Marutchi wrote:
Wolf wrote:
A current thread asks about monitor resolutions so that images could
be sent to fit most monitors. IMO, that is not a good idea. Your
image file should be the original, if at all possible. If you do
think that resizing it is desirable, reduce it, don't enlarge it. See
below for
the reasons why. And reduce it as little as possible.

snip

Why on earth would anyone post the original size?...they are huge.
It's a simple matter to resize a photo for posting and save it as a copy and
retain the original for yourself.

Sigh. What's huge? As far as I am concerned, image doesn't matter here -
file size does. The 6MP camera I use saves the images as lossless JPEGs,
which are around 1.5 to 3MB in size (the more detail in the picture, the
less compression.) That's not huge, IMO. The original bitmap recorded
before conversion would be about 18MB. Now that I agree would be huge.

I think it might be a good idea to post two sizes of picture. 800x600
will give you a nice small files size, around 200K, so that the people
on dial-up can download it in a reasonable time. Files around 1200x800
or larger (files size 400K or more) are suitable for people on
broadband.

snip

Which is a great time waster, ok for people with a lot of time, but not for
busy people. Then there's the hassle of sorting through the posts, checking
to see which ones to view and which to leave, more time wasting.

I choose by subject header, and by sender - eg, I usually look at yours,
because you make very good photos, and besides the fauna you photograph
is something I likely will never see in person.


My personal opinion:
I cannot see why people want huge size files. A good photo is just that, the
composition, colour and clarity are much the same whether they be 1200x800
or 800x600.**

If there is a lot of subtle detail, then reducing down to 1200x800 or
800 x 600 will lose a lot of that subtle detail. That bothers me, for one.

I'd be interested to hear just why people want to see large sized photos.
Speaking only for myself, I don't want to use an external viewer, such as
Irfanview, once again a time issue with me.

Thunderbird does a fine job of rendering images, so it works well for
selecting which images to save (I save about 30% of the images I view,
and even that is probably too many.) But if I want to study a picture, I
use an external viewer. For one thing, I can get a full screen view that
way.


**tiny postage size thumbnail type photos excepted.




--


Wolf

"Don't believe everything you think." (Maxine)