Display:
How do you process the images?  I'm wondering if you set the file size/quality a bit too low so that the detail gets lost.  I tend to save jpegs at about quality 4 or 5 for the photoblogs. Looking at your file sizes you could easily save at higher quality and not create files that are too large.

Ad astra per aspera
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Sat Nov 3rd, 2007 at 07:00:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It must be something else. Too low jpeg quality looks like a video still, melo's pictures look as if they were re-sized to 200 pixels wide and then magnified again. I would be really glad to help melo in this, too, because even the above suggest really good original shots.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Nov 3rd, 2007 at 09:29:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That might be it - Melo, when you process the photos are they intially smaller than 600 pixel width, that you then incease to 600 pixels when you post on the blog?

Ad astra per aspera
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Sat Nov 3rd, 2007 at 12:37:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
my camera takes quite 'heavy' shots, some are more than 4 mb in photoshop...if i email them they come out lovely, even if i reduce the size), i used to use imagewell to get my pix to flickr, then the demo stopped working and the reg didn't work, so i switched to flickr export, which works within iphoto, (though it ties it up until the pic has finished uploading, whereas imagewell didn't...

imagewell also gave me control over the size and weight of the file, letting me know how many k it was, whereas flickrexport doesn't.

some of the older pix were indeed taken with a video then sliced out!

i don't know how heavy these are, i was counting on someone telling me if they were slowing down the site...

now it seems like i should compress them less...

i'll try looking for a way to tweak flickrexport meanwhile.

on a mac.....!

thanks for the kind praise and the offers of help.

~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sat Nov 3rd, 2007 at 04:35:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I know nothing of macs!

But your photos are mostly around 23kb, none more than 30 or so so you can afford to compress them less that you do.

Maybe somebody with a mac can help out - Ted perhaps?

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Sat Nov 3rd, 2007 at 04:44:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Or Colman.

But I suggest as a first excercise to take one single image (I'd take "autumn colours, perugia 1") and do 2-3 further versions with the same size but decreasing compression, and post them in a comment -- for us to comment :-) (We frontpagers can delete it later.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Nov 3rd, 2007 at 05:35:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Image size in Photoshop will do the job.

Save as JPG.

Flickr shouldn't do too much damage after that.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Nov 3rd, 2007 at 06:02:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
melo doesn't seem to have Photoshop (neither do I for that matter). Can you suggest a mac freeware for him?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sun Nov 4th, 2007 at 01:38:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Imagewell. You only need to pay for it if you want the advanced features.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sun Nov 4th, 2007 at 01:40:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
melo wrote a few comments back that he had imagewell, but its trial time run out.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sun Nov 4th, 2007 at 01:50:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

that's what scoop wants to do with the flickr capture, without me coding any size. in preview it's a bit less grainy. before i was asking it to make it 600 width.

in iphoto, which i use to suck the pix out of the flashcard in the camera, the pic comes out bigger and more luminous. if i drag them into mail to send to someone, they come out big and lively.

the camera is a samsung techwin, s1000 model.

i don't understand why with the same settings one pic weighs 167k, and another weighs 4.9mb...

anyone enlighten me?

~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Nov 4th, 2007 at 12:09:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Picture size depends on information content -- if your image is mostly black with some simple shapes, it could be 167k.

that's what scoop wants to do with the flickr capture

Is "scoop" some Apple program?

I don't use mac, but here is an idea: maybe what "flickr capture" does is screen-capture your photos, as loaded by iphoto into a small viewing window?

At any rate, I hope the Apple users here suggest you some good image-editing program, so that you control what's re-sized not FlickrExport/iphoto.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Nov 4th, 2007 at 01:36:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Scoop is the name of the software used to run ET...

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Sun Nov 4th, 2007 at 02:34:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Which is obviously not an image-handling software.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sun Nov 4th, 2007 at 02:37:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I still get the impression the scoop melo is talking about is the one running ET. e.g., Scoop does have a preview function...

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Sun Nov 4th, 2007 at 02:51:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
i was referring to the new user's guide where it has the code for introducing a pic....isn't that a scoop function, or is it basic html?

~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Nov 4th, 2007 at 04:53:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Scoop doesn't modify your image in any way, and includes the basic html code you put in your comment.

I checked on the pixellated pictures, and understood the problem : you are linking to the flickr thumbnails images (with an _m.jpg at the end of the name of the picture). Remove those _m, and the pictures will appear correctly...

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Sun Nov 4th, 2007 at 09:33:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
ta, linca, i'll give it a whirl...

~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon Nov 5th, 2007 at 03:33:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Macs are GREAT for image manipulation so whatever problems you are having isn't due to the computer.  And if you have Photoshop, the problem is not with the software either.  

Are you using the "Save for Web and Devices" command in Photoshop?  It is almost impossible to get it wrong with this wonderful feature.

"Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"

by techno (reply@elegant-technology.com) on Sun Nov 4th, 2007 at 08:18:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
i used to use photoshop quite a bit, mostly for tweaking caricatures out of normal pix...i never figured out how to layers right, and ran out of interest.

these days i import into iphoto, tweak a bit, mostly crop...sometimes the 'enhance' button makes nice changes, mostly not...

the adjust menu offers a bit of tweaking, saturation, contrast etc.

imagewell was a lot better, but i can't make it work any more, and flickrexport works, but i can't find any prefs to tweak in it...

thanks for your efforts to help, y'all!

i'm going to get aperture, i think, i hear it offers much more than iphoto, and is macfriendly.

meanwhile i'll try linca's suggestion...

~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon Nov 5th, 2007 at 06:28:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series