Caedes

Desktop Wallpaper, Art, etc.

Discussion Board -> Desktop Wallpaper, Art, etc. -> Image sizes and resolutions.

Image sizes and resolutions.

purmusic
12/30/07 1:55 AM GMT
Just occurred to me the other day ... well, not exactly the other other day ... could have been Tuesday. That said, the thought is this:

Looking at the available sizes for downloads of many an image that is being uploaded lately and even in the not too distant past ... are we putting our raw collective pixels to their best use?

Example:

An image available at 2592x1944 is unnecessary and perhaps a resizing or downsampling might add something in terms of clarity and detail.

Not to mention that larger images literally take up more server space on the site here.

And you are making it a feast for the ne'er do wells that might ... might 'rip' (steal) your work. Much easier to turn around and make 'stuff' out of bigger 'stuff', if you understand me here.

Thoughts?
0∈ [?]
"Sometimes me think what is love, and then me think love is what last cookie is for. Me give up the last cookie for you." - Cookie Monster

Comments

Post a Comment  -  Subscribe to this discussion
::kodo34
12/30/07 9:52 AM GMT
I tend to make all i post available in 1920 format and make sure the max amount of kb is 500-600kb , that way it looks good for desktop use but not for much else .
A hidden watermark is also there .
tutorial by Cat
Also check out BD sizer
Kristof .
0∈ [?]
....Dreamstime..... Art is born of the observation and investigation of nature. Big stock photo
&philcUK
12/30/07 2:04 PM GMT
As far as I can figure it – since the new sizes came in, it actually uses LESS server space as the system only holds one image size in storage – the original you uploaded. The smaller versions are only generated ‘on the fly’ when they are needed and not retained on the server.

Of course, if you choose to upload a large image you do run the risk of it being ripped off for commercial or other purposes so that’s something to keep in mind and indeed, some artists have chosen to restrict their uploads to a smaller desktop size. The larger files just help with the fortunate few who big hi-def monitors or want to print it out for themselves.


0∈ [?]
A smart bomb is only as clever as the idiot that tells it what to do
purmusic
12/30/07 2:24 PM GMT
I stand corrected on the server issue.

And receive clarification on the 'why' behind the increased allowances. Never even crossed my mind when initially announced till recently ... 3000 X 3000? For what end?

Wide screen, most definitely ... seemed in my naive outlook that 3000 a side was overkill.


Ok, just reread your words Phil ... not a biggie, but I was under the impression that once the additional sizes were generated they were in fact cached. The initial request being the trigger.

Six of one, 17 of another. :oD


Uhm ... you guys just about covered it, save the downsampling to improve an image. I suspect it comes down to the algorithms used in the software, meaning some are better at it than others?

General thoughts though are invited to give some information for those that this might be an alternative to achieve some additional sharpness in their images. And for whom resizing is easier to grasp than use of an image editing tool/program.


And thanks Kristoff for those links. Hopefully, and at the bare minimum some attention is drawn to use of and incorporating a hidden watermark. Nice conclusive evidence in rip situations.
0∈ [?]
"Sometimes me think what is love, and then me think love is what last cookie is for. Me give up the last cookie for you." - Cookie Monster
&philcUK
12/30/07 2:35 PM GMT
I tend to go on the slightly oversharp side of life if I post a 3000px original to try and compensate for any softening when it is recreated at smaller sizes. I don’t know what algorithm the server uses for its scaling so couldn’t say for sure.
Digital photos are inherently slightly soft so unless you have your sharpness settings in your camera set to max you will most likely have to do a bit of post work. Avoid using standard unsharp mask if possible as this can be very destructive to an image and frequently creates lots of nasty halos and extra noise in an image. If your image editing program has smart sharpen use that instead or any other dedicated third party sharpening solution plugin. Ideally, if you shoot in RAW – sharpen it in your RAW image processing software prior to rendering it as a tiff or jpeg.
0∈ [?]
A smart bomb is only as clever as the idiot that tells it what to do
purmusic
12/30/07 2:51 PM GMT
Thanks for that information Phil, much appreciated. :o)

Oh, right ... just remembered. When viewing member's images and if you see that there is plenty of data to work with, meaning the image is large enough ... right there is an opportunity to suggest improvements regarding compositional issues. Too centered of a focal subject?

Not that rules are not meant to be broken, nor that a central placement means that it is automatically a 'bad' image.

Think of it as a potential door open to putting forth your critiques with respect to one aspect that goes into making an image. Suggest an alternative cropping for example and simply put.


Just took a look at Kristoff's linked page ... nice find. :o)

Have a look people. /\ Clicky above in Kristoff's post. /\
0∈ [?]
"Sometimes me think what is love, and then me think love is what last cookie is for. Me give up the last cookie for you." - Cookie Monster
&philcUK
12/30/07 4:09 PM GMT
Ok – here is a brief list (in no particular order) of various sharpening solutions, either as plug ins or as standalone solutions. Some of them may seem very pricey in addition to your image editing software but the time savings in avoiding lengthy (and more often than not destructive) post work soon make them seem a lot more sensible and essential.


Nik Software Sharpener Inkjet or Pro: $149.00 - $279.00

Fred Miranda Intellisharpen v2.5: $25.00

Pixel Genius PhotoKit Sharpener 1.2.4: $99.95

Acclaim Software Focus Magic 3: $45.00


RAW software with sharpening solutions:

Adobe Camera Raw (min. requires PS Elements): $99.00

Lightcrafts Lightzone Basic/Full: $149.95 - $249.95

PhaseOne Capture Capture One 4: $129.00

Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 1.3.1: $299.00

Bibble 4.9 Professional: $129.00

Apple Aperture 1.5: $299.00

DXO Optics Pro 5 Standard/Elite: $169.00 - $299.00
0∈ [?]
A smart bomb is only as clever as the idiot that tells it what to do
purmusic
12/30/07 4:15 PM GMT
Big thanks again Phil ... much appreciated. :o)
0∈ [?]
"Sometimes me think what is love, and then me think love is what last cookie is for. Me give up the last cookie for you." - Cookie Monster
+ppigeon
01/01/08 1:55 PM GMT
If you are working with PS, you can add PT Lens. Very cheap and efficient addition for ± $15.00
0∈ [?]
-Pierre-
.Skynet5
01/03/08 5:40 AM GMT
The Canon cameras come with a RAW editor, if that's any help. The DSLRs that is.
0∈ [?]
"Freedom is the right of all sentient beings" -Optimus Prime
*caedes
01/04/08 5:04 AM GMT
Phil is correct that the server generates image sizes on the fly, and purmusic is correct that the generated images are then cached. The other aspect is that the server can delete these cached images in order to reclaim space.

I just added a section on how images are stored and resized in the FAQs.
0∈ [?]
-caedes

Leave a comment (registration required):

Subject: