With the recent increase in the quality of digital cameras, from 2mp just 2 years ago to 8mp+ in some cases now, it is getting harder to keep pictures below the 100kb limit, while keeping the quality, i am finding no problems with shooting aircraft in the air as the little detail keeps the size low even with little compression. But shots of aircraft or just anything on the ground with alot of detail are having to be compressed alot to get it under 100kb which is ruining a good picture. While i am not asking the total 500kb to be lifted i am just wondering if we could get away with an extra 10 to 20kb on some pictures so as not to ruin a good picture.

While I tend to agree I think most people don't take enough trouble processing/saving their photos. It's quite likely they don't know how. I can get most of mine at a reasonable quality with a little careful cropping before resizing. Then experimenting with the JPEG quality when saving. This only takes a few moments for each image. I use IrfanView for processing all the photos I post here so there's no need for expensive graphics editing software. If anyone has problems, send me an example & let me see what I can do.

Doug, as you have seen my style of post processing isn't suited to the site in general its heavy on the filesize, i try to make the sacrifices of quality to post my photos here.
Eno, i cant reduce the resolution, for various reasons, number 1 because i need the larger size to crop edit and work with. 2 its a waste of money having a camera with 6mp if i am gonna have it set to 2mp all the time, while most here wouldn't notice, i can and in the end my photos are for me first. file space isn't a big worry for me. Remember i am using a DSLR which doesnt do the in camera processing that most digital cameras do.
I'm not asking to allow 200 or 300kb files just an assurance that we could get away with say 110kb, it just allows me to drop the compression a couple of % which makes a world of differance.
thanks guys.

Quote:

That still restricts you to the 100k per image limit. I can see the guys in the Screenies forums complaining if Pete relaxed the rules just for photos. It's either all or nothing & this could cause complications.

Using the above method I see no reason you couldn't link the thumbnail to a hi-res image posted on a separate site but surely that would defeat the object. If you really can't get the images below the 100k limit try reducing the pixel width a little. 750 or 700 pixels might make all the difference.

Like Doug suggested - I will also take part in this :

1. Send me the image you are talking about

2. I will post it in the original format on this thread +(plus) a ACDSee (Irfanview just the same) reduced filesize & see if you can REALLY see much difference....


The difficult ones tend to be the ones with a lot of vegitation in the background (trees, etc)  - which mean a lot of pixels to create the image .....

WE tend to overlook slighly oversized images  - provided they are genuine attempts to reduce file size...... (I have seen images @ 380K that could be ACDSEE'd to 60K with a click of a button)  .... 

infact to save time here is the photo as its only a temp thing.
First is the one with less compression. in PSP7 its at 10% compression 1% is 400kb in size so thats well to much.

Second is compressed at a level of 38% to get it under the 100k limit.

couple of places to look. The flowers on both the left and right hand side are much clearer and sharper. and in general the tree's themselves are actually much crisper than in the compressed one, in the compressed one they are almost like a painting. In the end this was a bad picture to use as its not got a particular subject, but it was the best i could use for now.
Also at the very top of the picture where the train tracks end theres a concrete walkway, growing on it is some vine, its mocu more visable in the lower compression. I know its not much, but i tend to be see these things and to me they stand out like a sore thumb. I would never ask that a picture like this be allowed to have a 200kb size on here, as its just not a good picture. But its an example of the details which can be lost or gained in for instance aircraft shots on the ground.

Hi Doug,
firstly Thanks.
I am using a flatscreen laptop, no idea what type, just runs at 1280x800. Maybe i am just really picky but i can just see when an image isn't at all sharp.

lol looks that way.
I wish i could run at 1024x786. But it looks funny on my screen. Didn't really notice it was a widescreen till i got home.

everything starts to go all weird and grainy for me at 16bit. think i shall stick to 32, unless thats what you meant?

i think alot of it does come down to monitor type in the end. What bugs me is when people start saying there are dust spots on a picture. Now on some of my recent sunset shots i could see them clear as day, and i plan to get  cleaning kit asap. But these day time shots they are impossible to see, yet some people say, oh but if you equalise the image in photoshop. That does take viewing photos to the extreme i think:)

Quote:
I'll be first in line to say i have always enjoyed your shots, its also been fun watching them get better and better over time.
I dont personally do huge amounts to my photos, generally though i have to do a bit more than a person with a normal digital camera, as like i said mine doesnt have in camera processing. The pictures usually need a little extra sharpening or brightness and colour adjustment. But i certainly dont go overboard, and like you i take for my own ammusement, but i also as i guess this topic is showing, tend to be very pickey

hi 61. it was a good day out. Alot of interesting places to walk around. i did a number of posts in the photo forums a couple of months back now. I will look them out tomorrow and include links here.
THanks:)

I can see a difference .......... but only because it's been pointed out ........ As you've said the pics are for yourself so why worry if the quality is slightly less on here.
There  is the thumbnail option the code is easy enough and it only takes slightly longer to set up. If you do as I do and have the code in a notepad and cut and paste all you have to do is add the filenames.

I've always said full sizes are avaliable for anyone who wants them.
I have used the thumbnails in the past, but just to avoid posting 3 topics for a set of simmilar pictures.
while i agree the lower quality is sort of copyright protection, i also really dont care if someone does use it for something else. All i want to do is show the people here a nice picture with some of the finer details being visable.

Thanks for the clarification Felix.

In this case no its not, your right. And i would never ask for an extra 100kb at any point. when i find a better example in the future, i'll see if i can point it out.