«

Eric Stevens <> writes:

> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:56:24 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>>So here is a 3585 x 2394 at 4MB
>>< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEc2.jpg >
>>
>>Cropped to 1920 x 1080 and reduced to 1.3MB
>>< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEWc.jpg >
>
> Cropping is changing the image.
>>
>>and finally reduced to 1280 x 720 @ 246KB for Usenet.
>>< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEWcw.jpg >
>
> You have picked an example which is ideal for JPG compression: large
> plain surfaces of almost constant colour. You should try something
> more complex in which detail and texture is important.

Well, how about this, then:
<http://dd-b.net/cgi-bin/picpage.pl/photography/gallery/minnehaha-20060312?pic=ddb%2020060313%20010-027>.
800x535, 167k, with EXIF and IPTC data and profile.

Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> Eric Stevens<> writes:
>>
>>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:56:24 -0700, Savageduck
>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So here is a 3585 x 2394 at 4MB
>>>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEc2.jpg>
>>>>
>>>> Cropped to 1920 x 1080 and reduced to 1.3MB
>>>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEWc.jpg>
>>>
>>> Cropping is changing the image.
>>>>
>>>> and finally reduced to 1280 x 720 @ 246KB for Usenet.
>>>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEWcw.jpg>
>>>
>>> You have picked an example which is ideal for JPG compression: large
>>> plain surfaces of almost constant colour. You should try something
>>> more complex in which detail and texture is important.
>>
>> Well, how about this, then:
>> <http://dd-b.net/cgi-bin/picpage.pl/photography/gallery/minnehaha-20060312?pic=ddb%2020060313%20010-027>.
>> 800x535, 167k, with EXIF and IPTC data and profile.
>
> David, that just proves it's impossible to make a beautiful and
> detailed submission as a compressed 800 pixel image ... <joking>
>
>

Yeah, there's always a risk using one of your own photos as an example!
(Looks really nice at 24x36 and 20x30; 6MP digital original.)

> I have been sending in images at about 1600 wide, which I figure gives
> maybe enough room to almost fit on a 1920 monitor with the extra space
> the browser uses. That's probably a bit too big. People can always
> change the view to "large" instead of "original" to get 800 wide
> though.

How tall does the 1600 end up? The big annoyance with modern
"widescreen" monitors is that, for photo editing, the HEIGHT of the
screen has always been the major limiting factor. So my 26" Dell
widescreen isn't really much more useful space than a 22" CRT was.

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:

> On 2011-09-10 18:43:51 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-> said:

>> Well, how about this, then:
>> <http://dd-b.net/cgi-bin/picpage.pl/photography/gallery/minnehaha-20060312?pic=ddb%2020060313%20010-027>.
> 800x535,
>>
>> 167k, with EXIF and IPTC data and profile.
>
> Hiawatha must have frozen his moccasins getting that shot.

I think he did, and lots of other parts of his anatomy. AND of
Minnehaha's anatomy. They're cast in bronze on an island just upstream
of the falls.

(It was a relatively warm March day, unusual late snowfall.)

Eric Stevens <> writes:

>>David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>> Eric Stevens<> writes:

>>>> You have picked an example which is ideal for JPG compression: large
>>>> plain surfaces of almost constant colour. You should try something
>>>> more complex in which detail and texture is important.

>>> Well, how about this, then:
>>> <http://dd-b.net/cgi-bin/picpage.pl/photography/gallery/minnehaha-20060312?pic=ddb%2020060313%20010-027>.
>>> 800x535, 167k, with EXIF and IPTC data and profile.
>
> That's certainly a nice image but the numbers change with monochrome.

That's a good point. (For anybody who might misunderstand -- yes, that
picture is "in color", and has some color in it even -- but the very
small color palette will significantly help the compression, making it a
somewhat unfair example for this discussion.)

> What is the effect of changing the size of the image on it's
> appearance?

Basically, it looks better; at least up to 24x36, the biggest I've
printed it. (That's paper size, and there are margins.) At
pixel-peeping distances, I can definitely see how more resolution would
look even better at the larger sizes, but this has detail in the edges
of the footprints in the snow, and twigs all over the place, and so
forth; huge amounts of detail.

Eric Stevens <> writes:

> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:42:37 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd->
> wrote:
>
>>Eric Stevens <> writes:
>>
>>> What is the effect of changing the size of the image on it's
>>> appearance?
>>
>>Basically, it looks better; at least up to 24x36, the biggest I've
>>printed it. (That's paper size, and there are margins.) At
>>pixel-peeping distances, I can definitely see how more resolution would
>>look even better at the larger sizes, but this has detail in the edges
>>of the footprints in the snow, and twigs all over the place, and so
>>forth; huge amounts of detail.
>
> I expect that with the original 6.2 MP image you would be able to look
> at this for hours and still keep on finding new details. Its great
> even in the reduced 428,000 pixel file you have shown. (Figures fron
> EXIF data).

I try to remember to leave that in, though some workflows, especially
some I use for snapshots, seem to take it out and I haven't been
motivated enough to figure out the problem yet. I want that information
to be avilable.

6.2MP confirms my memory that that was shot with my Fuji S2, my first
DSLR, back when.

As I recall there was some CA to correct, but not horrible, and I had
the HUGE advantage that Ctein was working with me preparing the file for
printing (I got to play that big because he had a new printer about the
same week I was out in the Bay Area for work for the week).

And thanks!