Thanks for all the thoughtful replies :-) Further nattering below.
Siddiq wrote:
if you have the bandwidth and space, have two versions, a broadband
and a dialup--the former can have 1024*768 or 1152*864 images with
minimal compression, the latter can top out at 640*480 and doubledigit
kb filesize. surely one of you compuwhizzes can whip up a script to do
something like that. the dialup version would also use simple table
navigation, while broadband can do j/s rollovers etc.
That's a good idea to explore, although anything I do will be simple
unless someone else has a something to do it fancy. At the moment, I
have simply modified a default Photoshop template, by trial and error,
rather than real knowledge of what I am doing, and used PS to generate
the HTML, etc. There are areas of programming in which I am quite adept,
but HTML. let alone Javascript, are not among them. It's all too much
like assembler and some early DOS forms creation software and I have no
urge to go back there. Taking pictures, napping, reading a good book and
many other things appeal to me more than down and dirty, line by line
programming and learning new languages to do it in.
Richard F. Man wrote:
As usual, excellent pics! Nothing less from the Moose. Did you scan
the negatives or prints? After you downsize them, do you run a sharpen
filter? I suspect you didn't and think they would just pop, if you use
some sharpening.
Thanks! I suspect you may be right about the sharpening. When I do a
TOPE entry, I spend a fair amount of time in PS trying to best emulate
the large image in smaller form. In this case, this is part of an
experiment I might call 'digital album'. Remember when you could just
take the 4x6 prints you liked from a roll and add them to the ol' photo
album. Sure, there might be a shot or two, or even a few, worth working
on and enlarging, but there is a certain enjoyment in just flipping
through the album sometimes that is different that admiring that
beautiful matted and framed 8x10, 11x14, whatever print of the best shot.
That's what I'm trying out here, a photo album where I can just give the
URL to friends and family and they can flip through it. As part of that
effort, the images here are right off the CD from process/scanning. I
pay about $19 for developing and scanning of my film with output of
2000x3000 (~2,000 dpi), 17mb .bmp files, 533x800, ~200kb .jpeg files and
thumbnails on CD with index print. So, like the old way, I just put the
jpegs of the images I liked in a subdirectory and had PS make them into
a digital album. My aim is to be able to do this in a few minutes,
rather than a few hours, which rules out any individual tuning up in PS,
let alone scanning them all individually myself. I am thinking about
setting up an automated process in PS to lightly sharpen all of them
before the album step, but I need to do some experimentation first.
BTW, the scans I'm getting from this shop are pretty impressive. Either
they have very good dust control or very good dust removal software, as
there are almost no dust spots. Color and dynamic range are pretty good,
with maybe a little loss of brightest highlight details in very
contrasty shots. They aren't quite up to the quality of my 2720 dpi
scanner, but just as good for many purposes. for about $0.40 apiece, I
think they are a good deal.
Chuck Norcutt wrote:
Also, I discovered, quite by accident, that cleaning grain out of
images with "Neat Image" can significantly reduce the size of the
image. It makes perfect sense (now that I think about it which I
didn't before) that getting rid of random noise will improve the
compression ratio.
I'm quite happy with the grain in the images I'm working with lately,
but I'll keep that in mind.
ps: Great shots Moose! I especially like "Red Grass With Web",
"Poker Starts Getting Red Hot" and "Aggie Opens"
Thanks! Those are some of my favorites too. "Red Grass With Web" is so
named so people won't think that white thing pointing off to the right
is dust on the neg or some such, as it is indeed a spider web. The red
grass pair, like a couple of others interest me because they show so
clearly the effect of aperture and background distance on bokeh and
overall appearance. In the red grass case, I took the first shot, then
stopped down and moved back to get more grass in the picture. The result
is certainly less satisfactory to me, with busy bokeh and the fence in
the background discernable. In 'Aggie Opens', the shots are at the same
aperture, but different angles, so that the fence in the 1st is further
away and less brightly lit, making it a better shot to my eye.
Mike wrote:
...The worst thing, however, is the whole size/quality business...
Moose, i appreciate the concern for those of us at the end of a rusty wire.
Your images open pretty fast even at my current connection speed of 46667bps
which is about average. You could go a little larger IMHO, both sceen size and
file size without too much trouble, say 20%. Or perhaps provide a link to a
larger image. Nice work
Thanks for the report from the other end of the rusty wire. I take that
literally. A few years ago I was on dialup and also dialing up a
computer on the LAN to work at home and started having trouble keeping a
connection. After several frustrating attempts, the phone co finally
sent a a competent old timer. When he traced the line back down the
poles, he found where my pair was so corroded at one junction that they
broke off in his hand when he touched them.
ll.clark@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Can you create an alternate desktop to which you can switch, and in which the
display is set at 1024 x 768, say?
Yes, I can change the screen resolution, but it leaves all the tool
bars, etc. out in the middle of the screen when I go back, so I don't do
it very often.
Garth Wood wrote:
Moose:
Well, as the guy who runs the Olympus Gallery (around 3,000 images and
growing), I sympathize completely. One suggestion -- you can always
provide a link to your really large images (with your smaller ones
being teasers) that comes with a warning, such as "If you like this at
this resolution, click here to see it at a truly awe-inspiring
resolution! WARNING: Honkin' big image [550K]. May need to go to
work for a day and then come back if you're trying to view this over a
dial-up connection." 8^>
I may try something like that.
As well, experimenting with image compression can sometimes yield
fabulous results in a fairly compact image size, depending on the
image. But yes, there are certainly compromises to be had when trying
to share your vision over the Internet...
What I've seen of JPEG2 is certainly better, but it really doesn't seem
to have taken off. Guess I could put up an alternate version with it....
daniel wrote:
I'm getting a script error when I try to access some of the pictures, anyone
else?
It's just simple HTML, no scripts. I tried all the images when I put it
up. anybody else having trouble?
Moose
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|