There are two ways to post an image at the Cafe.

1. If you have jpg or gif images on any web server, you can place one in a post by selecting the "HTML" option (above right of the posting box) and placing the URL (address) in your post this way:

Your Internet Service Provider probably offers web space as part of your account. And there are a number of other sites which provide free space for images and make it easy to upload from your computer.

Click the little "Preview" box before posting if you want to double check that it worked properly.

---

TIP: You can click on the blue "HTML" above any html post with a picture in it to see how the post was constructed.

---

or...

2.An image file (jpg or gif) can be attached directly to a post. The ability to attach files to posts, however, is generally available only to forum hosts and Cafe management. In some forums, hosts have been willing to receive images by e-mail and attach/post them for folks.

Non-hosts can be placed on a forum "panel," and panel members can be given the ability to attach files themselves. When we open the Gallery subforum, it is likely we will enable those with their own gallery to attach files in that particular forum, subject to agreed upon restrictions related to the number and size of the files.

At this time, in this forum, the way to post an image you can't upload on another server is to e-mail it to me.

Kai, would you prefer that the gallery subforum be the only place
that images are posted?

Do you want to set a limitation on image size?

> would you prefer that the gallery subforum be the only place
> that images are posted?

Not at all.

Most people won't even have a gallery here, I imagine.

Those that do can post a picture anywhere else in the Cafe with html once they have attached it in their gallery space. But that doesn't mean they will always want it there.

> Do you want to set a limitation on image size?

There is not a specific limitation on file size for attached. We will need a general understanding with those who have galleries. There will be times when a large image may almost have to be 100k or more, bu the fact is that most images can easily be reduced for the web to a considerably smaller filesize.

We will have a topic in the gallery subforum where we can discuss that, and help peach other learn how to do that. Being willing and able to do that will be one of the criteria for having a gallery space (and the ability to attach files on your own).

Kai, I think it would be nice if people could comment in the gallery
topics.

I tend to think so, too.

But...it would be possible to have some open to comments and others not. The only thing to note about the choice is that it is an all or nothing sort of thing. Anyone with a gallery can choose for it to be read-only *or* to allow comments

So each gallery topic would be for one person's photos, with comments
possibly open to all? (trying to get a sense of how this will be set
up)

Yes.

And we could let the person with the topic decide whether or not to open it for discussion/feedback/whatever.

Kai, bringing this over from the Portrait topic . . . and since I
know you're using Photoshop (Save for Web, I assume) . . . .

what are your average pixel dimensions and jpeg quality settings?
I've noticed your images look huge on the screen compared to some of
mine that I've sent to you, even though my file sizes have been 30 -
50K. I usually try to save at a minimum of 60 quality jpeg in the Save
for Web dialogue box. Anything lower than 50 starts to look terrible.
(I'm also at 72 ppi)

What are you doing to get lots of pixels, high visual quality on the
screen and reasonable file sizes???!!

Photshop-wise, I usually do a "save for web" at anywhere from 10-30 quality jpg. Usually in the middle of that range, and rarely more than that.

Not sure what else would be different.

I usually save the full-size "raw" version, as is, with only a new name. Then I save a cropped second version at 72 dpi and 6-10 inches on the long side. Then I make more changes (cropping again, maybe, shrinking the image size an inch or two or more, depending, and, perhaps, sharpening it once, before clicking to "save for web."

I use the "four up" option in the window when saving for web, so I can see the comparisons. Then I pick the lowest quality level that doesn't seem to include a significantly noticable drop off.

There is a drop off, of course. That is unavoidable. Sometimes, though, it is amazing how small a file size can get, and other times it is frustratingly hard to get it below 100k without an unacceptable drop off for posting. Most of the time, though 20-50 is possible for a 6 to 8 inch image (at 72dpi, so it depends on your monitor's resolution).

Kai wrote:

**There is a drop off, of course. That is unavoidable. Sometimes, though, it is amazing how small a file size can get, and other times it is frustratingly hard to get it below 100k without an unacceptable drop off for posting. Most of the time, though 20-50 is possible for a 6 to 8 inch image (at 72dpi, so it depends on your monitor's resolution).**

JPEG encoding analyses the image for areas of similarity, and encodes these (typically square) chunks as a single value and a location in the frame. Therefore, highly detailed, high contrast images will not compress as much as blurry ones or images with large areas of similar value/color.

For display on the web, I've always thought it makes the most sense to reduce the size of the image to no more than 700-800 px horizontal, and smaller if possible. At least get it down to under 100K.

Another tip. I almost always use a thumbnail as a 'LOWSRC' in the <img> tag.

This will load VERY quickly even on a slow modem link, and fills the space that the image will eventually occupy.

using Kai's example above, I'd modify it to:

<img src="http://yourdomain.com/yourdirectory/imagename.jpg" lowsrc="http:// yourdomain.com/yourdirectory/imagename_tn.jpg">

where imagename_tn.jpg is the thumbnail, which at 1 x 1.5 inches will be 1% of the filesize (+-) of an original 10x15 inches (not 10% -- 1 %! since the area decreases as the square of the linear dimension!)

For an example of how this works, check out a site I designed for a VERY good pro at www.andrewmartin.com

For some of my stuff, at this point, my fotolog has more than my own site!

that's www.fotolog.net/ peterf

Great to see a new photo forum. I'll be interested to see the work here! Fotolog.net has some really amazing images!

Ciao

Peter

www. fraterdeus.com

Good info, Peter.

I didn't even know about "lowsrc" tags. I'll have to give it a try.

Thanks for the info, Kai. Looks like my quality settings could be a
little lower.

It took me a while to start picking the lower lower quality settings for many )but not all) posted pics. But for a lot of images, the difference is negligible *on the web.*

Well that's the only thing I use jpegs for anyway!! :-)  Where I see
a difference is with the colors. The lower qualities flatten and dull
everything out, even if I've bumped the saturation. (and many of my
subjects are neutral anyway.) Guess I just need to bump it a little
more.

I rarely mess with color changes of any kind.

A little saturation increase once in a while, but hardly ever.

I almost always do a lot of fussing with pictures.

Canon's are very saturated compared to Nikons, in general. I also
have the saturation control on my camera set to a negative number so I
can do my adjusting in P'shop. I fuss a lot with the pics too - that's
the part that's most fun!

I rarely tinker with photos electronically, unless I've got one where
I love the moment that I've captured, but there's something obviously
wrong with the photo in terms of lighting/exposure.

That's weird. I almost never do anything with saturation, but only
color balance and contrast. I guess that comes from my hands
on dark room experience. We never had a saturation option!

The funny thing is that we're used to seeing photos that are highly
saturated, where nature really isn't all that much...

Traditional color films always 'interpret' the colors, since
obviously, the dye used is physically distinct from the
photo-sensitive layers (the same in printing)

Digital sensors are literally measuring the energy of the photons
passing the shutter, thus, if all else is equal (a proper exposure
being primary), one would expect a highly accurate recording of the
light and color present at the moment of exposure...

The camera's internal processing changes this data before you have a
chance to evaluate, which is why I generally leave sharpening and
contrast at 0.

I often adjust levels in photoshop afterward, and sometimes sharpen
as well, depending. And then there's creative interpretation, but
that's a different story altogether...

Of course, all this has little to do with the topic of this thread
;-)

Ciao

Peter

> if all else is equal (a proper exposure being primary), one would
> expect a highly accurate recording of the light and color present
> at the moment of exposure...

Well...yes. And no.

As any photographer knows from experience (and often frustration), the length of exposure makes a huge difference in almost any picture.

So often the result is brighter or more washed out colors, than what appears to the eye. Or darker, with less color than you really could see. Or both, in different parts of the pictures. In fact, bright and dark areas in the same picture create difficulties and choices that have to be made about which area is going to be closer to "reali

Just realized what topic this was.

Started a new one...

It's all about the light!
{Photography.16.1-}