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, 12:47 AM   #1
igo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 114
Default

I've had a photographic web site from 1997 to present. I've had 450 pixel high images that weighed in at 40kb but they just don't get it anymore. Several months ago I bought a slide and negative scanner and decided to go Hi-res all the way. My brother put it one way that really made sense and helped push me over.

"People on dial-up aren't normally known for surfing" and he was correct. Most people who surf the web for photography just are not going to spend the time it takes with dial-up to hunt for photography. People who are truly into pictures and digital imagery in particular are set up with high speed anyway.

It's a shame some people that are interested in digital photography on the web are stuck with dial up but that's coming to an end everywhere I think. Digital imagery is becoming more popular by the minute and speeds are increasing along side file sizes. My images are now 600 pixels and 150kb minimal and I'm no longer trying to cater to dial-up, I've got too much invested in high quality imaging.

What do you folks think? Am I selfish thinking this way? or is it time for us all to move along?
igo is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 4, 2005, 1:13 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
errno_gmm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 518
Default

I agree. I am a webdesigner/developer/graphic designer.

When I make websites, i do try to keep sizes to a minimum, not because about dialuppers, but because it does come through faster anyway - but these arent photos. Photos need to be a decent resolution, otherwise its pointless putting them up. Use a too low JPEG compression its going to look like ass.

The only reason i crop my photos for forums is because it makes them look better - 700pixels wide fits nicely into the width of a topic so it doesnt affect the forum layout

If you have dialup, you are used to things coming down slowly. I am in Australia, too, and have an 8mbit adsl connection, and we are behind IMO. Im sure other countries are on mbit DSL too. Not that i get to use that site very often, as most sites seem to be capped around 50-150k a second anyway.

The only difference is with high res == higher file size == more bandwith costs for the forum. Thats why it needs to be capped. But crop your photos to 700*465 pixels, use about JPEG 10 compression in photoshop, and it should still look good and usually comes out at around 120k
errno_gmm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2005, 8:48 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
nlp239's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 719
Default

My 2cents worth. Photography as an art form or as just plain info-bytes should in my opinion be shared.

We are lucky to live in urban centres and have access to choice of cable and A/DSL (and sometimes satelite)but, so many others in the world do not - why should they be penalised because they are either poor or perhaps live in an rural setting. We don't have to go far for this - do you know how many people in North America are in this situation.

If we run a website with graphic or image content we CAN help. Limit the size of the image and change the resolution to 1ppi instead of the 69, 72 and 300 - they're lies anyway.

You have a forum? Then limit the size of the attachment which this forum says it does but does not - some images are so huge I need to change the monitor resolution.

The internet has become popular because it had become our virtual library. We learn and we guide. Stats are available at how many are still on dial-up and that's what should be guiding you, not members who are already on Cable/DSL.

The question is: Do you want to share your knowledge with others or are you just showing-off your stuff.

Thanks for letting me voice my opinion.
nlp239 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2005, 9:08 AM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 62
Default

well i dont think anyone wants to penalize anybody intentionally.

i think it goes back to what the purpose of the website is. to share your photos.

the keyword here is "your". if you feel that your photos will look good pixelated or in low-res, or that is your artistic style, then go for it.

if your photos will look good only if they are at hi-res then go for that as well.

it all depends on the artistic opinion of the artist, and there is no right or wrong, sinful or non-sinful, way to set up your photos.

also, if your website is to promote your artistic ability to a potential employer, i dont think they would access your site with netzero.

it all depends on the website purpose.
sajdahgraphics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2005, 9:35 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
errno_gmm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 518
Default

nlp239 wrote:

Quote:
change the resolution to 1ppi instead of the 69, 72 and 300 - they're lies anyway.

Actually screen resolution is 72 dpi. And, if i remember correctly JPEG is only 72 dpi anyway. You would use 300 dpi only for printing things.

Have you tried changing the resolution to 1 dpi? From an image of 3008 pixels wide at 72 dpi you will end up with an image 42 pixels wide - hardly useful for presenting any pictures.

Photos of 100k-200k are more than suitable for sharing your pictures
errno_gmm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2005, 10:34 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
ennacac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,198
Default

Also this forum is for discussion of Pentax DSLR's and how well they perform, as well as a problem solving venue.

It entirely misses the point of showing the capabilities of the camera, if you post a pixilated, low res image that is completely different from the original. On the other side it also misses the point if your image won't fit on the page set up by the forum and viewers have to scrool to see it.

JPG is actually any dpi you want is to be, unless you optimize it for web browsing, at which point it becomes 72 dpi.

When I set up web pages, I optimize them so that they load as quickly as possible and still get the message the client is expecting on the first page. That allows anyone, no matter what their ISP speed the opportunity to get the clients message.

After page one, it depends on the clients needs, for example, real estate pages need to load quickly, so as not to loose the customers interest. Fine arts pages on the other hand, will load more slowly, since the quality of the image is the primary issue, although it still has to fit on the page.

Tom
ennacac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2005, 10:49 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
nlp239's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 719
Default

That is nothing but a myth which people don't care to correct, don't know about it or, they just don't give a darn. But, it does exist and should be addressed. Most seem to think that for an image meant for the monitor needs to be 72dpi, this is a lot of hogwash - DPI is something you should worry about, only when you are dealing with images for print.

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.
nlp239 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2005, 11:09 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
nlp239's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 719
Default


nlp239 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2005, 12:24 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
ennacac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,198
Default

Actually you are correct, as I was refering to pixels per inch instead of dpi, which is a printing measure not a viewing measure.

Other than that I stand by my statement.

"It entirely misses the point of showing the capabilities of the camera, if you post a pixilated, low res image that is completely different from the original. On the other side it also misses the point if your image won't fit on the page set up by the forum and viewers have to scrool to see it."
ennacac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2005, 1:02 PM   #10
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

i visit one forum where the max size is 100k for pix so i usually go for that. i usually resize to 72ppi not dpi and between 700-800 pixels on the widest axis then save at what i need to get under 100k. everything i've posted here is the same almost. for web viewing i have found this to be quite adaquate. i also send out a ''pic of the day'' email to a lot of people. many on dial-up w/only one person asking to be removed.

however YOU want to post is up to YOU, IMHO
  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 4:37 PM.