How do you upload such a small picture?

Page 1 of 1 [ 13 posts ] 

nory
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 379

13 Feb 2008, 4:59 pm

Hi,
I notice everyone seems to have uploaded very nice pictures, but all the pictures of me in my album are not accepted by the uploader because they are deemed too large, it only seems to accept very small pixels etc...
I've tried even using a picture, shrunk down even more, taken on the cell phone but that won't even work.
How do you reduce the pixels or size of the picture and still get the great pictures I see people have?
Any feedback would be appreciated!



digger1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,485

13 Feb 2008, 5:19 pm

what format are the picture's you're trying to load?

JPG and GIF files usually have good "compression" rates as they take the file and make it smaller in the file size but leaves the actual picture as large as it it.

Low compression for a JPG will usually result in a picture that looks like crap.

If you're trying to upload a BMP, they are WAY too big for upload anywhere on the internet.

If you like, send me the picture and I can see what I can do with it to make it suitable for your needs.

e-mail me at mpaquette1@roadrunner.com

I'll even host it for you if you like.



noraaseyah
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 10

13 Feb 2008, 7:19 pm

irfanview



nory
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 379

13 Feb 2008, 9:02 pm

Hi digger1,
Thanks for the detailed answer - Picasa is the only thing I really know in terms of photos and sending them. I'm still trying to decide what kind of picture I want to put on as well. Thank you so much for offering to help, I'll email you.
Cheers



gbollard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2007
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,009
Location: Sydney, Australia

13 Feb 2008, 9:46 pm

A few people here have had problems with making avatars etc, so I wrote some instructions using the GIMP (which is software that is FREE and available for most operating systems).

My instructions linked below might help.

http://dominogavin.blogspot.com/2008/01/how-to-adjust-any-picture-to-be-avatar.html



digger1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,485

14 Feb 2008, 11:51 pm

nory
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 379

15 Feb 2008, 7:11 pm

Thanks a million, Digger1, for shrinking the pictures for me! I'm terrible at figuring these things out. Thanks again!! ! Nory



digger1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,485

15 Feb 2008, 7:40 pm

you're welcome!

Here, I'll show you what I meant about compression:

this is the Wrong Planet masthead from the top of the page as it appears here:

Image

this is it saved as an uncompressed JPG:

Image

see the difference?



alex
Developer
Developer

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,224
Location: Beverly Hills, CA

15 Feb 2008, 7:43 pm

digger1 wrote:
you're welcome!

Here, I'll show you what I meant about compression:

this is the Wrong Planet masthead from the top of the page as it appears here:

Image

this is it saved as an uncompressed JPG:

Image

see the difference?


i think you mean a highly compressed jpg


_________________
I'm Alex Plank, the founder of Wrong Planet. Follow me (Alex Plank) on Blue Sky: https://bsky.app/profile/alexplank.bsky.social


nory
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 379

15 Feb 2008, 10:12 pm

Thanks for the visual. That actually really helps me understand it, I can see that its actually quite literal - ie: the "compression" version is obviously compressed and the uncompressed version its less defined. I guess its like pointalism, the more points you use in doing a picture the more realistic or smooth it will look (less like pointalism from a distance) etc...
Thanks again for taking the time to help me and explain all of this!! !



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

16 Feb 2008, 6:20 am

nory wrote:
Thanks for the visual. That actually really helps me understand it, I can see that its actually quite literal - ie: the "compression" version is obviously compressed and the uncompressed version its less defined. I guess its like pointalism, the more points you use in doing a picture the more realistic or smooth it will look (less like pointalism from a distance) etc...
Thanks again for taking the time to help me and explain all of this!! !

Alex is right. They are both compressed, JPEG by definition is more efficient that standard bitmap. There are lot of different types of compression and space saving algorithms available. Some are purely for speed/performance others try and focus on quality, some are somewhere in between. There is also progressive JPEG, which allows the image to download and display on screen progressively, like a window blind coming down.

GIF is generally not as efficient as JPEG. You will generate a large file if you try to save photo with GIF. However when there are few colours or small bit pixel data GIF can be more efficient.



nory
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 379

16 Feb 2008, 7:04 am

I appreciate the information, as I am into my camera... I did not know much about the nuances of what happens to a picture... I'm used to just transferring it onto my computer and leaving it there as is, I've never had the need to adapt it in any way.
It's actually very interesting and also very good to know for future reference. Thank you



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

16 Feb 2008, 7:20 am

nory wrote:
I appreciate the information, as I am into my camera... I did not know much about the nuances of what happens to a picture... I'm used to just transferring it onto my computer and leaving it there as is, I've never had the need to adapt it in any way.
It's actually very interesting and also very good to know for future reference. Thank you

photos are often taken at high resolution with a lot of pixels. this is in order to get a good photographic print, otherwise analogue photography has an advantage in terms of picture quality. For on screen display that many pixel are not necessary because they simply wouldn't fit on the screen 1:1 anyway.