«

"stuffthis" <stuff@stuffed> wrote in message news:44162445$...
>
> "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
> news:441621b4$...
>> stuffthis wrote:
>> > "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
>> > news:44161780$...
>> >> stuffthis wrote:
>> >>> But yet digitalmax compress your photo's for you. You can prove this
>> >>> for yourself by using their photo upload software, when you go to
>> >>> upload the photo's you will see that the file size is a lot less
>> >>> than the original. Are they breaking some sort of law with this
>> >>> misleading practice?
>> >>
>> >> That doesn't necessarily prove that they are re-compressing, is the
>> >> compression visibly noticeable, ie jpeg artifacts? Otherwise the
>> >> file size is probably smaller not because they are re-compressing
>> >> your image, but because they are stripping out the EXIF data, which
>> >> can be quite big on some files.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Well if that is the case it would be in their best interest to
>> > explain that wouldn't it. They reduce your total file size by about
>> > 1/2, does this still fit with your theory?
>>
>> Not even close, unless the photos were quite low res or highly compressed
>> already. I did a couple of tests and removing EXIF data knocked about
>> 50k
>> off a 450k file -- however the size of the EXIF data will vary with
>> different cameras and also depending on whether you have picture
> organisers
>> like Picasa adding metadata to them (just as an example, for all I know
>> Picasa keeps its own database and doesn't make use of EXIF, I have no
> idea).
>> But yeah, in that case sounds like they are re-compressing.
>>
>
> The photos were straight from my 3.2 megapixel canon a75 camera,
> resolution
> was set to highest and compression to lowest, the camera outputs jpeg
> images
> so compressing them again as digitalmax do is bad.

You're talking bullshit.
Your pictures might be close to 2MBs in some cases straight from your
camera, even at 50% resolution the pictures would still give good 8x10
prints.
For 4x6 prints you'd hardly notice any damn difference at all. Have you
even compared 1752x1500 or whatever resolution to a resampled picture of
half the size on your computer? The resampled picture has a damn sight less
grain in it. The Canon 3.2mp takes a good picture, but when resampled from
the original that picture looks even better. And quite often the background
in pictures should be cropped so that the main subject in the photo looks a
damn sight better in little 4x6 prints.
I helped a guy with some good wedding pictures he took on his little Canon.
Out some of the group shots he got individual photos were made from the same
original groups shot. Which gave him even more photos than what he had
actually taken. The days of sending film shots in and take what you get are
long gone. Anyone can edit their own digital photos to get even better
prints of the subjects that they've taken.

To get 6x4 prints from your pictures the process compresses your pictures
right down when printing anyway.
I've got a picture that's printed on 4 sheets of A4 (a quarter of the
picture on each sheet), it looks just like the large 4mp picture that the
ccamera took when first displayed on the computer.

If your 4x6 prints look like grainy pieces of **** instead of good clear
photos, then complain away all you like as they just shouldn't look like
that if you've taken them properly in the first place.

E. Scrooge

"Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
news:4416299e$...
> Nik Coughlin wrote:
> > stuffthis wrote:
> >> The photos were straight from my 3.2 megapixel canon a75 camera,
> >> resolution was set to highest and compression to lowest, the camera
> >> outputs jpeg images so compressing them again as digitalmax do is
> >> bad.
>
> Strange, I just uploaded a 3.2 megapixel, max resolution, lowest
compression
> image from my Pentax 330, it was 1.53mb on my disk, and is showing up in
my
> photo gallery as being 1.6mb, which is bigger (though more likely they are
> rounding the file size displayed). I used the upload function on the
> website, maybe it is a problem with their downloadable application rather
> than something they are doing deliberately?
>

I rang them about it yesterday and they said the files were made smaller to
provide a better service to customers, they did not deny that the files were
been compressed, they just said that it did not make any difference, when I
questioned them about the fact that their website or software did not
mention this they said that they did mention it in an update email, although
I never seen such a thing despite been on their mailing list for years, you
see I tried them years ago but did not like the results I got as the photo
appeared either compressed or sharpened and since the original was only from
a 1.3megapixel camera with only internal 16mb so the results of whatever
extra processing that they did were not good, had the photos reprinted
elsewhere with no problems.
Anyhow back to what you said, it is rather annoying that they did not tell
me that I could upload my photo's using the website and not get compression,
I guess the person on the phone does not really know what is going on. It
had crossed my mind that this might be the case but thought they would have
said since I was not happy to use compression.

"E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote in message
news:dv5a57$7u7$...
>
> "stuffthis" <stuff@stuffed> wrote in message
news:44162445$...
> >
> > "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
> > news:441621b4$...
> >> stuffthis wrote:
> >> > "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
> >> > news:44161780$...
> >> >> stuffthis wrote:
> >> >>> But yet digitalmax compress your photo's for you. You can prove
this
> >> >>> for yourself by using their photo upload software, when you go to
> >> >>> upload the photo's you will see that the file size is a lot less
> >> >>> than the original. Are they breaking some sort of law with this
> >> >>> misleading practice?
> >> >>
> >> >> That doesn't necessarily prove that they are re-compressing, is the
> >> >> compression visibly noticeable, ie jpeg artifacts? Otherwise the
> >> >> file size is probably smaller not because they are re-compressing
> >> >> your image, but because they are stripping out the EXIF data, which
> >> >> can be quite big on some files.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Well if that is the case it would be in their best interest to
> >> > explain that wouldn't it. They reduce your total file size by about
> >> > 1/2, does this still fit with your theory?
> >>
> >> Not even close, unless the photos were quite low res or highly
compressed
> >> already. I did a couple of tests and removing EXIF data knocked about
> >> 50k
> >> off a 450k file -- however the size of the EXIF data will vary with
> >> different cameras and also depending on whether you have picture
> > organisers
> >> like Picasa adding metadata to them (just as an example, for all I know
> >> Picasa keeps its own database and doesn't make use of EXIF, I have no
> > idea).
> >> But yeah, in that case sounds like they are re-compressing.
> >>
> >
> > The photos were straight from my 3.2 megapixel canon a75 camera,
> > resolution
> > was set to highest and compression to lowest, the camera outputs jpeg
> > images
> > so compressing them again as digitalmax do is bad.
>
> You're talking bullshit.
> Your pictures might be close to 2MBs in some cases straight from your
> camera, even at 50% resolution the pictures would still give good 8x10
> prints.
> For 4x6 prints you'd hardly notice any damn difference at all. Have you
> even compared 1752x1500 or whatever resolution to a resampled picture of
> half the size on your computer? The resampled picture has a damn sight
less
> grain in it. The Canon 3.2mp takes a good picture, but when resampled
from
> the original that picture looks even better. And quite often the
background
> in pictures should be cropped so that the main subject in the photo looks
a
> damn sight better in little 4x6 prints.
> I helped a guy with some good wedding pictures he took on his little
Canon.
> Out some of the group shots he got individual photos were made from the
same
> original groups shot. Which gave him even more photos than what he had
> actually taken. The days of sending film shots in and take what you get
are
> long gone. Anyone can edit their own digital photos to get even better
> prints of the subjects that they've taken.
>
> To get 6x4 prints from your pictures the process compresses your pictures
> right down when printing anyway.
> I've got a picture that's printed on 4 sheets of A4 (a quarter of the
> picture on each sheet), it looks just like the large 4mp picture that the
> ccamera took when first displayed on the computer.
>
> If your 4x6 prints look like grainy pieces of **** instead of good clear
> photos, then complain away all you like as they just shouldn't look like
> that if you've taken them properly in the first place.
>
> E. Scrooge
>

Your normal nonsensical rant.

"stuffthis" <stuff@stuffed> wrote in message news:...
>
> "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
> news:4416299e$...
> > Nik Coughlin wrote:
> > > stuffthis wrote:
> > >> The photos were straight from my 3.2 megapixel canon a75 camera,
> > >> resolution was set to highest and compression to lowest, the camera
> > >> outputs jpeg images so compressing them again as digitalmax do is
> > >> bad.
> >
> > Strange, I just uploaded a 3.2 megapixel, max resolution, lowest
> compression
> > image from my Pentax 330, it was 1.53mb on my disk, and is showing up in
> my
> > photo gallery as being 1.6mb, which is bigger (though more likely they
are
> > rounding the file size displayed). I used the upload function on the
> > website, maybe it is a problem with their downloadable application
rather
> > than something they are doing deliberately?
> >
>
> I rang them about it yesterday and they said the files were made smaller
to
> provide a better service to customers, they did not deny that the files
were
> been compressed, they just said that it did not make any difference, when
I
> questioned them about the fact that their website or software did not
> mention this they said that they did mention it in an update email,
although
> I never seen such a thing despite been on their mailing list for years,
you
> see I tried them years ago but did not like the results I got as the photo
> appeared either compressed or sharpened and since the original was only
from
> a 1.3megapixel camera with only internal 16mb so the results of whatever
> extra processing that they did were not good, had the photos reprinted
> elsewhere with no problems.
> Anyhow back to what you said, it is rather annoying that they did not tell
> me that I could upload my photo's using the website and not get
compression,
> I guess the person on the phone does not really know what is going on. It
> had crossed my mind that this might be the case but thought they would
have
> said since I was not happy to use compression.
>

I should say that when i rang I was reporting the problem as a fault because
as far as i knew the files were not suppose to be compressed by the upload
software, they said it was not a fault, it was just a method to provide a
better service.

> > > Strange, I just uploaded a 3.2 megapixel, max resolution, lowest
> > compression
> > > image from my Pentax 330, it was 1.53mb on my disk, and is showing up
in
> > my
> > > photo gallery as being 1.6mb, which is bigger (though more likely they
> are
> > > rounding the file size displayed). I used the upload function on the
> > > website,

Just checked that out for myself, sure enough I had the same result, good to
know so thanks for that, i may give digitalmax a go after all.

"stuffthis" <stuff@stuffed> wrote in message news:...
>
> "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote in message
> news:dv5a57$7u7$...
>>
>> "stuffthis" <stuff@stuffed> wrote in message
> news:44162445$...
>> >
>> > "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
>> > news:441621b4$...
>> >> stuffthis wrote:
>> >> > "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
>> >> > news:44161780$...
>> >> >> stuffthis wrote:
>> >> >>> But yet digitalmax compress your photo's for you. You can prove
> this
>> >> >>> for yourself by using their photo upload software, when you go to
>> >> >>> upload the photo's you will see that the file size is a lot less
>> >> >>> than the original. Are they breaking some sort of law with this
>> >> >>> misleading practice?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That doesn't necessarily prove that they are re-compressing, is the
>> >> >> compression visibly noticeable, ie jpeg artifacts? Otherwise the
>> >> >> file size is probably smaller not because they are re-compressing
>> >> >> your image, but because they are stripping out the EXIF data, which
>> >> >> can be quite big on some files.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Well if that is the case it would be in their best interest to
>> >> > explain that wouldn't it. They reduce your total file size by about
>> >> > 1/2, does this still fit with your theory?
>> >>
>> >> Not even close, unless the photos were quite low res or highly
> compressed
>> >> already. I did a couple of tests and removing EXIF data knocked about
>> >> 50k
>> >> off a 450k file -- however the size of the EXIF data will vary with
>> >> different cameras and also depending on whether you have picture
>> > organisers
>> >> like Picasa adding metadata to them (just as an example, for all I
>> >> know
>> >> Picasa keeps its own database and doesn't make use of EXIF, I have no
>> > idea).
>> >> But yeah, in that case sounds like they are re-compressing.
>> >>
>> >
>> > The photos were straight from my 3.2 megapixel canon a75 camera,
>> > resolution
>> > was set to highest and compression to lowest, the camera outputs jpeg
>> > images
>> > so compressing them again as digitalmax do is bad.
>>
>> You're talking bullshit.
>> Your pictures might be close to 2MBs in some cases straight from your
>> camera, even at 50% resolution the pictures would still give good 8x10
>> prints.
>> For 4x6 prints you'd hardly notice any damn difference at all. Have you
>> even compared 1752x1500 or whatever resolution to a resampled picture of
>> half the size on your computer? The resampled picture has a damn sight
> less
>> grain in it. The Canon 3.2mp takes a good picture, but when resampled
> from
>> the original that picture looks even better. And quite often the
> background
>> in pictures should be cropped so that the main subject in the photo looks
> a
>> damn sight better in little 4x6 prints.
>> I helped a guy with some good wedding pictures he took on his little
> Canon.
>> Out some of the group shots he got individual photos were made from the
> same
>> original groups shot. Which gave him even more photos than what he had
>> actually taken. The days of sending film shots in and take what you get
> are
>> long gone. Anyone can edit their own digital photos to get even better
>> prints of the subjects that they've taken.
>>
>> To get 6x4 prints from your pictures the process compresses your pictures
>> right down when printing anyway.
>> I've got a picture that's printed on 4 sheets of A4 (a quarter of the
>> picture on each sheet), it looks just like the large 4mp picture that the
>> ccamera took when first displayed on the computer.
>>
>> If your 4x6 prints look like grainy pieces of **** instead of good clear
>> photos, then complain away all you like as they just shouldn't look like
>> that if you've taken them properly in the first place.
>>
>> E. Scrooge
>>
>
> Your normal nonsensical rant.

If you were wanting larger than little 4x6 prints then you'd be half right
about expecting better. And why you'd want a camera that can only take
compressed jpg pictures is a mystery as well.

E. Scrooge

"E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote in message
news:1142305597.142703@ftpsrv1...
>
> "stuffthis" <stuff@stuffed> wrote in message news:...
> >
> > "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote in message
> > news:dv5a57$7u7$...
> >>
> >> "stuffthis" <stuff@stuffed> wrote in message
> > news:44162445$...
> >> >
> >> > "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
> >> > news:441621b4$...
> >> >> stuffthis wrote:
> >> >> > "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:44161780$...
> >> >> >> stuffthis wrote:
> >> >> >>> But yet digitalmax compress your photo's for you. You can prove
> > this
> >> >> >>> for yourself by using their photo upload software, when you go
to
> >> >> >>> upload the photo's you will see that the file size is a lot less
> >> >> >>> than the original. Are they breaking some sort of law with this
> >> >> >>> misleading practice?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> That doesn't necessarily prove that they are re-compressing, is
the
> >> >> >> compression visibly noticeable, ie jpeg artifacts? Otherwise the
> >> >> >> file size is probably smaller not because they are re-compressing
> >> >> >> your image, but because they are stripping out the EXIF data,
which
> >> >> >> can be quite big on some files.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Well if that is the case it would be in their best interest to
> >> >> > explain that wouldn't it. They reduce your total file size by
about
> >> >> > 1/2, does this still fit with your theory?
> >> >>
> >> >> Not even close, unless the photos were quite low res or highly
> > compressed
> >> >> already. I did a couple of tests and removing EXIF data knocked
about
> >> >> 50k
> >> >> off a 450k file -- however the size of the EXIF data will vary with
> >> >> different cameras and also depending on whether you have picture
> >> > organisers
> >> >> like Picasa adding metadata to them (just as an example, for all I
> >> >> know
> >> >> Picasa keeps its own database and doesn't make use of EXIF, I have
no
> >> > idea).
> >> >> But yeah, in that case sounds like they are re-compressing.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > The photos were straight from my 3.2 megapixel canon a75 camera,
> >> > resolution
> >> > was set to highest and compression to lowest, the camera outputs jpeg
> >> > images
> >> > so compressing them again as digitalmax do is bad.
> >>
> >> You're talking bullshit.
> >> Your pictures might be close to 2MBs in some cases straight from your
> >> camera, even at 50% resolution the pictures would still give good 8x10
> >> prints.
> >> For 4x6 prints you'd hardly notice any damn difference at all. Have
you
> >> even compared 1752x1500 or whatever resolution to a resampled picture
of
> >> half the size on your computer? The resampled picture has a damn sight
> > less
> >> grain in it. The Canon 3.2mp takes a good picture, but when resampled
> > from
> >> the original that picture looks even better. And quite often the
> > background
> >> in pictures should be cropped so that the main subject in the photo
looks
> > a
> >> damn sight better in little 4x6 prints.
> >> I helped a guy with some good wedding pictures he took on his little
> > Canon.
> >> Out some of the group shots he got individual photos were made from the
> > same
> >> original groups shot. Which gave him even more photos than what he had
> >> actually taken. The days of sending film shots in and take what you
get
> > are
> >> long gone. Anyone can edit their own digital photos to get even better
> >> prints of the subjects that they've taken.
> >>
> >> To get 6x4 prints from your pictures the process compresses your
pictures
> >> right down when printing anyway.
> >> I've got a picture that's printed on 4 sheets of A4 (a quarter of the
> >> picture on each sheet), it looks just like the large 4mp picture that
the
> >> ccamera took when first displayed on the computer.
> >>
> >> If your 4x6 prints look like grainy pieces of **** instead of good
clear
> >> photos, then complain away all you like as they just shouldn't look
like
> >> that if you've taken them properly in the first place.
> >>
> >> E. Scrooge
> >>
> >
> > Your normal nonsensical rant.
>
> If you were wanting larger than little 4x6 prints then you'd be half right
> about expecting better. And why you'd want a camera that can only take
> compressed jpg pictures is a mystery as well.
>
> E. Scrooge
>

And where did I say anything about the size of the prints. Oh well at least
you are consistent with the nonsensical way that you rant. If memory serves
me correct you are the guy named Roger that spends his life talking
nonsense.

In article <441621b4$>, says...
> stuffthis wrote:
> > "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
> > news:44161780$...
> >> stuffthis wrote:
> >>> But yet digitalmax compress your photo's for you. You can prove this
> >>> for yourself by using their photo upload software, when you go to
> >>> upload the photo's you will see that the file size is a lot less
> >>> than the original. Are they breaking some sort of law with this
> >>> misleading practice?
> >>
> >> That doesn't necessarily prove that they are re-compressing, is the
> >> compression visibly noticeable, ie jpeg artifacts? Otherwise the
> >> file size is probably smaller not because they are re-compressing
> >> your image, but because they are stripping out the EXIF data, which
> >> can be quite big on some files.
> >>
> >
> > Well if that is the case it would be in their best interest to
> > explain that wouldn't it. They reduce your total file size by about
> > 1/2, does this still fit with your theory?
>
> Not even close, unless the photos were quite low res or highly compressed
> already. I did a couple of tests and removing EXIF data knocked about 50k
> off a 450k file -- however the size of the EXIF data will vary with
> different cameras and also depending on whether you have picture organisers
> like Picasa adding metadata to them (just as an example, for all I know
> Picasa keeps its own database and doesn't make use of EXIF, I have no idea).
> But yeah, in that case sounds like they are re-compressing.

There is no standard to add EXIF to an existing file. IPTC can be added
to an existing file.

In article <>, says...
> stuffthis wrote:
> > "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
> > news:441621b4$...
> >> stuffthis wrote:
> >>> "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
> >>> news:44161780$...
> >>>> stuffthis wrote:
> >>>>> But yet digitalmax compress your photo's for you. You can prove
> >>>>> this for yourself by using their photo upload software, when you
> >>>>> go to upload the photo's you will see that the file size is a lot
> >>>>> less than the original. Are they breaking some sort of law with
> >>>>> this misleading practice?
> >>>>
> >>>> That doesn't necessarily prove that they are re-compressing, is the
> >>>> compression visibly noticeable, ie jpeg artifacts? Otherwise the
> >>>> file size is probably smaller not because they are re-compressing
> >>>> your image, but because they are stripping out the EXIF data, which
> >>>> can be quite big on some files.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Well if that is the case it would be in their best interest to
> >>> explain that wouldn't it. They reduce your total file size by about
> >>> 1/2, does this still fit with your theory?
> >>
> >> Not even close, unless the photos were quite low res or highly
> >> compressed already. I did a couple of tests and removing EXIF data
> >> knocked about 50k off a 450k file -- however the size of the EXIF
> >> data will vary with different cameras and also depending on whether
> >> you have picture organisers like Picasa adding metadata to them
> >> (just as an example, for all I know Picasa keeps its own database
> >> and doesn't make use of EXIF, I have no idea). But yeah, in that
> >> case sounds like they are re-compressing.
> >>
> >
> > The photos were straight from my 3.2 megapixel canon a75 camera,
> > resolution was set to highest and compression to lowest, the camera
> > outputs jpeg images so compressing them again as digitalmax do is bad.
>
> I'd go along with that. I was thinking, it may be that the software is
> smart enough to use a level of compression that, while being higher than the
> original, is still low enough to be completely unnoticable at the targeted
> print size. Even that is problematic because some photos don't compress
> anywhere near as nicely as others, so even if they got away with it most of
> the time some photos (maybe only a small minority) would almost certainly
> look worse.

I don't use their software, it wouldn't work properly on my PC

RJ wrote:
> In article <>, says...
>> stuffthis wrote:
>>> "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
>>> news:441621b4$...
>>>> stuffthis wrote:
>>>>> "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
>>>>> news:44161780$...
>>>>>> stuffthis wrote:
>>>>>>> But yet digitalmax compress your photo's for you. You can prove
>>>>>>> this for yourself by using their photo upload software, when you
>>>>>>> go to upload the photo's you will see that the file size is a
>>>>>>> lot less than the original. Are they breaking some sort of law
>>>>>>> with this misleading practice?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That doesn't necessarily prove that they are re-compressing, is
>>>>>> the compression visibly noticeable, ie jpeg artifacts?
>>>>>> Otherwise the file size is probably smaller not because they are
>>>>>> re-compressing your image, but because they are stripping out
>>>>>> the EXIF data, which can be quite big on some files.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well if that is the case it would be in their best interest to
>>>>> explain that wouldn't it. They reduce your total file size by
>>>>> about 1/2, does this still fit with your theory?
>>>>
>>>> Not even close, unless the photos were quite low res or highly
>>>> compressed already. I did a couple of tests and removing EXIF data
>>>> knocked about 50k off a 450k file -- however the size of the EXIF
>>>> data will vary with different cameras and also depending on whether
>>>> you have picture organisers like Picasa adding metadata to them
>>>> (just as an example, for all I know Picasa keeps its own database
>>>> and doesn't make use of EXIF, I have no idea). But yeah, in that
>>>> case sounds like they are re-compressing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The photos were straight from my 3.2 megapixel canon a75 camera,
>>> resolution was set to highest and compression to lowest, the camera
>>> outputs jpeg images so compressing them again as digitalmax do is
>>> bad.
>>
>> I'd go along with that. I was thinking, it may be that the software
>> is smart enough to use a level of compression that, while being
>> higher than the original, is still low enough to be completely
>> unnoticable at the targeted print size. Even that is problematic
>> because some photos don't compress anywhere near as nicely as
>> others, so even if they got away with it most of the time some
>> photos (maybe only a small minority) would almost certainly look
>> worse.
>
> I don't use their software, it wouldn't work properly on my PC

You mean because you're not running Windows, or that you met the
requirements but it still didn't work? I didn't use it either. I tried but
all I wanted to do was check the size of the uploaded file and it wanted a
credit card number to place the order with before I was allowed to upload
the file, whereas on the website it didn't.