Re: Sibrob photos, Files and the like (long)

Hi Michael,

Michael wrote:
<snip> Shauna, I suggest avoiding mutants (Windwood Spring) as a 
photographic example. On the other hand, since I do seem to get a lot 
of these "4 leaf clover" jobs myself, wonder whether it is a common 
experience.<snip>

The Windwood Spring photo was of a mutant, sure, but I still like it, 
and thought that members of this list might enjoy it as well. 

<snip>
I wrote previously:
> The chief complaint about receiving attachments is the download 
time some people with slower modems face. <snip>

You wrote:
<snip>I wonder if you could explain the rationale behind that 
thought. It must take the same amount of time to download the pic 
from the web site as it does to receive it automatically through the 
email attachment. Furthermore, if you wish to view the photo again, 
some other day, you have to go through the download another time; 
with the attachment it is sent to your machine only once. And you 
don't have to go clicking your way through the web site,
or load multiple windows if you wish to avoid repeating a time-
download. Plus, the link to the photo is right there in the letter
discussing it.  What am I missing here? Just where is the benefit? We 
don't have enough photos to make much of a dent in our hard drives, 
so in that respect there is not much benefit.<snip>

My response:
The actual benefit would be to those people who just wish to read 
text email to their home email addresses and not worry that a 
large .jpg file is going to hang their machine. This way, a text note 
is sent to person's email box, saying that there is an new image in 
the files area, and then that person has the choice themself to go 
view it or not, not being forced to have one downloaded. Posted the 
photo files to the FILES area gives everyone the option to go look at 
them or not. I guess that's what you are missing Michael, the fact 
that I was suggesting that people can actually CHOOSE if they want to 
view the image or not.

Obviously there was a problem with people sending either files too 
large, or possibly too many files at once in the past, as there were 
restrictions place by Ellen in this regard.

You wrote:
> I hope for some useful comments as this is the main focus of this 
post.<snip>


Hopefully you might find my comments useful, if not, I was offering a 
suggestion to the list of other alternatives. I am not saying that 
this is the ONLY way, but another way to view files which works well.


I wrote earlier:
> >A person should still limit their file size when scanning or 
saving their digital camera files as a jpeg. Acceptable viewing/size 
on most lists is generally less than 100k, and no more that 72 dpi in 
resolution is necessary for list viewing purposes.<snip>

You wrote:
> I haven't played around with compressing images yet (I'm waiting for
> someone to scan some of my slides). Can you explain the difference 
in file size between the Peg Edwards (288 x 288, 28K) and the clump 
(288 x 360, 61K), only slightly larger but more than twice the data? 
Is the color depth twice as great? <snip>

Different photos have different ranges of colour as well as colour 
depth, like you mentioned. The Peg Edwards photo mainly has purple 
blue tones, so not as many colours necessary to make up the file. The 
clump appears to have a much larger range of colour with greens, as 
well as purple and all the shades in between. The compression factor 
in the program PhotoShop which is my scanner utility software, might 
have been different for each image as well. On top of that, I could 
have scanned the photos in originally at different resolutions to 
begin with. You can adjust the .jpg image quality in PhotoShop from 
low to high, higher being a larger file and less data lost in the 
compression of the file when you go to save. Saving a file as a .jpg 
compresses the file, as the program throws away bits of data that it 
finds unnecessary, reducing the file up to 96% of its original kb 
size. The original PhotoShop file would be substantially larger than 
the .jpeg version, of course. Saving a file as a .JPEG is the 
standard for photographs, and saving the file as a .GIF is the 
standard for illustrations or vector type images. JPEG stands for 
Joint Photographic Expert Group.

The person who is scanning your slides should be able to help you 
with all of this as well. It's much easier to show a person on the 
computer than actually writing about it.


Hmmm... I am actually kinda regretting that I even suggested putting 
images in the files area now. It does work great for other groups. No 
hassles, no problems, no freakouts. 

Everyone, do what you did before with your images... I am going back 
to lurkdom now.  Sorry.
:(

Shauna
(alberta)


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/2/_/496957/_/974148037/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index