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: Re: [iris-photos] REB: unknown bicolor again
  • From: Catherine Button ridingthewind@gmail.com
  • Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 15:09:12 -0500

But Griff, no matter how close to nice that resize is, I have stopped posting photos because it just takes too much time!

Why can't we have a list that *automatically* resizes every photo to less than 50k?, mails only the 50k size to all, but accompanies it with a link to the full size photo, (as an *option* to download or view if desired). Even with a dialup connection, maybe there is a very special photo that even a dial-up list member might choose to download as long as it was not forced on them...

Something that makes it really easy to send a photo (any size) and equally convenient for both dialup and hi-speed list members. Why can't we use technology to make it easier for all? Then, we don't have to constantly berate folks, who, in their joy to share a particularly good seedling, mistakenly forget to resize....


On 11/6/05, jgcrump <jgcrump@erols.com> wrote:
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

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


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

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