blog cleanup...

our blog has photos now back to january 19th. however, i'll be doing some
cleanup in next couple of days, so if there are any from january, i
encourage you to view or save in next day or two.... thanks,

Val Adams...

thanks, I was wanting to see that froggie very much!

if not too much trouble, suggest you pull the first pair of zoo pix from
Geno, they were much too big

david...

uh, correction, ma'am. you're second set are actually larger in size,
although smaller to view. some info on the pics would also be nice, as they
don't tell where geno was or what he was seeing... :) generally, as long
as geno posts jpg or gif, it's preferable to just let them be. :)

Jim Everman...

The first pair posted are both at 420 X 279 (117,180) pixels. The bird
used 46,246 bytes. The second pair are both 300 pixels wide, but
slightly different heights (200 & 203). Here, the bird is 60,900 pixels
using 56,002 bytes.

In both cases, the smaller (physical) picture requires more bytes of
storage. This is probably due to slightly different compression
settings. The second set also seems to have been cropped a bit closer to
the edge of the original (pre-scanned) image.

Val Adams...

Thanks, Jim, and sorry, I didnt realize the mod I made would affect
storage so much. yes, I did trim more off the edge.

Jim Everman...

An aspect many people tend to gloss over is saving the image while you
are still working on it. First you should do saves, but just for backup.
If you save them as compressed files a certain amount of 'stuff' is
forever lost each time you save them again. NEVER edit, then save the
original as a compressed file. Give it a new name and leave the original
alone. Now you can always start over with a clean slate.

But you should always try to do all the editing, cropping, color
adjustment, etc. in one session with one final save. Never use those
backup saves unless you are forced to, or if you are willing to
compromise quality.

You mentioned using 300 dpi (dots (or pixels) per inch) for web
pictures. To be honest, this confuses me. If the picture is 300 pixels
wide, it will show up on my screen as 300 pixels wide. Full stop. If I
print it at 300 dpi it will be 1 inch wide, or if I print 75 dpi it will
be 4 inches wide. But it's still gonna be 300 pixels wide on my screen
and that works out to a bit over 3 inches no matter what dpi setting you
have assigned to the picture.

Did I misunderstand what you wrote?

Val Adams...

I seem to have partly answered you in my reply to Joan, but yes, I do save
originals, in psd if they are going to need a lot of work.

My reasoning with 300 'dpi' for web sharing is that this is about one half
to 2/3 of the screen space folk are likely to allow for viewing a picture.
If I expect to also want prints, I use a larger size/resolution ratio; in
fact I keep 2 or 3 separate copies of the pic: at least one original, one
for process, one for print, and one for web pages. In the case of my own
albums, I also make a thumbnail.
You are right tho, the correct term for on-screen usage s/b 'ppi', not dpi.

Re-examing the relative sizes, I see where I goofed, the original(flamingo)
was 234.x ppi, and I changed it to 300 ppi...