ramarren Posted August 23, 2020 Share #21 Posted August 23, 2020 Advertisement (gone after registration) 20 minutes ago, gteague said: i find it entirely acceptable to operate like dpreview which display a reduced size image, but offers with a few clicks to show you the full image or to download it. it's not that big a deal because i'm beyond the point of needing my files analyzed, but it would be nice to post an image i'm proud of at full quality so it can be appreciated properly and the subtle details included instead of smeared. /guy When that's appropriate, I post full Rez to Flickr which offers the same benefit but with better rendering. I post all my images here from Flickr as display size links, usually with link back to Flickr for other options. I almost never load photos directly to this or any other forum site. The other reason to not post full resolution is so that thieves do not swipe the full Rez image and make money from your work without any compensation going to you. Yes, it's happened to me. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 23, 2020 Posted August 23, 2020 Hi ramarren, Take a look here Upload bug. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
gteague Posted August 23, 2020 Share #22 Posted August 23, 2020 Just now, jaapv said: Yes- that is why virtually nobody shoots JPG only You tie one hand behind your back in the use of your images. It is the simplest thing in the world to manage image pixel size, file size and resolution in any postprocessing program. well, for various and sundry reasons (early photoshop trauma perhaps) i only very rarely open an editor. considering the quality of jpeg engines in nearly all top recent cameras, i find shooting raw outside of commercial or exhibition applications a time-wasting exercise. of course i grew up in an era where you had to get the details right when you were taking the shot as the remedies for bad lighting and mistakes were few and difficult to implement unless you were a darkroom tech like ansel adams. /guy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gteague Posted August 23, 2020 Share #23 Posted August 23, 2020 (edited) 33 minutes ago, ramarren said: When that's appropriate, I post full Rez to Flickr which offers the same benefit but with better rendering. I post all my images here from Flickr as display size links, usually with link back to Flickr for other options. I almost never load photos directly to this or any other forum site. The other reason to not post full resolution is so that thieves do not swipe the full Rez image and make money from your work without any compensation going to you. Yes, it's happened to me. i used to post every single thing i shot to flickr at full quality, yes. and then they became greedy and avaricious and revoked their unlimited practice because they couldn't figure out how to monetize it enough. so i've downloaded like 12,000 images to my computer as they made everyone unwilling to pay their blackmail remove them and i cannot upload any more. when they went to $25/yr i found that very reasonable and stayed with them. when they went up to $50/yr i cursed at them, but continued to pay since they literally had about 10k of my images 'hostage'. but when they went to $75 and above i quit immediately and luckily they provided a download option although it took like 3 days to get them all back. there's no danger if you use the normal social media platforms of someone stealing full quality images because posting to them mangles the photo anyway. but i had to chastise one person who was reposting my images without honoring the creative commons license which is very lenient. you'd think on legitimate photo forums no one would risk their reputation by stealing others' images, but who know. /guy Edited August 23, 2020 by gteague Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gteague Posted August 23, 2020 Share #24 Posted August 23, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Boojay said: Not sure what you are editing your photos in Guy, but think Jaap is referring to how it can be done in Lightroom CC on export... just tick the limit file size box does the trick. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! adobe destroyed my computer trying to fix one of their drm schemes they use. they have always been and remain a despicable company. they screwed up my system so badly i can no longer launch a single adobe product because they have a corrupted drm file somewhere not even they can find. /guy Edited August 23, 2020 by jaapv Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted August 23, 2020 Share #25 Posted August 23, 2020 (edited) You overstate the difficulties, guy. I used to have to write all my own editing software in addition to making and rendering the photos. I've been doing digital imaging since 1984. Modern tools like Lightroom and Phocus make working with raw files actually far easier than dealing with in-camera JPEG engines to get the results I want. All of my cameras are set to generate raw files only, and I can upload, review and finish two dozen shots out of a Full day session of 500 in half an hour if I have a need to. I pay Flickr's tithe because they do a great job and it's far less work than building my own image server and website from scratch (which I've done several times in the past). Edited August 23, 2020 by ramarren 3 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gteague Posted August 23, 2020 Share #26 Posted August 23, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, ramarren said: You overstate the difficulties, guy. I used to have to write all my own editing software in addition to making and rendering the photos. I've been doing digital imaging since 1984. Modern tools like Lightroom and Phocus make working with raw files actually far easier than dealing with in-camera JPEG engines to get the results I want. All of my cameras are set to generate raw files only, and I can upload, review and finish two dozen shots out of a Full day session of 500 in half an hour if I have a need to. all the editors use a grey on grey schema and dozens of tiny icons without tooltips. i have very little vision left. this is only one reason i'm unable to use them to any depth. all the editors at conception of the concept used a paradigm which was for graphic artists, not for photographers and few have changed <cough> photoshop, gimp, graphic converter. if you see a function called 'blur' which is to be used for sharpening, that's when you need to bail out and never look back because no photographer had any single part in programming that app. i have well over a dozen editors installed and not one worth using even if free. i mean, i'm retired and even i resent the time sink editing represents. i know there are batch macros, but i can't imagine applying all the same settings to a batch of photos unless you shot every single one under the exactly same lighting and conditions and framing. /guy Edited August 23, 2020 by gteague Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boojay Posted August 23, 2020 Share #27 Posted August 23, 2020 Advertisement (gone after registration) 3 minutes ago, ramarren said: You overstate the difficulties, guy. I used to have to write all my own editing software in addition to making and rendering the photos. I've been doing digital imaging since 1984. Modern tools like Lightroom and Phocus make working with raw files actually far easier than dealing with in-camera JPEG engines to get the results I want. All of my cameras are set to generate raw files only, and I can upload, review and finish two dozen shots out of a Full day session of 500 in half an hour if I have a need to. I pay Flickr's tithe because they do a great job and it's far less work than building my own image server and website from scratch (which I've done several times in the past). A plus 1 from me for Flickr, I actually use it as another layer of storage. I do also generally only shoot DNG, but there are times when a second card slot for the jpegs is useful. Had a session today, (SL2) around 500+ images shooting Christmas product photography for my favourite Design and Print shop. Having done it many times before I was careful to set/check the white balance/exposure a few times during the shoot and at the end of the day was able to hand over the jpeg's card to the client who is just as able as me (if not more so) at photo editing, they were happy and I am done! If there is any particular shot they want more from at that point I will visit the DNG file. Anyway, Guy, you are making life hard for yourself🙃! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted August 23, 2020 Share #28 Posted August 23, 2020 4 minutes ago, gteague said: all the editors use a grey on grey schema and dozens of tiny icons without tooltips. i have very little vision left. this is only one reason i'm unable to use them to any depth. all the editors used a paradigm which was for graphic artists, not for photographers and few have changed <cough> photoshop, gimp, graphic converter. i have well over a dozen editors installed and not one worth using even if free. /guy Sorry, but this just isn't true and sounds like a lot of complaining to me. I have three-four editing apps on my system and they've all been easy to configure and learn. G 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gteague Posted August 23, 2020 Share #29 Posted August 23, 2020 Just now, Boojay said: <del> Anyway, Guy, you are making life hard for yourself🙃! alas mate. you've summed up my bio in one sentence! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 23, 2020 Share #30 Posted August 23, 2020 Just get ON1 and use the JPG preset of your choice. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted August 23, 2020 Author Share #31 Posted August 23, 2020 I find the current image display setup on this site quite good, if I use the maximum permitted resolution and then compress to get within the size limit. The first displayed image can look a bit uninteresting (if the only interest is in the fine details😉), but clicking on it to see the image at 2480px width shows it much better. As it happens, I find the new Facebook interface better for displaying images than the old one. I use the same image export preset for FB as I do for here, to save effort, but I'm sure FB didn't use the full 2480px width previously. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gteague Posted August 23, 2020 Share #32 Posted August 23, 2020 (edited) if you guys want to really be entertained, get me started on video editors! but seriously, i've been taking photos since 1964. i built the first computer from a kit in 1975 and have worked continuously in computer-related jobs up until getting outsourced in 2013. i've never been a 'pro' photographer if you define pro as deriving all your income from it, but i have worked part time and freelanced at various outlets over the years. so you'd think that when digital came along i'd be uniquely prepared to jump all over it. and i did start using it in the 80s with a canon d30 or 30d, one of the first dlsr's. but the editors all sucked. every one of them. sucked badly. photoshop was the absolute worst--never designed with photographers in mind but co-opted from the graphics art advertising world without a single photographer's input that i could see. also, i've been a beta tester for various companies and projects for decades as well, so i don't have the 'it's a miracle i can even do this' attitude towards software. what i see are design flaws, lazy programmers without training, and bugs you could drive trucks through. so i'm not disposed to forgive sins of user interfaces as i know (since i've programmed) that some of these editors have never been subjected to any beta testing or user evaluation and few of them respond in any meaningful way to user input. most of them have a web form and never look at the entries. just think of how bad they must be to so totally alienate perhaps one of the people most suited to learn and use one. that's a level of incompetence that boggles the mind. no, if you have to use one you have to use one. but i don't have to and i rarely do although i keep buying them in the hopes that someone will figure out how to do one right. /guy Edited August 23, 2020 by gteague Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gteague Posted August 23, 2020 Share #33 Posted August 23, 2020 (edited) 14 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said: I find the current image display setup on this site quite good, if I use the maximum permitted resolution and then compress to get within the size limit. The first displayed image can look a bit uninteresting (if the only interest is in the fine details😉), but clicking on it to see the image at 2480px width shows it much better. As it happens, I find the new Facebook interface better for displaying images than the old one. I use the same image export preset for FB as I do for here, to save effort, but I'm sure FB didn't use the full 2480px width previously. yet, i wanted to do the simplest thing imaginable which doesn't even take much quality--to post 3 images so you guys could compare the magnification of the new digital zoom feature. and i was unable to do that and it seems i can't without jumping through hoops although it allowed me to do exactly this about 2-3 days ago. what changed in the meantime? this is some sort of artificial barrier which, although perhaps necessary to the running of the forum, is user hostile. of course, the forum is free, so it's uncharitable to complain, but the simple fact remains. do this simple experiment. go to facebook or twitter or (maybe?) instagram (although i despise it) and start a post. now drag any 3 images onto that window. any size, edited or filtered or hdr'd or not edited onto your post window. did it work seamlessly? of course it did. and i see no reason a photo forum should be harder or more opaque than that. /guy Edited August 23, 2020 by gteague 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gteague Posted August 23, 2020 Share #34 Posted August 23, 2020 (edited) 15 minutes ago, jaapv said: Nothing changed-you’ll have to accept user error I fear. As for your examples, those sites use automatic resizing algorithms which impact image quality. well, that's the staple trope of all of us who worked in tech support--hey boss, i couldn't fix the customers problem because it was user error. but you tell me. here's what i did 2-3 days ago with the image files on my desktop. i selected the 3 files and applied a service to resize them to 2400px. this failed so i started over and resized them using a service to 1920px. i then dragged them into the post. and there they are to this day on the 2nd page of this thread. so yesterday i take 3 images, copy them to the desktop and use the exact same service to reduce them to 1920px. then i drag them into the post and get a rude message. so you tell me where the possibility of user error crops into that sequence? bear in mind now, your first reaction was to tell me there were no quotas (limits, restrictions) on photo size. until i posted a screenshot of exactly that. /guy Edited August 23, 2020 by gteague Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gteague Posted August 23, 2020 Share #35 Posted August 23, 2020 (edited) haha! you funny fellah-man you! as if i haven't put in like 6-8 hours over the time i've been here trying to figure out what the system requires. and it seems to require i use an editor before i post images. so we seem to be at an impasse although i can put image files in the /public/ folder of one of my cloud drives and link to them that way. there's always a workaround, but the duty of the beta tester is to encourage the programmer to make it easier on the user so the user doesn't have to do workarounds. btw, the error message doesn't say whether that 1.17mb is a post limit, a thread limit, or a daily limit. i haven't dug into it that much, but it seems to manifest as a thread limit. which would explain why my first 3 files posted fine and my second 3, two days later, didn't. Edited August 23, 2020 by gteague Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted August 23, 2020 Share #36 Posted August 23, 2020 Guy, your difficulties might be important, to you for sure, but they have nothing to do with the Firmware 4 release for the CL. Jaapv, can you move these editing and other difficulties to a separate thread so as to allow those who wish to discuss the firmware 4 release a clear thread to do it in? There's just too much unrelated stuff for this thread to serve the purpose of its title at this point. G 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 23, 2020 Share #37 Posted August 23, 2020 42 minutes ago, ramarren said: Guy, your difficulties might be important, to you for sure, but they have nothing to do with the Firmware 4 release for the CL. Jaapv, can you move these editing and other difficulties to a separate thread so as to allow those who wish to discuss the firmware 4 release a clear thread to do it in? There's just too much unrelated stuff for this thread to serve the purpose of its title at this point. G I already did - I'll split and merge - later. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 23, 2020 Share #38 Posted August 23, 2020 It is quite clear by now that you got your pixel count right and your file size wrong Just compress your JPG under 1000 kB. You have 170 kB leeway. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted August 24, 2020 Share #39 Posted August 24, 2020 On 8/23/2020 at 7:51 PM, gteague said: but seriously, i've been taking photos since 1964. i built the first computer from a kit in 1975 and have worked continuously in computer-related jobs up until getting outsourced in 2013. i've never been a 'pro' photographer if you define pro as deriving all your income from it, but i have worked part time and freelanced at various outlets over the years. so you'd think that when digital came along i'd be uniquely prepared to jump all over it. and i did start using it in the 80s with a canon d30 or 30d, one of the first dlsr's. but the editors all sucked. every one of them. sucked badly. photoshop was the absolute worst--never designed with photographers in mind but co-opted from the graphics art advertising world without a single photographer's input that i could see. also, i've been a beta tester for various companies and projects for decades as well, so i don't have the 'it's a miracle i can even do this' attitude towards software. what i see are design flaws, lazy programmers without training, and bugs you could drive trucks through. so i'm not disposed to forgive sins of user interfaces as i know (since i've programmed) that some of these editors have never been subjected to any beta testing or user evaluation and few of them respond in any meaningful way to user input. most of them have a web form and never look at the entries. Since it seems that none of the photo editing products on the market meet with your approval and since you have knowledge of photography and coding perhaps it's time for you to write your own editor and at the same time make some money in the yawning gap that apparently exists in the market. Pete. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedaes Posted August 24, 2020 Share #40 Posted August 24, 2020 On 8/23/2020 at 6:56 PM, gteague said: i used to post every single thing i shot to flickr at full quality Wow! Why? 1 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.