Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 4, 2005, 3:29 PM   #11
igo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 114
Default

I use very little additional compression. In photographic web design, when deciding to go hi-resolution, that is hi-resolution as it relates to bandwidth, I had to decide a compromise between image quality, bandwith and display size. I found that an average 17 inchmonitor using IE for a browser and set at a 1024x768 resolution (very average) that a 600 pixel high image would fill the browser window thus I restricted pixel size to 600 high and 800 wide wich just happens to bring me in at an exceptable 150kb file size. For web browsing, this is pretty good resolution. The photos I post here are the same that I save for my website. I do have MUCH higher resolution images on storage. It sounds likeyou and I have independantly come close to the same conclusions.
igo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2005, 3:41 PM   #12
igo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 114
Default

Very fare opinion AND you ask a very valid question at it's end. "Am I here to share information or to show off my stuff."

I think that I can answer for a majority of people in my position. Not eveybody but the majority. I have a website. I own the domain name and I have 2 gigs of storage space and 2 gigs a month of bandwidth. People who buy into that are "showing off there stuff" for the most part and display is why I'm into photography.

I've only just resently decided to go hi-res/hi-bandwidth because I beleive that one day dial-up will be a thing of the past and I do display photography. Right now, I'm just too into what I do tohold back.

To answer your question, I'm showing off. In reality, I have no information to share if no one asks me any questions about a "half done-right" photograph.
igo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2005, 4:26 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
nlp239's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 719
Default

Then you go for it buddy. You're paying for it after all. Ahhhh!!! But that reminds me of something else, which you mentioned - bandwidth which you're paying for.

Is you host charging you for everytime their server is serving a hi-res image???? Of course they are. If your site becomes popular, I hope it does, then you will have to think it over again unless there is a form of revenue to pay for the bandwidth.

Don't misunderstand me, i don't think there is a right way or a right way (I didn't mean wrong) to do things. Eventually it is what YOU are comfortable width because it is YOURS.

Perhaps dial-up will go the way of the dodo but not in my lifetime. Thanks for letting share my opinion.


nlp239 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2005, 5:36 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
CCWKen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 221
Default

Personally, I don't care how people store their images. For the most part, anything that doesn't show/fit on my screen probably won't be looked at. There's far too many "better" pictures that do fit. I don't care to view poster sized pics on the web. It's a waste of bandwidth no matter how your connected.

Besides that, some of us don't have a choice for faster connections. Out here in the sticks I'm lucky to have electric. :-)
CCWKen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2005, 6:26 PM   #15
igo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 114
Default

I had a web site set up for dial up for years. It was a real struggle to make the decision. I certainly understand your position for sure.
igo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2005, 6:30 PM   #16
igo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 114
Default

I lived in Georgia cotton country for years. That was home when I started building web sites. 28kbs connection. Don't worry friend! the 1990's are on there way to ya. LOL

and you are correct, images do need to be sized to fit a screen or nobody is going to look at them.
igo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2005, 10:55 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
errno_gmm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 518
Default

nlp239 wrote:
Quote:
Can either one of the following really be only 1dpi?" Yes it can and it IS.




So, does DPI matter for the screen! The answer is NO.
Did you check the file size of each of those pictures? Yes, they are both 200*300, one is 72dpi and one is 1dpi. But they are exactly the same size. - 7034 bytes
errno_gmm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2005, 11:16 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Nols's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 154
Default

Okay here's my 2 cents worth:

If you're main concern is trying to show the best limits of a camera, then I agree with you. However, I do know that photography is more than pixels, resolution, sharpness, etc. If however, your mainobjective is toshare and communicatewith your photos, then file size should be a concern. The smaller the files, the easier it is for more people to view. If everyone disregards file limitations, then even broadband will someday be unacceptably congested and slow (imagine 100 people trying to view a 2Mb image from a server all at once).

I myselfam still using dial-up so I may be a bit biased. Dsl is already available here but the costs still have to go down in order for it to be worth it for me.

Nols
Nols is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:10 PM.