Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Getting photos from a friend with a Mac

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Getting photos from a friend with a Mac

 
 
Rikishi42
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-16-2013
On 2013-04-16, Jennifer Murphy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> She lives a bit of a distance away, so it's not feasible for me to just
> go over there every time she has some photos to share. Is there an easy
> way for her to share her desktop with me on my PC so I could walk her
> through the process -- assuming that I can figure out the Mac?


You didn't specify what email client she uses. And if she's not technically
minded, she probebly doesn't know eighter.

But in several email programs (ie: Outlook, Thunderbird), dropping the image
in the mail's body means inserting it into the text, as a reduced image.
If, however, you drop the image file on the header part of the mail, it gets
attached. That should get you the image as-is.

If that doesn't work in her program, let her find out what program it is.
Allways easier, when we know what we're talking about. But she might just
go looking for an 'attach file' button, rather then an 'insert image' one.


--
When in doubt, use brute force.
-- Ken Thompson
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rikishi42
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-17-2013
On 2013-04-17, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2013-04-16 15:59:30 -0700, Rikishi42 <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On 2013-04-16, Jennifer Murphy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> She lives a bit of a distance away, so it's not feasible for me to just
>>> go over there every time she has some photos to share. Is there an easy
>>> way for her to share her desktop with me on my PC so I could walk her
>>> through the process -- assuming that I can figure out the Mac?

>>
>> You didn't specify what email client she uses. And if she's not technically
>> minded, she probebly doesn't know eighter.
>>
>> But in several email programs (ie: Outlook, Thunderbird), dropping the image
>> in the mail's body means inserting it into the text, as a reduced image.
>> If, however, you drop the image file on the header part of the mail, it gets
>> attached. That should get you the image as-is.
>>
>> If that doesn't work in her program, let her find out what program it is.
>> Allways easier, when we know what we're talking about. But she might just
>> go looking for an 'attach file' button, rather then an 'insert image' one.

>
> Since the individual being discussed is using a Mac, and seems to be
> computer tech averse, it is logical to assume that she is using Apple's
> "Mail" which is included in the Mac OS.
>
> With "Mail" she can attach by either using the menu dialog or "drag &
> drop". "Mail" will not adjust the file size or image dimensions. The
> only limitation will be the level of tolerance of her service provider
> before it chokes on the file or attachments. In the case of my provider
> that threshold is around 9-10MB for email.
>
> So understanding that Jennifer's friend is using a P&S with file sizes
> in the 4-5MB range, she might with any luck and the cooperation from
> her service provider, be able to send the either moderately resized, or
> original files, one at a time via email.


OK. So if I understand you, using drag&drop on "Mail" will attach rather
then embed the image, and therefore not resize it. The limits of email
are obvious, but we where not there yet.

You might have missed the original post.
The images *where* embedded. And the image size was described as 640x400.

So, maybe her friend is not using "mail" ?
Or embedding is possible after all?



The question as I understand it was: how can the friend attach, rather then
embed, so the mail delivers the full picture.


--
When in doubt, use brute force.
-- Ken Thompson
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-18-2013
In article <2013041800375454666-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> Using the menu option for "attachments" there is a check box in the
> dialog "to use Windows friendly" attachments.


the whole reason that's there is to deal with outlook bugs.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-18-2013
In article <isw-3CC42F.23571617042013@[216.168.3.50]>, isw
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > Always has been. Attaching and/or "embedding" in the Mac world are one
> > and the same.

>
> As a long-time Mac and "Mail" user with many Windows-using
> correspondents, it has been my experience that they have trouble viewing
> "embedded" images far more often than "attached" ones. Whether there is
> actually any difference other than the location of the image file "in"
> or "below" the message, or whether it is Windows version dependent, or
> just that many Windows users don't know how to view images, I don't know.


how it's handled depends on the recipient's email. in other words, it's
a windows problem (no surprise there), likely older versions of
outlook, which means it will never get fixed. microsoft intentionally
deviates from standards (even their own). that's how they lock you in.

apple mail has a lot of extra code specifically for outlook bugs, which
really shouldn't need to be there if microsoft didn't ignore standards.

this also means this problem can happen when *both* the sender and
recipient are on windows, depending on which email clients they use.
it's not a mac issue at all.

tell them to right-click the image and save it. except, that too is
broken in some versions of outlook (really), so you have to copy/paste
instead.

the best solution is for them to switch to an email client that works
properly. problem solved.

> So if I know the images are going to a Windows user, I always put the
> cursor at the very bottom of the message window and use Menu/File/Attach
> Files ... rather than just dragging the images into the window.


that doesn't really do much. it's still mime encoded and outlook will
probably do the wrong thing, especially if it's an older version.

one fix is set plain text, which you should do anyway because html mail
is annoying and often used by spammers, which means some people use
that as an indication the mail is likely spam. html mail is also bigger
than it needs to be if there's just text in it.

another option is include a non-image attachment which apparently
forces outlook to treat any images as attachments.

or, you can zip the images. embedding zip files makes no sense so
outlook will always show it as an attachment. then the recipient unzips
it and everyone is happy.

> With image-containing messages sent *to* a Mac, however, it doesn't seem
> to matter where they are.


that's because apple mail works properly with regards to attachments.

apple mail has other problems, but how it handles attachments isn't one
of them.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mayayana
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-18-2013
| As a long-time Mac and "Mail" user with many Windows-using
| correspondents, it has been my experience that they have trouble viewing
| "embedded" images far more often than "attached" ones. Whether there is
| actually any difference other than the location of the image file "in"
| or "below" the message, or whether it is Windows version dependent, or
| just that many Windows users don't know how to view images, I don't know.
|

It will depend on software used, but for the most
part Windows email programs default to disabling HTML
email for security reasons. If you send an embedded
image to me (which necessarily means HTML email)
I won't see it, but I will see an available attachment
in my particular email program. (OE6) Other people
may not see it as an attachment. They may just see
a blank email. So it is safer to just attach the image
as a file.

One can also send links to remote images in HTML
email, but those are even more likely to be blocked
for security and privacy reasons. (I think OE and
Thunderbird both now default to blocking external
images, if they show HTML email at all.)

Assuming the image is not just a remote link, it's
embedded the same way whether it's an attachment or
an HTML element. It travels as a Base64 encoded text
string appended to the email. But how it's presented
to the recipient depends on whether it was coded to
be an attachment or an HTML element. (Also of note:
Base64 encoding converts every 3 bytes to 4 characters,
each of which requires 1 byte, so an image in email is
actually 33% more data than the actual image itself.
A 3 MB image will travel as 4 MB.)

It used to be that I would get images from people
with Macs that didn't have the "resource fork" removed
and were therefore unusable in Windows. Mac users
had to be told to strip of the Mac-specific part before
sending. Maybe that's changed by now? I don't know.


 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-18-2013
In article <kkp1oj$g31$(E-Mail Removed)>, Mayayana
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> It used to be that I would get images from people
> with Macs that didn't have the "resource fork" removed
> and were therefore unusable in Windows. Mac users
> had to be told to strip of the Mac-specific part before
> sending. Maybe that's changed by now? I don't know.


it was split into two files, one of which was the data fork and the
other was the resource fork. ignore one.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rikishi42
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-18-2013
On 2013-04-18, Alan Browne <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 2013.04.17 19:26 , Rikishi42 wrote:
>
>> The question as I understand it was: how can the friend attach, rather then
>> embed, so the mail delivers the full picture.

>
> You drop the image in the mail and select (upper right above the message
> text) "Actual Size". That is how you "attach" an image.


Nope. Not if you can select a size. That's "inserting" an image in a text or
"embedding", it's not attaching a file. It means you edit (resize, in this
case) the image for the purpose of fitting it into the text's layout.

When you attach a file, that file can be any kind of file; it's allways send
unmodified alongside the mail.


> The Apple Mail client (which most Apple users use for mail) gives you a
> choice: "Actual Size" or 3 smaller sizes (Large, Medium, Small).
>
> The Apple Mail client will resize the image automatically if you do not
> select full size. It seems to remember the last selection (I might be
> hallucinating on that one).
>
> Someone who is not all that proficient with computers or Apple Mail
> might not realize that and send the image at a small size. I've done it
> by accident several times myself.


OK, that's a very usefull and helpfull feature. But that's not an attachment
function. It can only be applied to an image. Attaching means joining a
file, any kind of file.




--
When in doubt, use brute force.
-- Ken Thompson
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rikishi42
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-18-2013
On 2013-04-18, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> OK. So if I understand you, using drag&drop on "Mail" will attach rather
>> then embed the image, and therefore not resize it. The limits of email
>> are obvious, but we where not there yet.
>>
>> You might have missed the original post.
>> The images *where* embedded. And the image size was described as 640x400.

>
> I have been following the entire thread, and the previous one
> discussing this issue.
>
> There might be a misuse of the term "imbedded". By "imbedded" if you
> mean the recipient sees an image dragged to the text field of the out
> going message composition window and if it is viewed as part of the
> composed text you consider it "imbedded"?


Yes.


> That is still an attachment, and Apple "Mail" will treat it as such if
> dragged & dropped, or attached via menu.
> In the example below I dragged an image file to the text field. The
> recipient will see the image in the text field and will also have an
> attachment which can be saved or opened in an application of choice.
>< https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...enshot_198.jpg >


But the OP received a 640x480 image. Clearly NOT an unmodified attachment.
If the reduction in size was only in the layout of the mail, and there was
also a full, unmodified image filed attached, then this thread wouldn't
exist. The OP knows her way 'round a computer, so she wouldn't have
confused the one for the other.


> Always has been. Attaching and/or "embedding" in the Mac world are one
> and the same.


Attaching and embedding are not notions defined in the Mac world. They are
part of the platform-independant definition of what a mail is.


>> The question as I understand it was: how can the friend attach, rather then
>> embed, so the mail delivers the full picture.

>
> See above.


Allright, let's put it in another way: how can she send a file in
attachment. Not specifically an image, just any kind of file. Even one that
a Mac wouldn't open. Just sending a file to someone.





--
When in doubt, use brute force.
-- Ken Thompson
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rikishi42
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-18-2013
On 2013-04-18, isw <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <201304171833069530-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
> --snippage --
>
>> Always has been. Attaching and/or "embedding" in the Mac world are one
>> and the same.

>
> As a long-time Mac and "Mail" user with many Windows-using
> correspondents, it has been my experience that they have trouble viewing
> "embedded" images far more often than "attached" ones. Whether there is
> actually any difference other than the location of the image file "in"
> or "below" the message, or whether it is Windows version dependent, or
> just that many Windows users don't know how to view images, I don't know.


This is not about platforms. I've used a Mac once in a while, work with
Windows all day and come home to Linux. I've used DOS, OS/2, Lotus Notes
and a few other systems for years. Please don't make this about platforms.

The difference between embedding and attaching is quiet simple:

"embedding" (or inserting): it stands for the idea of making an image part
of a text's content and presentation. Wether in a Word processor,
presentation soft or email editor doens't matter. You open the image file,
copy the image's pixels inside, potentially change it (in this case
resizing) and paste the result into your text. If you receive such an
email, you can copy-paste the image to a file, of course. This file will be
very different from the original. Even if you didn't resize or crop, it will
not contain the original Exif data, for instance. In other words: the result
will not be the file that came out of that camera.

"attaching": the idea is more of adding a parcel to a letter. Nothing to do
with the composition of the email's layout. The file will be a binairy
identical file.


> So if I know the images are going to a Windows user, I always put the
> cursor at the very bottom of the message window and use Menu/File/Attach
> Files ... rather than just dragging the images into the window.


Aha, finally... There is the real attachment function.

If the OP's correspondant is indeed using "mail", this is the answer she's
been waiting for.
If her correspondant uses that method, then Jeniffer will receive an exact
copy of the file. Not modified internally. Not resized.


> With image-containing messages sent *to* a Mac, however, it doesn't seem
> to matter where they are.


I don't know why, unless you specify 'orgininal size'. Maybe the the soft
creates an simple attachment in that case, with a a link between text and
image, in order to define the position.

Just out of curiosity: have you verified if such a transfer keeps the Exif
data intact ?



Sorry about the long messages. As someone once wrote: "Sorry about this long
letter, I didn't have time to make it shorter."



Jeniffer!
Jennifer!
We have the answer here!


Did she doze off, bored my the long wait and tired of the endless reading of
messages?

--
When in doubt, use brute force.
-- Ken Thompson
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-19-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Rikishi42
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> Always has been. Attaching and/or "embedding" in the Mac world are one
> >> and the same.

> >
> > As a long-time Mac and "Mail" user with many Windows-using
> > correspondents, it has been my experience that they have trouble viewing
> > "embedded" images far more often than "attached" ones. Whether there is
> > actually any difference other than the location of the image file "in"
> > or "below" the message, or whether it is Windows version dependent, or
> > just that many Windows users don't know how to view images, I don't know.

>
> This is not about platforms. I've used a Mac once in a while, work with
> Windows all day and come home to Linux. I've used DOS, OS/2, Lotus Notes
> and a few other systems for years. Please don't make this about platforms.


correct. it's not about platforms. it's about buggy email apps that
don't conform to email standards, which is usually windows but not
always.

> The difference between embedding and attaching is quiet simple:
>
> "embedding" (or inserting): it stands for the idea of making an image part
> of a text's content and presentation. Wether in a Word processor,
> presentation soft or email editor doens't matter. You open the image file,
> copy the image's pixels inside, potentially change it (in this case
> resizing) and paste the result into your text. If you receive such an
> email, you can copy-paste the image to a file, of course. This file will be
> very different from the original. Even if you didn't resize or crop, it will
> not contain the original Exif data, for instance. In other words: the result
> will not be the file that came out of that camera.


this is incorrect. email is mime encoded with a tag that says what to
do with the file, either inline or attachment. some apps respect the
tag, while other apps ignore it or try to guess what to do. the problem
is the recipient's email app. to save embedded images, just right-click
(or drag) and save it to disk. it's identical either way.

here's a summary with links to the rfcs:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIME#Content-Disposition>
The content-disposition header field was added in RFC 2183 to specify
the presentation style. A MIME part can have:
an inline content-disposition, which means that it should be
automatically displayed when the message is displayed, or
an attachment content-disposition, in which case it is not
displayed automatically and requires some form of action from the
user to open it.
In addition to the presentation style, the content-disposition header
also provides fields for specifying the name of the file, the
creation date and modification date, which can be used by the
reader's mail user agent to store the attachment.

> "attaching": the idea is more of adding a parcel to a letter. Nothing to do
> with the composition of the email's layout. The file will be a binairy
> identical file.


see above. it's just a tag.

> > So if I know the images are going to a Windows user, I always put the
> > cursor at the very bottom of the message window and use Menu/File/Attach
> > Files ... rather than just dragging the images into the window.

>
> Aha, finally... There is the real attachment function.


nope. that doesn't change how it's actually sent.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Best way to get large files from a friend? Mayayana Digital Photography 13 04-17-2013 07:50 PM
Re: Best way to get large files from a friend? nospam Digital Photography 0 04-10-2013 07:25 PM
Re: Best way to get large files from a friend? Dave Digital Photography 0 04-10-2013 07:13 PM
Re: Best way to get large files from a friend? nospam Digital Photography 1 04-10-2013 05:51 PM
Re: Best way to get large files from a friend? (PeteCresswell) Digital Photography 0 04-10-2013 03:39 PM



Advertisments