hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
New Trillium species discovered

Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

RSS story archive

Re: REB: unknown bicolor again

  • Subject: [PHOTO] Re: [iris-photos] REB: unknown bicolor again
  • From: "jgcrump" jgcrump@erols.com
  • Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 11:41:22 -0500

As one who has often transgressed by sending too-large photos, I have tried hard to find a way to reduce size and keep quality.  So far, I think I have found the key to keeping some amount of detail while reducing size.  In my case, using PhotoShop,  I reduce the dimensions of the photo, rather than the pixels, i.e., when using the Resize feature, I reduce the document size (inches x inches) of the photo by whatever percentage it takes to get the photo down to between 50 and 100kb, but leave the pixel dimensions alone.  I'm attaching to this message a photo which was originally 438kb, but is now --  at least at the point of sending (heaven knows what the cybergremlins may do to it enroute) -- 60.4kb.  (This takes some experimentation and getting used to, since PhotoShop shows this document's dimensions, for instance, as 2.8" x 3", and reducing it by 50% drops it to 1.4" x 1.5", seemingly thumbnail-size, but it actually ends up about 4 1/2" x 4 3/4" on the screen.)
Next, (brace yourselves, fellow dial-uppers), I'm going to send the original at 438kb.   I have deliberately chosen a flower with delicate shadings  --  and even a guest aboard  --  so the difference between the two versions can be seen.  If someone can reduce photos and keep better quality, I would welcome learning how to do it.  I've seen some pretty good-looking ones here on our list that are under 100 kb, but still as much as 4x4" on the screen, but don't know how it was done.  Maybe someone will tell us.  Meantime, I, too, feel bad about having to send photos which by their small size obscure lots of beauty.  --  Griff
----- Original Message -----
From: Char Holte
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 10:20 AM
Subject: RE: [iris-photos] REB: unknown bicolor again

Isn't it just easier to send the picture if someone wants it directly?

From: iris-photos@yahoogroups.com [mailto:iris-photos@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Catherine Button
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 9:14 AM
To: iris-photos@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [iris-photos] REB: unknown bicolor again


I think Dana was referring to the often sited restriction of this photos list. While I TOTALLY agree with you and wish all the photos were large enough to actually see, it is meant to be kind to the folks who only have low speed internet access.

Although you do give me an idea. It seems a shame to punish what is likely more than half the members of this list to make all the photos shrunken (as well as the extra time to do so). Why not a solution that works for everyone? We have the technology! Why couldn't the list be like one of the photo sites where folks send all their photos there and a notice with a thumbnail (larger than most thumbnails but still just a few bytes) goes out to all. Then those who choose to can click on the thumbnail and view (or download) the big pic...

That might not be the only solution either. But if we have 670 list members, maybe the first thing that should be done is to find out just what percentage don't have hi-speed connections. Maybe the simplest solution would be to increase the minimum size to something a little bit more visible!

Since this list is still on yahoo, they have the capacity to do an automated poll even. We could poll everyone and suggest a couple of new size limitations - I would suggest 200k limit per email, so if you choose to attach  more than one, you still don't go way overboard.

Any other ideas? Opinions?

On 11/6/05, KEITH MINEO <kmineo@pacbell.net> wrote:
Just down load,  PHOTODEX. COM AND    http://www.photodex.com/ get their photo library program for 19.99, called COMPUPIC
. IT is great. Once loaded and installed. Right click on a photo , save it and it automaticallly resizes it for you. I like that large photos so i can see them . Thanks David for leaving them large... Dana, you will be glad you did get the program.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dana Brown
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 5:19 AM
Subject: RE: [iris-photos] REB: unknown bicolor again


            I hate to be picky but your pictures are huge and take a lonnnng time to download on my dial up email.  They are beautiful and I love seeing them but please, compress them down to about 50 kb.







Dana Brown

AIS Region 17 RVP

Director ASI, TBIS


Malevil Iris Gardens

Lubbock , TX

Zone 7 USDA, Zone 10 Sunset


From: iris-photos@yahoogroups.com [mailto:iris-photos@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Ferguson
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 10:06 PM
To: iris-photos@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iris-photos] REB: unknown bicolor again




Silk plant Plant maintenance Plant grow light
Plant food


Catherine Button    Network Administrator and corporate irritant
www.gixxergirl.org   ridingthewind@gmail.com

"When I drop in my tracks, I want the body to skid for a week."

Silk plant Plant maintenance Plant grow light
Plant food


JPEG image

Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement