some sources. On the higher end cameras, its better to keep them in PNG or RAW format that doesn't degrade each time it is saved.

[Guest]

Thanks again for creating this site and spending the extra time taking care of us folks that are afflicted and can't help ourselves. :wink: Here, let me try it. :wink:

[adla]

Nice Oyster!

Hey Frank,

i try to link pics from my site that i have set up...that doesn't mess up your picture space here does it? i have this enormous amount of space on my web site (which i am determined to keep)...i don't do much sizing...i hate my camera and just dowload on my personal site.

if it affects your storage, i could think about resizing them.

a.

[umop_apisdn]

BTW - if you are saving your 4mb files for future use' date=' don't save them in JPG or any other "lossy" format. You lose resolution every time you open and close the file according to some sources. On the higher end cameras, its better to keep them in PNG or RAW format that doesn't degrade each time it is saved.[/quote']

It is the open-modify-save-close cycle that reduces the quality. Just viewing them is safe.

So for example, the following sequence is BAD:

Open picture, remove red-eye, save and close. (Picture quality just degraded)

Open picture, crop, save and close (You just lost a bit more quality)

Open picture, adjust color balance a bit, save and close (another loss)

Open picture, add a witty caption to it, save and close. (yet another loss)

It would be better to open it once, make all your edits at the same time, then save and close. Or keep the picture in lossless format, and compress your picture folder. This will slow down your access time a bit, but you won't be degrading your pictures every time you edit them.

Noel

[Frank Hagan]

Nice Oyster!

Hey Frank' date='

i try to link pics from my site that i have set up...that doesn't mess up your picture space here does it? i have this enormous amount of space on my web site (which i am determined to keep)...i don't do much sizing...i hate my camera and just dowload on my personal site.

if it affects your storage, i could think about resizing them.

a.[/quote']

Nope, it doesn't affect the storage here, because its only a "link" to the picture on your page. But it does affect the "bandwidth" on YOUR web page (if you have a page where that is monitored and you're paying for bandwidth ... if not, then "nevermind". If you do pay for bandwidth I'll go into a longer explanation of it).

[Frank Hagan]

It is the open-modify-save-close cycle that reduces the quality. Just viewing them is safe.

That makes a lot more sense than the way I heard it. I couldn't figure out what "saving" was done by just opening and closing the file with a viewer.

You do run into that problem if you have a picture that Windows Picture and Fax Viewer needs to rotate for you, but you get a warning about the loss of image quality when you do it.