BagOfCrisps 24 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 You mean in this thread? The report will be in Snow Talk section. Link to post Share on other sites
thursday 1 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 open to all 'cept Koko Link to post Share on other sites
thursday 1 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 the 500k limit is a little out of date now is it not? I know this ain't a photo hosting site, so no expectations of uploading 10Mb pics. I use flick her and link to here as it allows me to just upload and link. No messing around with the originals. My pics have grown from 3Mb to 7Mb because of change in hardware. And they are the Jpg versions. If perhaps a 1Mb limit would be a lot less hassle. Link to post Share on other sites
SnowJapan Admin SnowJapan 178 Posted February 17, 2009 SnowJapan Admin Share Posted February 17, 2009 Well let us increase that limit then shall we. Give me a bit of time and I'll have it sorted. Easy, hey. I'm not sure how a change from 500KB to 1MB would actually change much since you would have to make them smaller anyway.... and with that software (and other software) you can literally batch process a hundred photos within a couple of minutes. As others have shown many times, very high quality pictures are easily possible with that limit. It hardly seems like a huge effort. You know, if you are wanting to post photos can I just point out a few other things if you like what we do, want to help other people out and at the same time go some way to supporting us in the process.... Uploading photos to our site links them in to the system - so for example there are lots of Niseko Hirafu photos all together in the same place, tagged and linked to from the reviews for that resort and also from other areas of the site. You have probably checked out lots of photos of Japanese resorts yourself on this site doing just that, thanks to people uploading them. Ultimately this is a big help to lots of other users who visit this site, of which there are a lot. And while not having an impact one by one as such, in the big picture it also doesn't do this site any harm to have 'more' photos than 'less' photos. So in effect by uploading photos you are supporting us at the same time. Of course you're under no obligation to but if you are doing a report then please do upload them to SJ if you can and are willing. Thanks Link to post Share on other sites
thursday 1 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 A-HA, this is ecsachery what I am on about. My humble trip report photos will be uploaded to SJ, but before I can do that, they will have to be processed through irvanview. Takes a bit of time, takes a bit of effort. Thats what I mean. Plus, my photos suck, and they will be more so if I have to de-resolutionize them to get them under 500K. Just my thoughts and just my excuses. Link to post Share on other sites
SnowJapan Admin SnowJapan 178 Posted February 17, 2009 SnowJapan Admin Share Posted February 17, 2009 Actually we are at the moment looking into a few possible ways to move things forward, though that will be for 'the future' rather than in the next few weeks. Looking at the photos uploaded by, say, from memory, MikePow and muikabochi, I'd say that some pretty sharp high quality photos can easily be managed within the limit. I have just taken a quick look at the photos in their folders - I'd guess that most of those came in at an average of just 200KB as well, they are almost all well within the 500KB. Anyway, time to log off. Thanks! Link to post Share on other sites
thursday 1 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 they're different. They're great photographers. Have a great day off. Link to post Share on other sites
muikabochi 208 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I use irfanview to resize my photos. I keep it on 100% quality and set it to 720 pixels width. Put them all in at once and it literally takes a minute or two for them all to be resized at no real loss in 'quality'. Not once have any of them come out too big to upload here. So it's really extremely simple. If photos are uploaded bigger (in terms of pixels, they are difficult for people to see. I think around 720 is just right for the web. It doesn't matter how good the photo is, stop making excuses!! : Link to post Share on other sites
JA2340 16 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 muika, I beg to differ. If the original is big, and a jpg file, then resizing and any other manipulation will result in a reduced clarity of image. In fact, some people, who save every small image change, are compromising their resolution with every save. People who don't understand the jpg format and the method it uses to compress the image, do not realise that every save generates a worse image because of the compression algorithmin the jpg format specifications. So ... a super good image (like the ones muika produces) are likely to have been saved initially as raw files, manipulated (if required) as tiff or similar, with no compression, and finally saved as jpg for upload. ie only a single compression episode to compromise image quality. Link to post Share on other sites
muikabochi 208 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Whatever. But seriously, as it is making much of a difference to the naked eye....... (and as if it really matters when posting some photos of a ski trip!) Link to post Share on other sites
kokodoko 67 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 has anyone ever heard of batch processing? JA is right, so is Muika. Edit in raw, save once. 720-800 wide is plenty big enough for the web. I have spoken. Link to post Share on other sites
journey_man 0 Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 Just a clarification on earlier comments - JPG's only lose quality between editing sessions. You can save many times during an editing session you will not suffer any quality loss - this is because each save is read from the editor memory, compressed then written to the file. If you are going to edit a JPG image once, ie open a JPG image, make changes, then quit then there is little point in changing format. However if you are going to be editing the image multiple times (ie more than one open - edits - close cycle) then converting the image to a lossless format makes sense. BTW are PhotoShop PSD files lossless? They're certainly big enough. Look here for more JPG facts and fiction... Having said all that I have some photos that have been edited a number of times and I'm hard pressed to see any significant difference. However I am viewing them on a computer screen. I suspect printing to photographic paper would be a different story. Has anyone had any instances where they have had unacceptable degradation? I'd be interested to know how it came about and how it could be avoided. Link to post Share on other sites
JA2340 16 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Good link, JM. the "save within an edit session" thing was news, and welcome at that. However, I still prefer to use (say) TIFF format for editing, that way the image degradation is minimised. Possible reason for the lack of apparent degradation in your images might be that they were saved with 100% quality (ie minimal compression) and thus the reduction in quality is minimised. (see p 2 of the linked article) As I understand it, the jpg compression algorithm takes each pixel, then averages the surrounding pixels and allocates that to the original pixel. If there are large areas of the same colour, the difference will only be evident at the boundaries (the renowned jpg 'halo' artifacts). For images with many areas of different colours, the halo effect can, at high compression rates, generate a significant shift in colours throughout the image. Often, this is unimportant (as with snapshots of the dog/kids etc) but for publication it can be immensely important! Link to post Share on other sites
muikabochi 208 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Well yes.... I understand that. But I'm uploading my photos on SnowJapan to share with people here, not getting them made into posters or being used in A4 pamphlets. Isn't that the point? Isn't that how this dicsussion started? Link to post Share on other sites
journey_man 0 Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 ...the point is to change the thread's topic for each post!!!! Link to post Share on other sites
JA2340 16 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 I think I did, anyway! Link to post Share on other sites
rach 1 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 There, I said it. Link to post Share on other sites
Mantas 3 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 How many legs does a star fish have? Link to post Share on other sites
JA2340 16 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 five! Link to post Share on other sites
Jynxx 4 Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Why is 6 afraid of 7 ? Link to post Share on other sites
kokodoko 67 Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Because the dog 8 my homework? Link to post Share on other sites
Jynxx 4 Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Goodone! 7 8 9 Link to post Share on other sites
JA2340 16 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 to change the thread title. Or just too lazy? Link to post Share on other sites
SnowJapan Admin SnowJapan 178 Posted February 23, 2009 SnowJapan Admin Share Posted February 23, 2009 I would guess lazy! Link to post Share on other sites
SnowJapan Admin SnowJapan 178 Posted February 23, 2009 SnowJapan Admin Share Posted February 23, 2009 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts