Smaller Photographs

[donaldejose]

For everyone who has been asking for smaller photographs, how are these displaying for you? These contain only about one seventh the information in the original photographs so they may well be far less sharp. Probably like down-converting a HD TV image to regular TV.

How are these displaying for you? Someone suggested a right click down convert process but I haven't been able to figure out how to do that. If you know please post it.

 

[Q5?]

They fit my screen better.
The 1st one is bigger though?
Nice shots BTW :q5:

 

[donaldejose]

q5?

Right, two slightly different down-conversion sizes. Do they fill your screen? Do they seem sharp to you? On my screen they cover only half the available space, leaving a lot of black unused nothing.

 

[rol_man]

Nice photos, seem to hold the detail and they fit my screen with no problem. I have a 21" widescreen monitor.

 

[donaldejose]

everyone

I am using a Samsung 23 inch widescreen monitor and the original photos fill my screen nicely (some overlap a small bit but not enough to even scroll them). These smaller ones fill only half the screen and don't look even half as good to me. My screen resolution is 1920 x 1080 pixels and it can go one step higher. What screen size and resolution is everyone using?

 

[Q5?]

D

I must admit that I like the smaller pics.
You could add a link to the bigger ones for the guys who want them?
If you check out the Weekly Wrist shots, most are the size of these last ones you posted.
It seems to be the most common size.

 

[Meta4]

Earlier you said ... don't want to reduce clarity because I reduced pixels too much.

Reducing pixel count won't reduce clarity of good photos for web use. You only need high resolution for printing big or cropping small sections from photos and retaining details.

Right now I'm viewing on my laptop and I can see less than half the width of your larger photos .. that means less than a quarter of the pic on screen. I can tell they are good quality but I can't see the whole picture at once. And because the pics are so big - I can't read the text without scrolling back and forwards for each line. It's too much trouble to scroll around so I don't even bother and miss the photos and text.

I think photos are wasted if viewers can't see all of the pic on screen.

I'd suggest having a look at some of the best photos in wrist shot posts and right clicking on them to see what resolution people are using. You also have to allow for the non-picture area on the left of the screen. Just about any graphics program will resize images.

 

[watchman1]

Much, much better. I can enjoy your pictures much better this way. I don't see any reduction in the quality of the pictures, IMHO.

 

[donaldejose]

Meta4

Thanks for the feedback. When I right click on any photos in RWI I don't get any info on resolution.

The problem I have is that my camera will not allow me to take smaller photos. I already have it set on the smallest size possible. So every one has to be converted. One more step in an already lengthy process from taking photo to posting on RWI. I just found a possible way to reduce size in Microsoft Picture It Pro 10. Will try some more later tonight.

Thanks again for all your help.

 

[I am Sam]

If you set the original resolution of the pics from your camera to the lowest they'll come out fine for everyone. I nomrally use 800x600 to cater all screen sizes, if I need to post in on web.

 

[donaldejose]

My original posted photos were at the lowest resolution my camera allows! There is not an option for 800 x 600. So every one has to be down-converted from much higher resolution. Many of my original photos contained over 1 MB of data.

 

[I am Sam]

Which camera are you using?

 

[donaldejose]

Nikon D80

 

[trailboss99]

Donald, are you using Photoshop?
It's an easy process to downsize the image in most photo editing programs.

I'm on a 21inch monitor at 1280x960 and those first were double the size of the screen It is the resolution of the screen that counts here rather than size. 1280x960 being colse to average for a 3:4 screen of larger size.



Col.

 

[donaldejose]

Trailboss 99

I am not using photoshop. Am using Microsoft Picture It Professional 10. I did find out how to downsize the images but had to make a copy of the original first to save it or the smaller one would have overwritten the larger one.

I am using a 23 inch monitor set at 1920 x 1080. Thought that was more normal now; guess not.

How are these smaller size photos displaying on your screen now?

On my screen the small ones are a sad refection of the original. These smaller pictures are sharp; but the originals were awesomely sharp. Much detail has been lost in downsizing. However, if most people cannot see the original in one viewing, I guess they lose effect also.

Thanks for your response.

 

[ShadowB]

Unless you are cropping, you aren't taking out the sharpness of photo's by compressing them (aka reducing their sizes).

BIG difference between cropping and reducing...

Edit: It seems you were changing the size of the photo's in the camera... thats a BIG no no since you ARE sacrificing quality for size. Always shoot at the largest possibility in RAW then use your post processing software to resize the images.

Shoot me a PM, and we can go over what you can use, and how you can use it. Don't want to brag, but i do this for a living.

 

[rooster133]

Perfect. Thank you. Keep them this size from now on.

 

[fakemaster]

1920 x 1080? No wonder you are having trouble.

 

[trailboss99]

As FM says, Holy Crap! I couldn't even see the icons at that res even on 21". Shadow is correct, quality should stay the same unless you are reducing the pixel count instead of uping the Piexls per inch to reduce the aperant size of the image. Making a copy first and working from that is the safest way but you can work with the origenal and simply click on "Save copy as". This will not then make any perment changes to the origenal as long as you do not save it on closing.


Col.