Reducing the size of a photograph

Ironhorseman Oct 3, 2002

  1. Harron

    Harron TrainBoard Supporter

    1,061
    0
    31
    Gary, this will only spoil the picture if you want to print it. If you are going to post it online, a size more like 800x600 or 640x480 is better, with a resolution (dpi) of 72, since your computer screen can't go any sharper than that in reality (but printers can, so keep a full-size, high res copy for printing).
     
  2. Gary Lewis

    Gary Lewis Deleted

    167
    0
    18
    [ 08. October 2002, 05:21: Message edited by: Gary Lewis ]
     
  3. Gary Lewis

    Gary Lewis Deleted

    167
    0
    18
    [​IMG]

    This original started out at 2048 X 1536 pixles at 5.01MB and was downsized 100 times to about 50KB. at 640 X 469 Pixles. I think the detail is still pretty good considering.

    My camera won't take a picture smaller than 1024 X768 which is fine for my 19" monitor screen. But I guess some people are still using 15" screens.

    But I think it is all smoke and mirrors as anyone looking at this picture is looking at it from Ricks IPS or whatever where the picture is stored, aren't they?

    You should see the original at 5.01 woo woo woo for detail.
     
  4. friscobob

    friscobob Staff Member

    10,534
    710
    129
    The picture looks very nice as is- I can still make out a lot of detail.

    As for 5 woo woo woo, for those dial-up folks, that takes some time to upload, and also quite a bit of storage space, especially if you want to put it on your own website. I'm fortunate- I have broadband, which allows for faster uploading, but I take into account all those folks who still have dial-up service. All the pics on my website have been reduced, and I'm planning to put in thumbnails for more pics.

    Do I reduce photos before I post them? You bet. Is the detail still there? Yes. Cutting & pasting is fairly easy for me, and I am not a cybergeek in the least.

    I have no doubt your pic is sharp at 5.01 woo woo woo, but it's quite sharp as you posted it, so why worry?
     
  5. Ironhorseman

    Ironhorseman April, 2018 Staff Member In Memoriam

    4,717
    113
    66
    Gary and Bob .. what software do you use to make the reductions?

    Nice pic Gary [​IMG]
     
  6. FriscoCharlie

    FriscoCharlie Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    11,140
    261
    135
    I use Xara Webster Bill.

    Charlie
     
  7. Harron

    Harron TrainBoard Supporter

    1,061
    0
    31
    I use Adobe Photoshop 6. Gary, again, the detail is lost on a computer screen. I can save that image to my computer and then increase the size again.

    As for monitor size, it is a combination of the monitor and video card that determine what size your screen is. Once thing to remember though, is that you have all of the TB stuff going on around your photo, so somebody running at 1024x768 will still not see your entire photo due to TB's borders and such.

    Anyway, a 5.01 woo woo woo file is the equivalent of 5.01*1024 (number of Kbytes in a Mbyte) or 5130.24 Kbytes. A dialup connection at BEST does 56.6 Kbytes per second, so loading that picture for a dialup would take 5130.24/56.6 or 90.64 seconds :eek: ! You want to wait a minute and a half for a picture?

    On the other hand, at 50K, it takes about a second to download and view the picture. 1/90th the time.

    For those who are interested, and I warn you you must be on a Broadband connection (or be willing to wait 3 minutes for the picture to download - it took me 15 seconds, and I probably have one of the fastest connections here), here are two links to the same picture. The first is the original scan, roughly 9 woo woo woo (35mm slide scanned at 2400 dpi). The second has been re-sized and reduced to 72 dpi for online viewing.

    Large-size photo - 3000x2000, 2400 dpi, 9 woo woo woo

    Small-size photo - 750x500, 72 dpi, 101 KB

    [ 08. October 2002, 18:10: Message edited by: Harron ]
     
  8. friscobob

    friscobob Staff Member

    10,534
    710
    129
    Good demo Corey- the picture ain't too shabby either! [​IMG]

    I too have a broadband connection (AT&T), and it took me a little while to see the "big" picture.

    Seeing as we have enough whining over slow page loadups, I feel it's best to reduce your pictures before uploading them. If the photo is well-taken to start with, it shouldn't suffer much in detail when shrunk.
     
  9. Gary Lewis

    Gary Lewis Deleted

    167
    0
    18
    Thanks, the background photo of the mountains is off a photo taken in Waterton Nat'll Park about 8 years ago. The photo was scanned into Corel Photo Paint and then was added to the picture of the N scale Mikado. :D

    I use Corel Photo Paint 8.0 to downsize while saving photos and JPEGing and Adobe 6.0 to crop the originals. if needed. There was some kind of photo wizard software involved also to sharpen edges and lines, but I can't remember if that system was in Corel Photo Paint 8, or Adobe Photoshop 6. It might even have been in Adobe Photo Delux 3.1 [​IMG]

    I don't post photos much on websites, so I'm new at posting and downsizing to this degree. Everbody I send pictures to on email can handle up to 1.5 woo woo woo and are on cable connection so I usually sends photos in the 300KB range.

    Anyway thanks to all for the help on how to post pictures and to Rick for letting me use his website, so now I'll be able to add my photos easier. [​IMG]
     
  10. Gary Lewis

    Gary Lewis Deleted

    167
    0
    18
    Another interesting feature of this downloading photos is: :confused:

    The first download of the 9MB photo took about 25 sec. for my system.

    All times after that, the picture loaded instanly? [​IMG]
     
  11. FriscoCharlie

    FriscoCharlie Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    11,140
    261
    135
    From your browser cache and not the web server.
     
  12. friscobob

    friscobob Staff Member

    10,534
    710
    129
    Gary,
    Don't feel bad- I'm new at uploading pics as well. All the shots I've posted have been photos I've scanned on my H-P officejet v40, and cropped to size. I don't own a digital camera, so for me this is the best way to get pics online.

    I do try to keep the pics small enough to both see detail and upload without taking well past forever.

    If you have any more, I'm sure we'd like to see them (I know I would!)
     
  13. fitz

    fitz TrainBoard Member

    9,712
    2,744
    145
    This is part of an ongoing experiment that Ironhorseman and I are trying. He sent me a neat shot of Yreka Western 19 blowing down, I processed it, and sent it back to him as an email attachment. When Bill got it, it was still in original megabyte size. I'm going to post the 97k version that I sent to him. Let's see what happens. :confused: [​IMG]
     
  14. Ironhorseman

    Ironhorseman April, 2018 Staff Member In Memoriam

    4,717
    113
    66
    Thanks for posting that for me Jim. [​IMG]

    I just realized that we can see the fire glowing thru the front damper :D
     

Share This Page