Re: PUG Stuff: Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Jostein]

J.C.,
If you know html, try to place the code in the commentary field. If you
don't of if it doesn't work; provide the HTTP: without tags, and Adelheid or
I will add it manually.
Jostein
(Your AutoPug maintainer)
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 5:51 AM
Subject: RE: PUG Stuff: Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of
artifacts?


> > I suggest you learn to live within the limitations of the PUG
> > for submissions to it, and put a link within your submission to
> > take the viewer to a larger size image on a different server if
> > you think the image merits it.
> >
> > William Robb
>
> Great Idea, a link will do the trick.
> But I dont remember a window on the
> submission form to enter the link.
> Did I miss it? I recall one for
> a website, could that be used for
> a link to a larger image?
>
> BTW, is it possible to edit a submission after
> its already entered?
>
> JCO
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Aaron Reynolds]

On Sunday, February 3, 2002, at 04:00  PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:

> If it's unusuable, it also doesnt communicate the art.

I don't believe this to be the case at all.  Very little of my work has 
lost what I like about it when reduced to web size.

-Aaron
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

RE: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[J. C. O'Connell]

I think the issue is settled. In the future I will include
URLs of a higher resolution images when the shot merits
worth seeing at better quality.
JCO

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 4:41 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
> 
> 
> Okay, Peir 2 is acceptable for web viewing, Peir 1 would be nice to print
> from, at least up to about 8 x10. What's your point? You certainly aren't
> suggesting that the best way to view this photo is to scroll up and down?
> I don't get it. By the way, it's a nice photo. And it's still a nice
> photo in web viewing size.
> Paul
> 
> "J. C. O'Connell" wrote:
> 
> > whoops: thats:
> >  www.gate.net/~hifisapi/peir1.jpg
> >
> >  www.gate.net/~hifisapi/peir2.jpg
> >
> > JCO
> > >
> > >
> > > www.gate.net/~hifisapi/pier1.jpg
> > >
> > > www.gate.net/~hifisapi/pier2.jpg
> > >
> > > The second one is the reduced version
> > > I sent to PUG.
> > >
> > > The first one is really big, about 700K
> > > the second one is only 64K.
> > > JCO
> > > -
> > > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> > > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> > > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
> > -
> > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[dave o'brien]

On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Sid Barras wrote:

> I suppose this is going over my  head when we begin to talk about jpeg 
> compression, but is my file size is 74k when closed, and stored on the 
> server, does  it suddenly take up more space on the server when it is open?

The important size is the size of the file on the disk.  Sometimes the 
editing program (photoshop or paintshop pro) will show an uncompressed 
size, which really has no relation to the compressed size on disk.
 
> And one last puzzlement, why isn't the code for the page written so that 
> the thumbnails will show  in both netscape and explorer?

It works fine under Konqueror (a linux browser).  There appear to be
spaces as the first character of the thumbnail filenames, which would seem
to be a mistake of some sort.

dave
-- 
dave o'brien - http://www.diaspoir.net
You will lose an important disk file.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: A PUG Compromise (Was Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?)

[Jon Hope]

On Sun, 03 Feb 2002 11:05:11 -0500, Paul Stenquist wrote:

Hi Paul

The PUG submission page has the following:

Maximum file size is 75kb.

Maximum image dimension is 600 pixels on the longest side. Oversized 
images will be resized.

You can submit a square image 600 x 600 as long as it is under 75K.

Or am I missing something rather basic?

Cheers

>Bill seemed to have had a somewhat liberal approach to interpreting
>the size
>restrictions. Recent PUGs frequently contained images approaching
>90K in file
>size, and something like a 600 x 450 was generally allowed. (Correct
>me if I'm
>wrong, Bill, but that's the way it appeared.) I think this was a
>valid
>approach. I'd like to see a minor adjustment of the rules to allow
>some
>leeway. For example, let's set the maximum file size at 90K.
>Frequently, the
>difference between 75K and 90 K is PhotoShop's "Medium" grade vs.
>the "High"
>grade compression. And why not change the dimension rule to say that
>the
>longest side of an image can be no more than 600 points. That would
>eliminate
>the handicap that a square image faces and would allow for more
>creative
>cropping.
>Paul
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Adelheid,
>>
>> I certainly appreciate all the work you are doing to create the
>>PUG.  The
>> large number of images every month are a credit to it's popularity
>>and the
>> value it adds to this discussion group.
>>
>> I would appreciate knowing what it was about Sid's image that
>>might have
>> caused it to be resized.  Perhaps Sid could send it to you again
>>and you
>> could check.  If we have other criteria which cause an image to be
>>resized,
>> we sure ought to know about them in advance.  Having seen the
>>original, I
>> personally would have been a lot less gracious about it than Sid
>>if it had
>> happened to one of my images.
>>
>> Regards,  Bob S.
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>> << Dear Bob,
>>
>> I don't remember why I had to resize this particular pic.
>> Since I don't have the original anymore I have no way of telling.
>>
>> Please keep to the rules then I am not forced to fiddle around
>>with your
>> pics.
>> It only increases the workload anyway.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Adelheid >>
>> -
>> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To 
unsubscribe,
>> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget
>>to
>> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
>-
>This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
>go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
>visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
>


-- 
Jon Hope, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 04/02/2002
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[William Robb]

- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?


> > One of the other reasons for smaller sized scans in the PUG
is the very
> > real problem of image theft on the web -- if the image is
small enough,
> > it is unusable elsewhere.
> >
> > -Aaron


> If it's unusuable, it also doesnt communicate the art.
> JCO

So get yourself some web space and make a gallery to call your
very own. Make the files as large as you want.
Make sure you put lots of meta tags into the page headers to
attract as many search engines as possible.
After all, you want to communicate your art.
Wait 6 months then do a name search at the Lycos image
repository and see what they have lifted from you.
Then come back and tell us how happy you are that your art is
being communicated via an offshore server, and there is not a
damned thing you can do about it because some dumbass judge in
California decided that under the reasonable use clause in the
American copyright law they can get away with it.
Thats what I ran into when I had to police it for the PUG.
It took me no small effort to get them to shut down the Komkon
deep links too.

William Robb
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Shel Belinkoff]

I didn't think of that, but IAC, I want people to see the whole picture,
so they can see how all the tones are rendered.  Also, people with large
monitors might be able to see the who picture, which I think is
helpful.  However, I'm going to put up a zipped version as well, which
cuts the file size almost in half.

It's 1:1 as far as I can tell.

Frantisek Vlcek wrote:
> 
> Shel, wouldn't it suffice to crop a central portion of the scan
> showing some nice detail at post these at 1:1, that would make it less
> than 1MB ? All the photo-review-test servers are doing it this way.
> 
> 2) Why the bigger seems mushy - are you sure you are looking at it at
> 1:1 - 100% magnification?

-- 
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Frantisek Vlcek]

Shel, wouldn't it suffice to crop a central portion of the scan
showing some nice detail at post these at 1:1, that would make it less
than 1MB ? All the photo-review-test servers are doing it this way.

2) Why the bigger seems mushy - are you sure you are looking at it at
1:1 - 100% magnification?

Frantisek

Sunday, February 03, 2002, 4:33:40 PM, Shel wrote:
SB> I'll let you know.  I'm pretty sure that I'll upload the 1000ppi scan in
SB> its entirety either as a TIF or PSD file.  I'm not sure I want to fiddle
SB> with loading a 22mb file for the 4000ppi scan ... but maybe, if I don't
SB> have to hang around the computer, although 22megs may exceed the size of
SB> my free web space .


Good light,
   Frantisek Vlcek
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Doug Franklin]

On Sun, 3 Feb 2002 13:00:18 -0500, Aaron Reynolds wrote:

> Does the bmp format hold colour profile information?  tiff does, that's 
> why we prefer it over here for incoming print work.

No.


TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: A PUG Compromise (Was Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?)

[Aaron Reynolds]

On Sunday, February 3, 2002, at 11:41  AM, Steve Larson wrote:

> I`m in. Why not an even 100K.  You can`t really blow up a 100K image
> anyway with any kind of results, and it would load fast enough on a 56K
> modem. It would be a step into the 21st century.

Provided this will not cause a problem with the PUG's free bandwidth, I 
would be for this.

-Aaron
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Aaron Reynolds]

On Sunday, February 3, 2002, at 09:36  AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:

> I opened a tiff and then saved it as a bmp. The bmp was the same size 
> on disk
> as the tiff. The only possible downside is that it's windows specific, 
> whereas
> tiff is a more universal format.

Does the bmp format hold colour profile information?  tiff does, that's 
why we prefer it over here for incoming print work.

-Aaron
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Aaron Reynolds]

On Saturday, February 2, 2002, at 10:53  PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:

> I strongly disagree. 600 pixel max is even less than
> VGA resolution (640 by 480 ) which went out of style
> about 10 YEARS ago.

Well, my three year old laptop has a max screen res of 800x600 on its 
12" screen.  I use it for the vast majority of my web viewing.  Images 
sized more than 600ppi in any direction are basically impossible for me 
to view online.

One of the other reasons for smaller sized scans in the PUG is the very 
real problem of image theft on the web -- if the image is small enough, 
it is unusable elsewhere.

-Aaron
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Len Paris]

Shel,

Very nice scans.  I've been lusting for that scanner since they
hit the shelves.  I've read some really good reviews of it.
I've been seriously considering acquiring one of them to archive
my negs to CD-ROM, and from what I have read, it's probably the
best available scanner for the price range within my grasp
(using plastic).

They all look pretty much identical in quality, mainly because
they all exceed the resolution capabilty of the Internet media
being used, which includes everything between the website and my
monitor.  I'd like to see the full resolution scan, with no
resizing for the web but, I'm sure you don't want to upload the
whole multi-megabyte  file.  Er, if you do, pass along the URL.

Len
---


> Here's the page ... and without going into some photo editing
software,
> and just by looking at the images on the screen, can you
honestly see
> any significant difference between them.  If there is any,
it's not
> noticeable on my monitor, nor on the monitors af three other
people to
> whom I've sent the page.  Take a look and tell me what you
think.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Rfsindg]

Adelheid,

I certainly appreciate all the work you are doing to create the PUG.  The 
large number of images every month are a credit to it's popularity and the 
value it adds to this discussion group.

I would appreciate knowing what it was about Sid's image that might have 
caused it to be resized.  Perhaps Sid could send it to you again and you 
could check.  If we have other criteria which cause an image to be resized, 
we sure ought to know about them in advance.  Having seen the original, I 
personally would have been a lot less gracious about it than Sid if it had 
happened to one of my images.

Regards,  Bob S.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<< Dear Bob,
 
 I don't remember why I had to resize this particular pic.
 Since I don't have the original anymore I have no way of telling.
 
 Please keep to the rules then I am not forced to fiddle around with your
 pics.
 It only increases the workload anyway.
 
 Cheers
 Adelheid >>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Paul Stenquist]

Jan van Wijk wrote:

> On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 20:08:19 -0800, Sid Barras wrote:
>
> >
> >< >Didn't you say that you sent 75K?
> >Perhaps this accounts for your artifacts.>>
> >
> >I suppose this is going over my  head when we begin to talk about jpeg
> >compression, but is my file size is 74k when closed, and stored on the
> >server, does  it suddenly take up more space on the server when it is open?
> >
>

I saved Sid's PUG image. It's a 26K jpeg compressed file on my Mac hard drive. Opening 
it in
PhotoShop it yields a 720K image of 410 x 600 dimension. Of course it's already been 
degraded by
the jpeg compression, but I experimented with resaving it as a jpeg. If I save it as a 
maximum
quality jpeg, (PhotoShop's 11 grade), it yields a file of 79K. I think it was around 
60 K at a
10 rating. Like some other images I've seen, this image compresses to a very small 
size because
it has a large field of a single color. I've found that I can sometimes compress an 
image at 10
or 11 quality rating and still end up under 75K. With complicated images, I sometimes 
have to
compress at a 5 rating. If this file was compressed with software that did not offer 
variable
jpeg quality, it could well have ended up as a 26K file with normal jpeg compression. 
With
PhotoShop it comes in at 26k when saved with a 5 quality rating, which is "Medium 
Quality."
Paul
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

RE: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[AvK]

Dear Bob,

I don't remember why I had to resize this particular pic.
Since I don't have the original anymore I have no way of telling.

Please keep to the rules then I am not forced to fiddle around with your
pics.
It only increases the workload anyway.

Cheers
Adelheid


>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Sonntag, 3. Februar 2002 15:15
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
>
>
>Dear PUG meister,
>
>Sid sent me a copy of his original 73K jpg as he submitted to the PUG.
>It sure is different from the 26K jpg on display in the gallery.
>The dimensions on the original pix are 600 tall by 400+ pixels.
>There was a bit of a ragged edge on the left side, but no real problem.
>
>Are we sure he didn't somehow get resized?  The final image
>matches very
>closely what I get when I resize the image to 26K in Paint Shop Pro.
>
>Regards,  Bob S.
>-
>This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
>go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
>visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[David Brooks]

Hi Shel.I too am new to this digital and PS but 
i 
think you are correct in saying that saving or 
saveing as,will result in poorer quality 
images.I do however use the save to web option 
when i send horse show orginazers some pictures 
for their web sites and when i open them on 
their site ,they seem to look ok,ie no 
pixelations,drop offs etc.
This may not be an ideal way either but so far 
in my experimenting it is the "better" of the 
two options.
Experimentaion continues.

Dave

 Begin Original Message 

From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Hi Sid ...

I'm new to scanning and Photoshop, and far be 
it from me to "answer"
your questions, but I do have a question or two 
and a comment.

Someone once commented that saving a JPEG image 
to the web in Photoshop
is not the best way to get good images, and 
that the image is degraded
by using that feature.  I'm just learning PS, 
and am probably as curious as you about these
things.




Pentax User
Stouffville Ontario Canada

Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail 
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Paul Stenquist]

I opened a tiff and then saved it as a bmp. The bmp was the same size on disk
as the tiff. The only possible downside is that it's windows specific, whereas
tiff is a more universal format. But if it's handy for you for printing, it
should be fine. Of course you have to use jpeg compression for web images.
Paul

Steve Larson wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>  I`ve been saving scans as bmp`s. Is saving as a tiff better?
> Steve Larson
> Redondo Beach, California
> - Original Message -
> From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 7:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
>
> > Your jpeg for the PUG should be 75K stored and closed. When open, it will
> be
> > around 700K. If you size your file to 75K open, you're seriously degrading
> it.
> > The beauty of a jpeg format is that it compresses the file on disk but
> allows
> > it to decompress when it's opened. Another note: Once you save a jpeg file
> > don't resave it. Each time it's compressed some degradation occurs. You
> can
> > view it as many times as you want, but don't keep saving it over and over
> > again. And you don;'t have to use the "save for web" option on PhotoShop.
> Just
> > scan your file as a tiff, modify it for the PUG, size it to 600x400 at 72
> ppi,
> > then save it as a jpeg. Photoshop will ask you to choose a quality level
> from
> > one 1 to 11. After you choose the level, PhotoShop will tell you how big
> the
> > stored file is going to be. Choose the highest level that keeps you under
> 75K,
> > usually about 8. However this differs depending on how many colors there
> are in
> > a particular shot. BWs are much smaller than color scans.
> > Paul
> >
> > Sid Barras wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > > I've started a new chain with this letter because I think it important
> > > for some of us who may be confused with the rules regarding PUG
> submissions.
> > >
> > > I started the older chain of conversation with this (condensed):
> > >
> > > < > > noticeable pixelation. The original image, in Velvia, is an incredibly
> > > sharp, extremely "loud" photo, as probably only Velvia can do.
> > > The photo I sent was under 75k, and the length and width, were within
> > > the parameters stated on the pre-submission page.
> > >
> > > On my computer, the final, re-sized, retouched Jpeg, ready for the
> > > gallery looked great on my computer.
> > > When I view the same image on our gallery, it looks awful (relatively
> > > speaking).
> > >
> > > I tried to keep the image as close to the limit in size as allowed, in
> > > hopes of having the best quallity I can hope for shown. I tweak the
> > > image with the "save for web" command (I use Photoshop  6),  until I get
> > > to the 75k size limit.>>
> > >
> > > Bob S., in his comment mentioned something important:
> > >
> > > < > > Didn't you say that you sent 75K?
> > > Perhaps this accounts for your artifacts.>>
> > >
> > > I suppose this is going over my  head when we begin to talk about jpeg
> > > compression, but is my file size is 74k when closed, and stored on the
> > > server, does  it suddenly take up more space on the server when it is
> open?
> > >
> > > So, the actual image must be under 75k when it is open?
> > > And one last puzzlement, why isn't the code for the page written so that
> > > the thumbnails will show  in both netscape and explorer?
> > >
> > > Regards to all from cajunland USA...
> > > Sid B
> > > -
> > > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> > > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> > > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
> > -
> > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Mark Roberts]

And a lot of people don't *want* to have higher resolution versions of their
images available on the web.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Problem is, lots of us are drinking thru a very narrow straw.
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
><< I vote for larger picture dimentions and filesizes.
> It's 2002 for christs sake, were using 1992 size
> images.

-- 
Mark Roberts
www.robertstech.com
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[wendy beard]

At 02:52 3-2-2002 -0500, annsan wrote:
>I'm most bothered by images that are so big
>that I cant see the
>whole picture on my monitor.  I have it set at 800 x 640
>because it is better
>for my eyes. Every thing in large font too.
>
>It is a rather elitist attitude to just make things work for
>only those with
>the best hardware and most advanced software. I would like
>my photos to be viewed
>by as many people as possible, wouldn't you?

Absolutely. Nicely said.
And nothing irritates me more than having to scroll to see a picture on my 
monitor.
My feeling is that it detracts from the image too

Wendy

---
Wendy Beard
Ottawa, Canada
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
home page http://www.beard-redfern.com
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Jan van Wijk]

On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 20:08:19 -0800, Sid Barras wrote:

>
>Perhaps this accounts for your artifacts.>>
>
>I suppose this is going over my  head when we begin to talk about jpeg 
>compression, but is my file size is 74k when closed, and stored on the 
>server, does  it suddenly take up more space on the server when it is open?
>

No, not on that server (or whereever your hard-disk storage is).

What happens if you open a compressed image (like a .JPG) is that it is
uncompressed in the computers memory.

If you have made an image that has 600x400 pixels, it will be exactly 720.000 bytes 
in memory (600 * 400 * 3, where the 3 is 3 bytes resulting from using 24 bits color)
(and each byte holds exactly 8 bits :-)

So this 720.000 bytes is almost 10 times bigger (arround 700Kb) than allowed for the 
PUG, that is why you will use the JPG file format to store it in, that will reduce the 
size
of the file on DISK (and internet and ...) by using compression. That will reduce the
quality of the image a bit but could size it down to something like 75Kb in this case.

The size that is shown in the statusbar of your graphic manipulation program (like 
photoshop)
is probably the uncomressed size (720.000 bytes here).

>So, the actual image must be under 75k when it is open?

No, if you would do that you reduce the number of pixels (resolution).
75Kb open, would be something like 130x200 pixels.
(130 * 200 * 3 = 78.000 bytes)

If you would save such a file as a JPG it would be much smaller, possibly even below 
10Kb.
(or maybe the 26Kb mentioned before).


What I do for PUG submissions is scale it down in Photoshop (or other image program)
to an image of 600x400 pixels, then add a signature-text and save it as a TIFF format.
This results in a file probably arround 500Kb.
Then I save it AGAIN as a JPG, just for use on the WEB (PUG). I select JPG compression
such that the resulting diskfile will be 75Kb or slightly less.
Most image programs let you select that by trial-and-error without actually saving the
image. Once the resulting size shown is within limits, you let it save it ...

>And one last puzzlement, why isn't the code for the page written so that 
>the thumbnails will show  in both netscape and explorer?

It used to be, but Netscape keeps changing :-)

BTW: I use Netscape 4.61 without any problem.

Regards, JvW
-
Jan van Wijk;   www.fsys.demon.nl
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Paul Stenquist]

I don't know. I have very little knowledge of file types beyond those I use.
But I think that an uncompressed tiff retains all of the information of the
original file. I started using tiffs, because they can be transported to Quark
Xpress for desktop publishing use.

Steve Larson wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>  I`ve been saving scans as bmp`s. Is saving as a tiff better?
> Steve Larson
> Redondo Beach, California
> - Original Message -
> From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 7:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
>
> > Your jpeg for the PUG should be 75K stored and closed. When open, it will
> be
> > around 700K. If you size your file to 75K open, you're seriously degrading
> it.
> > The beauty of a jpeg format is that it compresses the file on disk but
> allows
> > it to decompress when it's opened. Another note: Once you save a jpeg file
> > don't resave it. Each time it's compressed some degradation occurs. You
> can
> > view it as many times as you want, but don't keep saving it over and over
> > again. And you don;'t have to use the "save for web" option on PhotoShop.
> Just
> > scan your file as a tiff, modify it for the PUG, size it to 600x400 at 72
> ppi,
> > then save it as a jpeg. Photoshop will ask you to choose a quality level
> from
> > one 1 to 11. After you choose the level, PhotoShop will tell you how big
> the
> > stored file is going to be. Choose the highest level that keeps you under
> 75K,
> > usually about 8. However this differs depending on how many colors there
> are in
> > a particular shot. BWs are much smaller than color scans.
> > Paul
> >
> > Sid Barras wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > > I've started a new chain with this letter because I think it important
> > > for some of us who may be confused with the rules regarding PUG
> submissions.
> > >
> > > I started the older chain of conversation with this (condensed):
> > >
> > > < > > noticeable pixelation. The original image, in Velvia, is an incredibly
> > > sharp, extremely "loud" photo, as probably only Velvia can do.
> > > The photo I sent was under 75k, and the length and width, were within
> > > the parameters stated on the pre-submission page.
> > >
> > > On my computer, the final, re-sized, retouched Jpeg, ready for the
> > > gallery looked great on my computer.
> > > When I view the same image on our gallery, it looks awful (relatively
> > > speaking).
> > >
> > > I tried to keep the image as close to the limit in size as allowed, in
> > > hopes of having the best quallity I can hope for shown. I tweak the
> > > image with the "save for web" command (I use Photoshop  6),  until I get
> > > to the 75k size limit.>>
> > >
> > > Bob S., in his comment mentioned something important:
> > >
> > > < > > Didn't you say that you sent 75K?
> > > Perhaps this accounts for your artifacts.>>
> > >
> > > I suppose this is going over my  head when we begin to talk about jpeg
> > > compression, but is my file size is 74k when closed, and stored on the
> > > server, does  it suddenly take up more space on the server when it is
> open?
> > >
> > > So, the actual image must be under 75k when it is open?
> > > And one last puzzlement, why isn't the code for the page written so that
> > > the thumbnails will show  in both netscape and explorer?
> > >
> > > Regards to all from cajunland USA...
> > > Sid B
> > > -
> > > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> > > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> > > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
> > -
> > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Rfsindg]

Dear PUG meister,

Sid sent me a copy of his original 73K jpg as he submitted to the PUG.
It sure is different from the 26K jpg on display in the gallery.
The dimensions on the original pix are 600 tall by 400+ pixels.
There was a bit of a ragged edge on the left side, but no real problem.

Are we sure he didn't somehow get resized?  The final image matches very 
closely what I get when I resize the image to 26K in Paint Shop Pro.

Regards,  Bob S.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Steve Larson]

Hi Paul,
 I`ve been saving scans as bmp`s. Is saving as a tiff better?
Steve Larson
Redondo Beach, California
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?


> Your jpeg for the PUG should be 75K stored and closed. When open, it will
be
> around 700K. If you size your file to 75K open, you're seriously degrading
it.
> The beauty of a jpeg format is that it compresses the file on disk but
allows
> it to decompress when it's opened. Another note: Once you save a jpeg file
> don't resave it. Each time it's compressed some degradation occurs. You
can
> view it as many times as you want, but don't keep saving it over and over
> again. And you don;'t have to use the "save for web" option on PhotoShop.
Just
> scan your file as a tiff, modify it for the PUG, size it to 600x400 at 72
ppi,
> then save it as a jpeg. Photoshop will ask you to choose a quality level
from
> one 1 to 11. After you choose the level, PhotoShop will tell you how big
the
> stored file is going to be. Choose the highest level that keeps you under
75K,
> usually about 8. However this differs depending on how many colors there
are in
> a particular shot. BWs are much smaller than color scans.
> Paul
>
> Sid Barras wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > I've started a new chain with this letter because I think it important
> > for some of us who may be confused with the rules regarding PUG
submissions.
> >
> > I started the older chain of conversation with this (condensed):
> >
> > < > noticeable pixelation. The original image, in Velvia, is an incredibly
> > sharp, extremely "loud" photo, as probably only Velvia can do.
> > The photo I sent was under 75k, and the length and width, were within
> > the parameters stated on the pre-submission page.
> >
> > On my computer, the final, re-sized, retouched Jpeg, ready for the
> > gallery looked great on my computer.
> > When I view the same image on our gallery, it looks awful (relatively
> > speaking).
> >
> > I tried to keep the image as close to the limit in size as allowed, in
> > hopes of having the best quallity I can hope for shown. I tweak the
> > image with the "save for web" command (I use Photoshop  6),  until I get
> > to the 75k size limit.>>
> >
> > Bob S., in his comment mentioned something important:
> >
> > < > Didn't you say that you sent 75K?
> > Perhaps this accounts for your artifacts.>>
> >
> > I suppose this is going over my  head when we begin to talk about jpeg
> > compression, but is my file size is 74k when closed, and stored on the
> > server, does  it suddenly take up more space on the server when it is
open?
> >
> > So, the actual image must be under 75k when it is open?
> > And one last puzzlement, why isn't the code for the page written so that
> > the thumbnails will show  in both netscape and explorer?
> >
> > Regards to all from cajunland USA...
> > Sid B
> > -
> > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Paul Stenquist]

Nice scans, Shel. But as you point out, the scanner's resolution isn't a factor when
you're resizing for the web. Everything on the web is 72ppi. Of course, the 4000 ppi
will print far better at 11 x14 than the 1000 ppi, and it will look a bit better
than the 2800 ppi scan. I scan most of my images at 4000 ppi, because my principal
reason for scanning is to generate files for digital printing. Web applications are
secondary for me. So when I want an image for the web, I just resize one of my
printing files. However I could just have easily scanned the original at a lower
res.
 I am not certain, but I do think scanning at a resolution somewhat higher than
the web number is an advantage. I think PhotoShop's resampling produces a better
look than what most scanners are capable of at very low res. But that's just a
guess.
Paul

Shel Belinkoff wrote:

> Yesterday I spent some time with a friend running a test of scanners.  I
> won't go into all the details of why we're doing this, but here's what
> we're doing: we've got three scanners to use at this time, a Nikon
> Coolscan 4000, a Nikon LS 1000, and a Leaf, which will scan up to 4x5
> negatives or slides.
>
> We chose two negatives to work with, one with lots of detail and a broad
> contrast range and the other rather low contrast with broad areas of sky
> and little fine detail.
>
> The first set of scans included both negs on the Coolscan, with
> resolution set at 4000ppi, 2800ppi, and 1000ppi, and at each resolution
> we scanned with and without using GEM ... but I digress.  I've put up a
> page which has three scans of the one negative at three different
> resolutions.  The only manipulation to the negs was to adjust the gamma
> a bit (all were adjusted to the same level) and to crop them ever so
> slightly to get rid of the black border and a distracting element, and
> bring the ppi down to something more compatible with the monitor.  IOW,
> all were treated identically.
>
> Here's the page ... and without going into some photo editing software,
> and just by looking at the images on the screen, can you honestly see
> any significant difference between them.  If there is any, it's not
> noticeable on my monitor, nor on the monitors af three other people to
> whom I've sent the page.  Take a look and tell me what you think.
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/temp/ls4000-test-pdml.html
>
> Paul Stenquist wrote:
> >
> > "J. C. O'Connell" wrote:
>
> > > Youve got to be kidding : Bullshit! ( pardon my language)
> > > The more image pixels, the higher the resolution of the total image.
> >
> > Yes, but you can only display so many on a monitor. For printing, hi-res is a
> > benefit. For viewing on a given monitor, more pixels only serve to make the
> > image larger.
> >
> > >
> > > When I scan an 8X10 at 300ppi I end up with a beautiful
> > > 2400X3000 pixel image. Yes, and at 100% you can't see all of it on a monitor.
> >
> > > But when I resize it to 480X600
> > > all of the fine detail is lost and the diagonals get
> > > all jagged.
> >
> > If you're doing it right,, keeping it at 72ppi, and viewing it at 100%, you
> > shouldn't see jagged diagonals on a monitor. On a print, yes. On a monitor, no.
> >
> > > Why do you think all the digital cameras are
> > > going to more and more Mpixels? Because it raises the overall resolution of
> > > the image.
> >
> > For printing. For web viewing, it's inconsequential.
> >
> > > > The PUG size is adequate for
> > > > general viewing,
> > >
> > > I strongly disagree. 600 pixel max is even less than
> > > VGA resolution (640 by 480 ) which went out of style
> > > about 10 YEARS ago.
> >
> > And on a 640 by 480 monitor, a 600 pixel image would almost fill the screen. On
> > a current 1280 x 960 display, it's about the size of a 4 x 6 mini lab print.
> > Not ideal, but adequate for viewing.
> >
> > > > and I find my 6x7 scans are noticeably better than
> > > > 35mm, even at this low resolution. I'll send you a 600 x 400 point jpeg
> > > > that was scanned from a 6x7 color neg if you'd like to see it. It "pops"
> > > > rather well.
> > >
> > > I dont care how much it "pops" at 600X400, it would look MUCH
> > > better at say 1280 X 960. Not just "bigger" but much more
> > > DETAIL.
> >
> > Well, I scanned it at 4000 ppi, which yielded a 9848 x 7128 image after
> > cropping (about 250 meg). That's the one I print from. For the web, I resized
> > it to 600x400 points at 72 ppi, letting PhotoShop resample it. If I view the
> > small jpeg at 100%, and the huge 200 meg tiff file at 6%, they're the same size
> > on my screen. And you know what? to the naked eye, they're identical. No,
> > that's not quite true. The small file actualy looks a little better, because
> > the huge file generates some noise on horizontal lines. Of course, the huge
> > file makes a magnificent 11 x 14 print on my Epson 1200. The little file will
> > show all kinds of pixelation when printed. In other words, on a monitor, it
> > don't make a 

Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Paul Stenquist]

"J. C. O'Connell" wrote:

> >
>
> IIt depends on the SCREEN RESOLUTION being used to display
> the graphic. I use 1280X960 and can view an entire image
> up to that size without scrolling. What screen resolution
> are you using BTW??
>

I'm using 1280 x 960, so the 72 ppi PUG images are about the size of a 4 x 6
minilab print, which is adequate for general viewing. If I view a 1200 x 900
image, I'm still seeing it at 72ppi. It's just bigger.  All web images are the
same resolution. Some are just larger than others.
 Of course the other issue is that many members are still on dial-up
modems. A PUG of 1200 x 900 images would be crippling for them. And Bill has
pointed out that there are server issues as well. A larger dimension just isn't
going to happen. But that doesn't mean we can't display nice images. Looking at
PUG, I find that most of the images appear as well detailed and nicely
rendered. About 10% of them, however, are obviously bad scans. Some members may
be limited by their equipment, but some may be making mistakes. It was obvious
in yesterday's discussions that at least one member was sizing his files so
they were 75K when open, almost ten times smaller than they had to be.
Paul
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Otis Wright, Jr.]

You of course have a demo to share with us?

Otis

"J. C. O'Connell" wrote:

> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist
> > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 10:38 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
> >
> >
> > With conventional monitors, the PUG pictures won't get better by going
> > to higher res, they'll just get bigger.
>
> Youve got to be kidding : Bullshit! ( pardon my language)
> The more image pixels, the higher the resolution of the total image.
> When I scan an 8X10 at 300ppi I end up with a beautiful
> 2400X3000 pixel image. But when I resize it to 480X600
> all of the fine detail is lost and the diagonals get
> all jagged. Why do you think all the digital cameras are
> going to more and more Mpixels? Because it raises the
> overall resolution of the image.
>
> > The PUG size is adequate for
> > general viewing,
>
> I strongly disagree. 600 pixel max is even less than
> VGA resolution (640 by 480 ) which went out of style
> about 10 YEARS ago.
>
> > and I find my 6x7 scans are noticeably better than
> > 35mm, even at this low resolution. I'll send you a 600 x 400 point jpeg
> > that was scanned from a 6x7 color neg if you'd like to see it. It "pops"
> > rather well.
>
> I dont care how much it "pops" at 600X400, it would look MUCH
> better at say 1280 X 960. Not just "bigger" but much more
> DETAIL.
>
> > Most of the scans that look bad on the PUG are bad scans.
> > They're not too small.
> > Paul
> >
>
> Once again I disagree. They are too small. They dont
> even aproach what 35mm can do let alone 6X7. They
> might be fine if we were shooting with pentax 110 cameras
> but were not.
>
> JCO
> 
> =
>
> > "J. C. O'Connell" wrote:
> >
> > > Because the 600 pixel and 75K filesize limitations
> > > are a joke. We might as well all be using 1 Mpixel
> > > digital cameras. I just resized and jpegged a
> > > very nice P67 B&W 8X10" and it looks like crap
> > > with only 600 pixels max.  What the point of using
> > > all these fantastic Pentax lenses, and then reducing
> > > the image to where its ruined??
> > >
> > > I vote for larger picture dimentions and filesizes.
> > > It's 2002 for christs sake, were using 1992 size
> > > images.
> > >
> > > JCO
> > > -
> > > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> > > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> > > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
> > -
> > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Ann Sanfedele]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> JCO,
> 
> Problem is, lots of us are drinking thru a very narrow straw.
> 
> Regards,  Bob S.
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> << I vote for larger picture dimentions and filesizes.
>  It's 2002 for christs sake, were using 1992 size
>  images.
> 
>  JCO >>
> -

IF you have your monitor set, as I do, at 800 x 640, the
images are plenty big.
I only have a Dell Pentium III and a dial-up modem.  I make
my jpgs for ebay
600 x 600 at 96 dpi - they almost take up the entire screen
when I look at them
in my browser.  I'm most bothered by images that are so big
that I cant see the
whole picture on my monitor.  I have it set at 800 x 640
because it is better
for my eyes. Every thing in large font too.  

It is a rather elitist attitude to just make things work for
only those with 
the best hardware and most advanced software. I would like
my photos to be viewed
by as many people as possible, wouldn't you?  

Let me "ditto" as well all of Paul S's comments regarding
this stuff - it
has always been my impression that this was pretty much how
it worked.

And those three pix on Shel's page look exactly the same to
me, too.

However, when I first designed my home page I lacked a lot
in knowledge
(not that I have a lot now) about the workings of the making
of web files
and while the banner looks great to me on Netscape, people
on Aol see a lot
of mush. (A lack of sharpness,etc.) 

Rather like what Sid is disappointed in when he looks at his
flowers on the web.  

annsan
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Paul Stenquist]

"J. C. O'Connell" wrote:

>
>
> Youve got to be kidding : Bullshit! ( pardon my language)
> The more image pixels, the higher the resolution of the total image.

Yes, but you can only display so many on a monitor. For printing, hi-res is a
benefit. For viewing on a given monitor, more pixels only serve to make the
image larger.

>
> When I scan an 8X10 at 300ppi I end up with a beautiful
> 2400X3000 pixel image. Yes, and at 100% you can't see all of it on a monitor.

> But when I resize it to 480X600
> all of the fine detail is lost and the diagonals get
> all jagged.

If you're doing it right,, keeping it at 72ppi, and viewing it at 100%, you
shouldn't see jagged diagonals on a monitor. On a print, yes. On a monitor, no.

> Why do you think all the digital cameras are
> going to more and more Mpixels? Because it raises the overall resolution of
> the image.

For printing. For web viewing, it's inconsequential.

> > The PUG size is adequate for
> > general viewing,
>
> I strongly disagree. 600 pixel max is even less than
> VGA resolution (640 by 480 ) which went out of style
> about 10 YEARS ago.

And on a 640 by 480 monitor, a 600 pixel image would almost fill the screen. On
a current 1280 x 960 display, it's about the size of a 4 x 6 mini lab print.
Not ideal, but adequate for viewing.

> > and I find my 6x7 scans are noticeably better than
> > 35mm, even at this low resolution. I'll send you a 600 x 400 point jpeg
> > that was scanned from a 6x7 color neg if you'd like to see it. It "pops"
> > rather well.
>
> I dont care how much it "pops" at 600X400, it would look MUCH
> better at say 1280 X 960. Not just "bigger" but much more
> DETAIL.

Well, I scanned it at 4000 ppi, which yielded a 9848 x 7128 image after
cropping (about 250 meg). That's the one I print from. For the web, I resized
it to 600x400 points at 72 ppi, letting PhotoShop resample it. If I view the
small jpeg at 100%, and the huge 200 meg tiff file at 6%, they're the same size
on my screen. And you know what? to the naked eye, they're identical. No,
that's not quite true. The small file actualy looks a little better, because
the huge file generates some noise on horizontal lines. Of course, the huge
file makes a magnificent 11 x 14 print on my Epson 1200. The little file will
show all kinds of pixelation when printed. In other words, on a monitor, it
don't make a damn bit of difference. No bullshit. Just fact.

>

>
>
> > Most of the scans that look bad on the PUG are bad scans.
> > They're not too small.
> > Paul
> >
>
> Once again I disagree. They are too small. They dont
> even aproach what 35mm can do let alone 6X7. They
> might be fine if we were shooting with pentax 110 cameras
> but were not.

They're bad scans. They're not too small. Check out Shel's flag and barbed wire
fence he just posted. I'm sure that's not a very big file. I don't think it's
even 600 x 400. But viewed on a monitor at the size he chose, it's crisp and
brilliant. The monitor is the limiting factor, not the size of the scan.

>
>
> JCO
> 
> =
>
> > "J. C. O'Connell" wrote:
> >
> > > Because the 600 pixel and 75K filesize limitations
> > > are a joke. We might as well all be using 1 Mpixel
> > > digital cameras. I just resized and jpegged a
> > > very nice P67 B&W 8X10" and it looks like crap
> > > with only 600 pixels max.  What the point of using
> > > all these fantastic Pentax lenses, and then reducing
> > > the image to where its ruined??
> > >
> > > I vote for larger picture dimentions and filesizes.
> > > It's 2002 for christs sake, were using 1992 size
> > > images.
> > >
> > > JCO
> > > -
> > > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> > > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> > > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
> > -
> > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

RE: PUG Stuff: Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[J. C. O'Connell]

> I suggest you learn to live within the limitations of the PUG
> for submissions to it, and put a link within your submission to
> take the viewer to a larger size image on a different server if
> you think the image merits it.
> 
> William Robb

Great Idea, a link will do the trick.
But I dont remember a window on the
submission form to enter the link.
Did I miss it? I recall one for
a website, could that be used for
a link to a larger image?

BTW, is it possible to edit a submission after
its already entered?

JCO
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

PUG Stuff: Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[William Robb]

This subject was discussed at great length some two or more
years ago, when Mark Cassino was mindng the helm.
The file size and dimension limits were dicided based on the
following criteria:
We needed make the files viewable, but not worth stealing.
No small consideration.
We dealt with image theft and deep linking to the PUG from
outside image banks as best we could.
Lastly, the PUG is available to us through the generosity of
Frontier Vision Technologies.
We had to reach a viable trade off with relation to the amount
of server resources we used on a monthly basis. The last time I
checked, which was some months ago, the PUG was generating in
excess of 3000 hits per month, and was using in more than 3
gigabytes of server bandwidth per month.
These are not insignificant numbers. In addition, the PUG is
using over 100MB of hard drive space.

I suggest you learn to live within the limitations of the PUG
for submissions to it, and put a link within your submission to
take the viewer to a larger size image on a different server if
you think the image merits it.

William Robb

- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?


> Because the 600 pixel and 75K filesize limitations
> are a joke. We might as well all be using 1 Mpixel
> digital cameras. I just resized and jpegged a
> very nice P67 B&W 8X10" and it looks like crap
> with only 600 pixels max.  What the point of using
> all these fantastic Pentax lenses, and then reducing
> the image to where its ruined??
>
> I vote for larger picture dimentions and filesizes.
> It's 2002 for christs sake, were using 1992 size
> images.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Ann Sanfedele]

Sid - Re the thumbnails -
Several have pointed out that Netscape 6.0 had some
problems.
I have 4.6 and all the thumbs show. What I don't know is why
several folk said MY thumbnail was the ONLY one to show on
their browser.

I'm using Epson Twain and Photo Deluxe 4.0 rather than
photoshop 5.0.
I scan at either 300 and change it later or scan it at 96
dpi and let it be.
Then I EXPORT to jpg file format.  When I check the data in
Photo Deluxe it
is the same as in my browser (400 x 529 pixels).  I always
look at anything
I send to the PUG in Netscape on my server before I send it
off.  

I see what you mean tho.
ann

Sid Barras wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> I've started a new chain with this letter because I think it important
> for some of us who may be confused with the rules regarding PUG submissions.
> 
> I started the older chain of conversation with this (condensed):
> 
> < noticeable pixelation. The original image, in Velvia, is an incredibly
> sharp, extremely "loud" photo, as probably only Velvia can do.
> The photo I sent was under 75k, and the length and width, were within
> the parameters stated on the pre-submission page.
> 
> On my computer, the final, re-sized, retouched Jpeg, ready for the
> gallery looked great on my computer.
> When I view the same image on our gallery, it looks awful (relatively
> speaking).
> 
> I tried to keep the image as close to the limit in size as allowed, in
> hopes of having the best quallity I can hope for shown. I tweak the
> image with the "save for web" command (I use Photoshop  6),  until I get
> to the 75k size limit.>>
> 
> Bob S., in his comment mentioned something important:
> 
> < Didn't you say that you sent 75K?
> Perhaps this accounts for your artifacts.>>
> 
> I suppose this is going over my  head when we begin to talk about jpeg
> compression, but is my file size is 74k when closed, and stored on the
> server, does  it suddenly take up more space on the server when it is open?
> 
> So, the actual image must be under 75k when it is open?
> And one last puzzlement, why isn't the code for the page written so that
> the thumbnails will show  in both netscape and explorer?
> 
> Regards to all from cajunland USA...
> Sid B
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Dan Scott]

Sid,

I may have this wrong, as I'm not a techie, but I believe different apps
can display the same jpeg slightly differently--Photoshop can display an
image quite differently than any other image viewer on you machine is
likely to, depending on how your preferences are set. Also, on a mac, the
size of a saved jpeg can look larger than just the raw data comprising the
image will as uploaded because of "padding" by the OS (resource fork,
thumbnail, comments, HD partition size, etc.). Photoshop's "save for web"
can give you a more accurate picture of file size.

Dan Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hi Sid ...

I'm new to scanning and Photoshop, and far be it from me to "answer"
your questions, but I do have a question or two and a comment.

First, what do you mean when you say your file is "closed and stored on
the server"?  How does one close a JPEG file?

Someone once commented that saving a JPEG image to the web in Photoshop
is not the best way to get good images, and that the image is degraded
by using that feature.  Also, each time you save a JPEG it looses
quality and detail.  If you've been saving it repeatedly in order to get
the size down, which is what I understand you to be saying, you may be
contributing to the problem yourself.

I'm just learning PS, and am probably as curious as you about these
things.

Sid Barras wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> I've started a new chain with this letter because I think it important
> for some of us who may be confused with the rules regarding PUG submissions.
> 
> I started the older chain of conversation with this (condensed):
> 
> < noticeable pixelation. The original image, in Velvia, is an incredibly
> sharp, extremely "loud" photo, as probably only Velvia can do.
> The photo I sent was under 75k, and the length and width, were within
> the parameters stated on the pre-submission page.
> 
> On my computer, the final, re-sized, retouched Jpeg, ready for the
> gallery looked great on my computer.
> When I view the same image on our gallery, it looks awful (relatively
> speaking).
> 
> I tried to keep the image as close to the limit in size as allowed, in
> hopes of having the best quallity I can hope for shown. I tweak the
> image with the "save for web" command (I use Photoshop  6),  until I get
> to the 75k size limit.>>
> 
> Bob S., in his comment mentioned something important:
> 
> < Didn't you say that you sent 75K?
> Perhaps this accounts for your artifacts.>>
> 
> I suppose this is going over my  head when we begin to talk about jpeg
> compression, but is my file size is 74k when closed, and stored on the
> server, does  it suddenly take up more space on the server when it is open?
> 
> So, the actual image must be under 75k when it is open?
> And one last puzzlement, why isn't the code for the page written so that
> the thumbnails will show  in both netscape and explorer?

-- 
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .