Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

sending photos

Expand Messages
  • ferroequinalogist
    how do u send photos to this site?
    Message 1 of 20 , Dec 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      how do u send photos to this site?
    • Uwe Liermann
      Hello ferroequinalogist, ... got to the group website: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/z_scale/ sign in go to Photos and Create Album then follow the
      Message 2 of 20 , Dec 2, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello ferroequinalogist,

        > how do u send photos to this site?

        got to the group website:

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/z_scale/

        sign in

        go to

        Photos

        and

        Create Album

        then follow the instructions, or questions on screen.



        --
        GreetingZ
        Uwe
      • Glen Chenier
        ... Click Photos on the left, then click either Create Album or Add Photo at the top tight of the next page, use the 2nd choice if you already have an
        Message 3 of 20 , Dec 2, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In z_scale@yahoogroups.com, "ferroequinalogist" <bigtrain6@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > how do u send photos to this site?
          >

          Click 'Photos' on the left, then click either 'Create Album' or 'Add
          Photo' at the top tight of the next page, use the 2nd choice if you
          already have an album ready.

          Then follow the instructions as you go, basically browse for your
          photos and upload. Yahoo will automatically re-size your photos so
          you do not need to pre-size them even if they are originally large.

          To view photos later or find an album it works better if you
          click 'List' up near the top left to get a text list of albums.


          Photos is at 90% file capacity. Before long we will have to again
          ask for folks to voluntarily delete some of their oldest photos or
          move them over to Z_Scale_2 (the photo-only companion list). This
          does not mean to completely empty your albums, just delete a few
          photos. Thanks.
        • Loren Snyder
          Glen, I know it is not your responsibility to police everyone, but if you view the albums that are currently shown, there is a LOT of stuff that doesn t
          Message 4 of 20 , Dec 2, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Glen,
            I know it is not your responsibility to "police" everyone, but if you view
            the albums that are currently shown, there is a LOT of stuff that doesn't
            relate or have much relevance and some old albums need to be downsized a
            great deal...even eliminated. Somehow there does need to be a "serious"
            thinning of the herd. Once again, I will go through the list and do some
            serious thinning of anything old on my part.
            Loren

            -------Original Message-------

            From: Glen Chenier
            Date: 12/02/06 09:01:57
            To: z_scale@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [Z_Scale] Re: sending photos


            >snip...
            >Photos is at 90% file capacity. Before long we will have to again
            >ask for folks to voluntarily delete some of their oldest photos or
            >move them over to Z_Scale_2 (the photo-only companion list). This
            >does not mean to completely empty your albums, just delete a few
            >photos. Thanks.



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Ell Geib
            Glen (or anyone), Being on a slow dial-up connection, I do not want to simply send photos that come direct from my digitasl camera. Those files are at least
            Message 5 of 20 , Dec 4, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Glen (or anyone),

              Being on a slow dial-up connection, I do not want to simply send
              photos that come direct from my digitasl camera. Those files are at
              least 1.5 MB and would take me about 7 minutes each to upload.

              I can use Photoshop to change the size and resolution of the pics
              from the camera so as to get a smaller file size. Do you have a
              suggestion on the smallest photo size and resolution that will still
              show up with decent clarity on the web site?

              I have tried twice to get a response to this question from the Yahoo
              Help desk for another Yahoo site, but they answered one or two other
              things I asked while twice ignoring what to me is an important
              question.

              I have about a dozen photos from the Rockville Lions show. I do not
              want to take an hour and a half to upload photos.

              Ell Geib
            • ryuen_w
              ... Ell, From what I can see from a quick snooping around the photo section is that apparantly yahoo scales down photos to 800*600 for the large option. So,
              Message 6 of 20 , Dec 4, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In z_scale@yahoogroups.com, Ell Geib <geib@...> wrote:
                >
                > Glen (or anyone),
                >
                > Being on a slow dial-up connection, I do not want to simply send
                > photos that come direct from my digitasl camera. Those files are at
                > least 1.5 MB and would take me about 7 minutes each to upload.
                >
                > I can use Photoshop to change the size and resolution of the pics
                > from the camera so as to get a smaller file size. Do you have a
                > suggestion on the smallest photo size and resolution that will still
                > show up with decent clarity on the web site?
                >
                > I have tried twice to get a response to this question from the Yahoo
                > Help desk for another Yahoo site, but they answered one or two other
                > things I asked while twice ignoring what to me is an important
                > question.
                >
                > I have about a dozen photos from the Rockville Lions show. I do not
                > want to take an hour and a half to upload photos.
                >
                > Ell Geib
                >

                Ell,
                From what I can see from a quick snooping around the photo section is
                that apparantly yahoo scales down photos to 800*600 for the 'large'
                option.
                So, converting your photos to 800*600 and saving them as jpg files,
                you get the highest resolution pic the site will show anyway at very
                small filesizes (less than 100K)

                Hope this helps,
                Kurt
              • flyerbait
                ... at ... pics ... still ... Depending what version of photoshop you are using, In C.S ver s, first i open the file, Crop any parts out of it that are out of
                Message 7 of 20 , Dec 5, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In z_scale@yahoogroups.com, "ryuen_w" <ryuen@...> wrote:
                  > > Being on a slow dial-up connection, I do not want to simply send
                  > > photos that come direct from my digitasl camera. Those files are
                  at
                  > > least 1.5 MB and would take me about 7 minutes each to upload.
                  > >
                  > > I can use Photoshop to change the size and resolution of the
                  pics
                  > > from the camera so as to get a smaller file size. Do you have a
                  > > suggestion on the smallest photo size and resolution that will
                  still
                  > > show up with decent clarity on the web site?


                  Depending what version of photoshop you are using, In C.S ver's,
                  first i open the file, Crop any parts out of it that are out of
                  focus, using the crop tool,

                  then select "Image", Image size, and reduce it too 800x600 for a
                  normal picture, or 1200x800 for a computer screen sized background
                  picture. it should automatically resize both sides, if the option is
                  checked.

                  then you look under the "file" tab, and select "save for web" this
                  opens another window, gives you the choice of jpeg, png, gif file
                  types and sizes. Jpegs are for photos, gifs are for pictures that
                  have more of a mono chromatic feel to them, drawings etc. they save
                  in a different way to jpegs, and png files are an format that
                  is "open source" or un taxed format. by all legal rights, though it
                  is rarely enforced, the company that owns the legal rights to the
                  jpeg format, can insist that a website owner pay money to use their
                  format. The alternitive to that of course is png file format. (bit
                  of useless information)

                  Save your altered "save for web photos in a seperate folder on your
                  pc, then close the altered photo in adobe, without saving, so you
                  keep the original untouched.

                  have fun

                  Leigh
                • Don Avila
                  Go to http://www.irfanview.com/ and download the free/shareware program IRFANVIEW. With just a couple of clicks you can resize any photo to any size. With
                  Message 8 of 20 , Dec 5, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Go to http://www.irfanview.com/ and download the free/shareware
                    program IRFANVIEW. With just a couple of clicks you can resize any
                    photo to any size. With Irafanview you can just resize the photos
                    quickly and easily and you can then upload them to any site that has
                    size restrictions.

                    ...don

                    --- In z_scale@yahoogroups.com, "flyerbait" <flyerbait@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > --- In z_scale@yahoogroups.com, "ryuen_w" <ryuen@> wrote:
                    > > > Being on a slow dial-up connection, I do not want to simply send
                    > > > photos that come direct from my digitasl camera. Those files are
                    > at
                    > > > least 1.5 MB and would take me about 7 minutes each to upload.
                    > > >
                    > > > I can use Photoshop to change the size and resolution of the
                    > pics
                    > > > from the camera so as to get a smaller file size. Do you have a
                    > > > suggestion on the smallest photo size and resolution that will
                    > still
                    > > > show up with decent clarity on the web site?
                    >
                    >
                    > Depending what version of photoshop you are using, In C.S ver's,
                    > first i open the file, Crop any parts out of it that are out of
                    > focus, using the crop tool,
                    >
                    > then select "Image", Image size, and reduce it too 800x600 for a
                    > normal picture, or 1200x800 for a computer screen sized background
                    > picture. it should automatically resize both sides, if the option is
                    > checked.
                    >
                    > then you look under the "file" tab, and select "save for web" this
                    > opens another window, gives you the choice of jpeg, png, gif file
                    > types and sizes. Jpegs are for photos, gifs are for pictures that
                    > have more of a mono chromatic feel to them, drawings etc. they save
                    > in a different way to jpegs, and png files are an format that
                    > is "open source" or un taxed format. by all legal rights, though it
                    > is rarely enforced, the company that owns the legal rights to the
                    > jpeg format, can insist that a website owner pay money to use their
                    > format. The alternitive to that of course is png file format. (bit
                    > of useless information)
                    >
                    > Save your altered "save for web photos in a seperate folder on your
                    > pc, then close the altered photo in adobe, without saving, so you
                    > keep the original untouched.
                    >
                    > have fun
                    >
                    > Leigh
                    >
                  • Ell Geib
                    Kurt, I do not see where you get less than 100K. One of my original photos, as an example, when opened in Photoshop gives the following info: W = 2592 pixels
                    Message 9 of 20 , Dec 5, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Kurt,

                      I do not see where you get less than 100K. One of my original photos,
                      as an example, when opened in Photoshop gives the following info:
                      W = 2592 pixels H = 1944 pixels
                      W = 14.4 in. H = 10.8 in.
                      Resolution 180 dpi
                      Using the Mac's Get Info command, the file size is 3.3 MB

                      When I change the size in Photoshop, I get
                      W = 800 pixels H = 600 pixels
                      W = 4.44 in. H = 3.33 in.
                      Resolution = 180 dpi
                      File size = 540K.

                      (NOTE: For the reduced size photo to have the same quality of
                      sharpness as the original, the dpi needs to be increased to 583 dpi.
                      If that is done, the file size does not decrease. Part of what makes
                      this somewhat confusing is that the sharpness of a print depends on
                      how many dpi - dots per inch - are available for the printer to use,
                      whereas cameras always talk about total pixels available.)

                      I was saving the changed files as High Quality JPEGs. If I save it as
                      a Low Quality JPEG, I still get a file size of 132K. Of course, I can
                      reduce the file some more if I crop the photo to a smaller size. But,
                      if I crop the original and then reduce the cropped photo it to 800 x
                      600, the file size does not change much.

                      Of course, each drop in JPEG quality loses some sharpness in the
                      photo. Because there is some interaction between the width, height,
                      resolution (dpi), and file size, I couldn't get the photo to have a
                      smaller file size even when I changed the resolution to 72 dpi.

                      At 72 dpi, the photo does not look too bad on the computer screen
                      when it is displayed at about 4 inches wide on the screen. But when
                      you magnify it, you find that lettering on a sign that could be read
                      before, now is impossible to read. The real resolution has just gone
                      kaput.

                      I may just try changing a photo or two to 800 pixels x 600 pixels and
                      save them as Low Quality JPEGS, then upload them and see what they
                      look like. If they are okay, I can get 12 uploaded in about 8-10
                      minutes.

                      Ell Geib
                    • ryuen_w
                      Ell, I gave that number after checking the filesize of the 800*600 pictures in the photo section of this site... the ones I checked ranged between 60 & 110 or
                      Message 10 of 20 , Dec 6, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Ell,

                        I gave that number after checking the filesize of the 800*600 pictures
                        in the photo section of this site... the ones I checked ranged between
                        60 & 110 or so KB.
                        I personally don't have photos on this site and the ones I upload on
                        other sites are allways fullsize so I can't say I have personal
                        experience with 800*600 filesizes ;)

                        As you are using photoshop, I can suggest trying out jpg quality
                        levels 8 to 10 (out of 12), those are the ones I tend to use and which
                        I personally find to offer the best quality/bandwith compromise...
                        this is a personal thing offcourse and you may not like them.

                        Also note that photo composition plays a big part in filesize as well,
                        a photo that has uniformly colored areas will be a lot smaller than
                        one that is 'busy' for example.
                      • Ell Geib
                        Gotcha on your file size number. Yes, I am aware that a busy photo will have a larger file than one that is more uniform. For my questions, it is not so much
                        Message 11 of 20 , Dec 6, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Gotcha on your file size number. Yes, I am aware that a busy photo
                          will have a larger file than one that is more uniform. For my
                          questions, it is not so much winding up with a file of 150K or 250K
                          as it is going from 1.5 MB to a much lower file size and keeping a
                          sharp photo.

                          Ell
                        • Ell Geib
                          Thanks Don, but I have Photoshop 7 and Photoshop Elements 2. Is the program you recommended Mac compatible? Ell
                          Message 12 of 20 , Dec 6, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Thanks Don, but I have Photoshop 7 and Photoshop Elements 2. Is the
                            program you recommended Mac compatible?

                            Ell
                          • Ell Geib
                            Leigh, I upgraded to Photoshop 7 not too long before the CS versions came out. I didn t see the point of upgrading again so soon. I understand and do most of
                            Message 13 of 20 , Dec 6, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Leigh,

                              I upgraded to Photoshop 7 not too long before the CS versions came
                              out. I didn't see the point of upgrading again so soon. I understand
                              and do most of the rest of the things you talk about. BUT, I hadn't
                              thought of using the Save for Web option. I'll try that and see what
                              differences I get. Thanks for that reminder.

                              The whole point of my questions: I know how to change the size and
                              resolution of my photo files. But for a given photo, and after any
                              cropping, when you do things that reduces the file size, that means
                              you are throwing away data. At some point that is going to be
                              noticeable. For example, in one of the photos I took of my small
                              layout at the Rockville show a sign describing the layout is visible.
                              In the original photo, or in a reduced sized photo that keeps the
                              same resolution (and large file size), most words on the sign can be
                              read. After changing to 800 x 600 there is sufficient loss of
                              resolution that it is difficult or impossible to read those words.

                              Ell
                            • Garth Hamilton
                              ... There are several factors that change the file size in pictures. One is the size in width and height and the other is the DPI. IF you have a picture that
                              Message 14 of 20 , Dec 7, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                At 07:21 AM 12/7/2006, "Ell Geib" wrote:

                                >Leigh,
                                >
                                >I upgraded to Photoshop 7 not too long before the CS versions came
                                >out. I didn't see the point of upgrading again so soon. I understand
                                >and do most of the rest of the things you talk about. BUT, I hadn't
                                >thought of using the Save for Web option. I'll try that and see what
                                >differences I get. Thanks for that reminder.
                                >
                                >The whole point of my questions: I know how to change the size and
                                >resolution of my photo files. But for a given photo, and after any
                                >cropping, when you do things that reduces the file size, that means
                                >you are throwing away data. At some point that is going to be
                                >noticeable. For example, in one of the photos I took of my small
                                >layout at the Rockville show a sign describing the layout is visible.
                                >In the original photo, or in a reduced sized photo that keeps the
                                >same resolution (and large file size), most words on the sign can be
                                >read. After changing to 800 x 600 there is sufficient loss of
                                >resolution that it is difficult or impossible to read those words.
                                >
                                >Ell

                                There are several factors that change the file size in pictures. One
                                is the size in width and height and the other is the DPI.
                                IF you have a picture that is 180 DPI and change it to 90 DPI you
                                will cut the file size in half. For most pictures on the internet you
                                can get away with Lower DPI setting of 75 to 90 but not for every
                                photo. I tend to use 80 - 95 DPI and 4 x 6 inches or 102 by 153 mm

                                You can always decrease the DPI and get a good picture for internet
                                use, but you can not increase the DPI and get a better picture with
                                most programs, they just appear to be very grainy. You need a very
                                sophisticated program for manipulating digital images to accomplish
                                this sort of upgrade.

                                regards
                                Garth
                              • Thomas Scheuzger
                                FYI, the native resolution of a Windows monitor is 96 dpi, and a Mac is 72 dpi. Ell, you are correct that when you reduce the file size, you throw away data.
                                Message 15 of 20 , Dec 7, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  FYI, the native resolution of a Windows monitor is 96 dpi, and a Mac is 72 dpi.

                                  Ell, you are correct that when you reduce the file size, you throw away data. SInce you have Photoshop, the best thing to do is to look at your original picture as actual pixels (Apple/Option/0 on a Mac; Alt/Ctrl/0 on a PC). Select the marquee tool, and under the tool options, you have three choices: Normal, Fixed Ratio, or Fixed Size. Set the Fixed Ratio to 4:3 (if you want to select all or most of the original), or Fixed Size to 800 px X 600 px. Fixed Ratio will give you the proper aspect for the 800 x 600 maximum file size (so you could set your crop frame to show the areas of best detail), whereas Fixed Size will give you what's called a 100% crop - a single 800 x 600 rectangle at the resolution of your original).

                                  You could do a couple different 100% crops of the same photo, featuring different areas of your original. Then go in to Image Size and change your resolution to either 72 or 96, then reset the pixels to 800 x 600 (make sure the "constrain proportions" box is checked. Also, the Bilinear algorithm is actually better than the default Bicubic algorithm when reducing file size, and vice versa when enlarging. You'll notice that the file size remains the same as your original crop when you reset the dpi AND change the pixel dimensions, but now you've got an enlargement at the same resolution as the original. If there are smaller areas that look good at full size (i.e. actual pixels), but lose definition at smaller sizes, your better off creating a couple 100% crops of the smaller areas and use a reduced full frame version as a way to show the overall scene.

                                  One last thing - the save for web tool is ok, but it's really no better than doing what I've described. Also, the jpeg format is strictly for photos, but over time has become bastardized by people who don't know better and has become a catch all for any kind of picture file. GIF (Graphic Interchange Format) format is only for GRAPHICS that use less than 256 colors.

                                  Hope that makes sense - it's been a long day and I'm a bit road weary, so hopefully what I've said makes sense.

                                  Tom


                                  On Thursday, December 07, 2006, at 08:00AM, "Garth Hamilton" <garthah@...> wrote:
                                  >At 07:21 AM 12/7/2006, "Ell Geib" wrote:
                                  >
                                  >>Leigh,
                                  >>
                                  >>I upgraded to Photoshop 7 not too long before the CS versions came
                                  >>out. I didn't see the point of upgrading again so soon. I understand
                                  >>and do most of the rest of the things you talk about. BUT, I hadn't
                                  >>thought of using the Save for Web option. I'll try that and see what
                                  >>differences I get. Thanks for that reminder.
                                  >>
                                  >>The whole point of my questions: I know how to change the size and
                                  >>resolution of my photo files. But for a given photo, and after any
                                  >>cropping, when you do things that reduces the file size, that means
                                  >>you are throwing away data. At some point that is going to be
                                  >>noticeable. For example, in one of the photos I took of my small
                                  >>layout at the Rockville show a sign describing the layout is visible.
                                  >>In the original photo, or in a reduced sized photo that keeps the
                                  >>same resolution (and large file size), most words on the sign can be
                                  >>read. After changing to 800 x 600 there is sufficient loss of
                                  >>resolution that it is difficult or impossible to read those words.
                                  >>
                                  >>Ell
                                  >
                                  >There are several factors that change the file size in pictures. One
                                  >is the size in width and height and the other is the DPI.
                                  >IF you have a picture that is 180 DPI and change it to 90 DPI you
                                  >will cut the file size in half. For most pictures on the internet you
                                  >can get away with Lower DPI setting of 75 to 90 but not for every
                                  >photo. I tend to use 80 - 95 DPI and 4 x 6 inches or 102 by 153 mm
                                  >
                                  >You can always decrease the DPI and get a good picture for internet
                                  >use, but you can not increase the DPI and get a better picture with
                                  >most programs, they just appear to be very grainy. You need a very
                                  >sophisticated program for manipulating digital images to accomplish
                                  >this sort of upgrade.
                                  >
                                  >regards
                                  >Garth
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >Z-scale: minimum siZe, MAXIMUM enjoyment!
                                  >
                                  >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                • Thomas Scheuzger
                                  FYI, the native resolution of a Windows monitor is 96 dpi, and a Mac is 72 dpi. Ell, you are correct that when you reduce the file size, you throw away data.
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Dec 7, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    FYI, the native resolution of a Windows monitor is 96 dpi, and a Mac is 72 dpi.

                                    Ell, you are correct that when you reduce the file size, you throw away data. SInce you have Photoshop, the best thing to do is to look at your original picture as actual pixels (Apple/Option/0 on a Mac; Alt/Ctrl/0 on a PC). Select the marquee tool, and under the tool options, you have three choices: Normal, Fixed Ratio, or Fixed Size. Set the Fixed Ratio to 4:3 (if you want to select all or most of the original), or Fixed Size to 800 px X 600 px. Fixed Ratio will give you the proper aspect for the 800 x 600 maximum file size (so you could set your crop frame to show the areas of best detail), whereas Fixed Size will give you what's called a 100% crop - a single 800 x 600 rectangle at the resolution of your original).

                                    You could do a couple different 100% crops of the same photo, featuring different areas of your original. Then go in to Image Size and change your resolution to either 72 or 96, then reset the pixels to 800 x 600 (make sure the "constrain proportions" box is checked. Also, the Bilinear algorithm is actually better than the default Bicubic algorithm when reducing file size, and vice versa when enlarging. You'll notice that the file size remains the same as your original crop when you reset the dpi AND change the pixel dimensions, but now you've got an enlargement at the same resolution as the original. If there are smaller areas that look good at full size (i.e. actual pixels), but lose definition at smaller sizes, your better off creating a couple 100% crops of the smaller areas and use a reduced full frame version as a way to show the overall scene.

                                    One last thing - the save for web tool is ok, but it's really no better than doing what I've described. Also, the jpeg format is strictly for photos, but over time has become bastardized by people who don't know better and has become a catch all for any kind of picture file. GIF (Graphic Interchange Format) format is only for GRAPHICS that use less than 256 colors.

                                    Hope that makes sense - it's been a long day and I'm a bit road weary, so hopefully what I've said makes sense.

                                    Tom


                                    On Wednesday, December 06, 2006, at 09:48PM, "Ell Geib" <geib@...> wrote:
                                    >Leigh,
                                    >
                                    >I upgraded to Photoshop 7 not too long before the CS versions came
                                    >out. I didn't see the point of upgrading again so soon. I understand
                                    >and do most of the rest of the things you talk about. BUT, I hadn't
                                    >thought of using the Save for Web option. I'll try that and see what
                                    >differences I get. Thanks for that reminder.
                                    >
                                    >The whole point of my questions: I know how to change the size and
                                    >resolution of my photo files. But for a given photo, and after any
                                    >cropping, when you do things that reduces the file size, that means
                                    >you are throwing away data. At some point that is going to be
                                    >noticeable. For example, in one of the photos I took of my small
                                    >layout at the Rockville show a sign describing the layout is visible.
                                    >In the original photo, or in a reduced sized photo that keeps the
                                    >same resolution (and large file size), most words on the sign can be
                                    >read. After changing to 800 x 600 there is sufficient loss of
                                    >resolution that it is difficult or impossible to read those words.
                                    >
                                    >Ell
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >Z-scale: minimum siZe, MAXIMUM enjoyment!
                                    >
                                    >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                  • Ell Geib
                                    Thanks for your input Garth, I tend to use numbers like 300 dpi for most of what I do with Photoshop. And that is obviously too high for doing dial-up to a web
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Dec 7, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Thanks for your input Garth,

                                      I tend to use numbers like 300 dpi for most of what I do with
                                      Photoshop. And that is obviously too high for doing dial-up to a web
                                      site (at least for a bunch of photos). I will try the 80-95 dpi
                                      resolution. Your response was the sort of info I tried to get from
                                      the Yahoo Help people with zero response from them. I guess they
                                      simply cannot answer things for which they have not been
                                      pre-programmed.

                                      Ell Geib
                                    • Mark Lewis
                                      Thomas Scheuzger wrote: FYI, the native resolution of a Windows monitor is 96 dpi, and a Mac is 72 dpi. That was true back in the early 1990s, but hasn t
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Dec 8, 2006
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Thomas Scheuzger wrote:

                                        "FYI, the native resolution of a Windows monitor is 96 dpi, and a Mac
                                        is 72 dpi."

                                        That was true back in the early 1990s, but hasn't been true in many
                                        years. Native resolution doesn't exist anymore by system. Both
                                        systems can use the exact same displays these days, and the native
                                        resolution of the display is determined by hardware not the system
                                        software. The old 72 dpi geometry on Macs was based on print
                                        technology where users who wanted to see exact print size on the
                                        screen measured in type points (actually points as redefined by
                                        Postscript, which is rounded down from the traditional printers point
                                        of 72.27 dpi). For photographic purposes, constraining the image to
                                        72 dpi does not show the actual pixels, but rather shows the image in
                                        a point representation, as it will look in a print document created
                                        on a Postscript printer.

                                        If you want to see the actual pixels, you have to know the real
                                        resolution of your display.
                                        Example: I am writing this on a nominally 20" iMac with a resolution
                                        of 1680 x 1050. Measured horizontally, the resolution is 1680/17" =
                                        90 dpi, not 72. That is the native resolution of the screen and what
                                        has to be set in Photoshop to see the actual pixels.

                                        Mark



                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Ell Geib
                                        Tom, Thanks for your detailed info. I understood it well enough to get one of my 1.5 MB photos down to 250K. I then did the Save to Web option and it dropped
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Dec 9, 2006
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Tom,

                                          Thanks for your detailed info. I understood it well enough to get one
                                          of my 1.5 MB photos down to 250K. I then did the Save to Web option
                                          and it dropped to 100K. In both cases, the resolution on my monitor
                                          was better than what I had achieved earlier. And now I am going back
                                          to the Photoshop book I have and learn some more. Thanks again.

                                          Ell Geib

                                          On Thu Dec 7, 2006 7:17 pm (PST)
                                          "Thomas Scheuzger" tscheuzger@... wrote:

                                          FYI, the native resolution of a Windows monitor is 96 dpi, and a Mac is 72 dpi.

                                          Ell, you are correct that when you reduce the file size, you throw
                                          away data. SInce you have Photoshop, the best thing to do is to look
                                          at your original picture as actual pixels (Apple/Option/0 on a Mac;
                                          Alt/Ctrl/0 on a PC). Select the marquee tool, and under the tool
                                          options, you have three choices: Normal, Fixed Ratio, or Fixed Size.
                                          Set the Fixed Ratio to 4:3 (if you want to select all or most of the
                                          original), or Fixed Size to 800 px X 600 px. Fixed Ratio will give
                                          you the proper aspect for the 800 x 600 maximum file size (so you
                                          could set your crop frame to show the areas of best detail), whereas
                                          Fixed Size will give you what's called a 100% crop - a single 800 x
                                          600 rectangle at the resolution of your original).

                                          You could do a couple different 100% crops of the same photo,
                                          featuring different areas of your original. Then go in to Image Size
                                          and change your resolution to either 72 or 96, then reset the pixels
                                          to 800 x 600 (make sure the "constrain proportions" box is checked.
                                          Also, the Bilinear algorithm is actually better than the default
                                          Bicubic algorithm when reducing file size, and vice versa when
                                          enlarging. You'll notice that the file size remains the same as your
                                          original crop when you reset the dpi AND change the pixel dimensions,
                                          but now you've got an enlargement at the same resolution as the
                                          original. If there are smaller areas that look good at full size
                                          (i.e. actual pixels), but lose definition at smaller sizes, your
                                          better off creating a couple 100% crops of the smaller areas and use
                                          a reduced full frame version as a way to show the overall scene.

                                          One last thing - the save for web tool is ok, but it's really no
                                          better than doing what I've described. Also, the jpeg format is
                                          strictly for photos, but over time has become bastardized by people
                                          who don't know better and has become a catch all for any kind of
                                          picture file. GIF (Graphic Interchange Format) format is only for
                                          GRAPHICS that use less than 256 colors.

                                          Hope that makes sense - it's been a long day and I'm a bit road
                                          weary, so hopefully what I've said makes sense.

                                          Tom
                                        • Ell Geib
                                          Thanks for the additional info Mark. By the way, I changed my 20 in. iMac s resolution setting from 1280 x 800 to 1680 x 1050 to see what your setting looks
                                          Message 20 of 20 , Dec 9, 2006
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Thanks for the additional info Mark. By the way, I changed my 20 in.
                                            iMac's resolution setting from 1280 x 800 to 1680 x 1050 to see what
                                            your setting looks like. You must have good eyes to read text that
                                            small. I went back to my setting.

                                            Ell Geib

                                            On Fri Dec 8, 2006 8:34 am (PST)
                                            "Mark Lewis" mflewis@... wrote

                                            >Thomas Scheuzger wrote:

                                            >"FYI, the native resolution of a Windows monitor is 96 dpi, and
                                            >a >Mac is 72 dpi."

                                            That was true back in the early 1990s, but hasn't been true in many
                                            years. Native resolution doesn't exist anymore by system. Both
                                            systems can use the exact same displays these days, and the native
                                            resolution of the display is determined by hardware not the system
                                            software. The old 72 dpi geometry on Macs was based on print
                                            technology where users who wanted to see exact print size on the
                                            screen measured in type points (actually points as redefined by
                                            Postscript, which is rounded down from the traditional printers point
                                            of 72.27 dpi). For photographic purposes, constraining the image to
                                            72 dpi does not show the actual pixels, but rather shows the image in
                                            a point representation, as it will look in a print document created
                                            on a Postscript printer.

                                            If you want to see the actual pixels, you have to know the real
                                            resolution of your display.
                                            Example: I am writing this on a nominally 20" iMac with a resolution
                                            of 1680 x 1050. Measured horizontally, the resolution is 1680/17" =
                                            90 dpi, not 72. That is the native resolution of the screen and what
                                            has to be set in Photoshop to see the actual pixels.

                                            Mark


                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.