Irfanview
in [Freeware]
|
Prev: Ping:"Wireshark uncovers fifth columnist traffic between Hummingbird and Bottom Options -"
Next: The Madness and Despair Of Bear and Art:Praise To Frank-Lin
From: s|b on 11 Jun 2010 15:32 On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 12:32:25 -0400, Laura Fredericks wrote: > >Is this the correct newsgroup to ask a basic question about resizing > >pictures in Irfanview? > No. Sure it is... -- s|b
From: Phil on 11 Jun 2010 19:42 On 11/06/2010 04:55, sf wrote: > > Is this the correct newsgroup to ask a basic question about resizing > pictures in Irfanview? > > I didn't have this problem until I reset my camera to take the highest > resolution, which makes pictures huge. > > I post occasionally to a news group where the protocol is to post > pictures of 200kb or less, preferably 100 or less. By the time I've > resized my photo to 200 -195, it's down to a very small image. Do I > have to shoot with lower quality to keep the photo large and the kb > small? If not, how can I substantially reduce kb's without the pixels > noticeably dropping out in a larger sized photo? > > Thanks > Image>Resize
From: kraut on 11 Jun 2010 20:35 >Is this the correct newsgroup to ask a basic question about resizing >pictures in Irfanview? > Yes. What is the question??
From: Anonymous on 12 Jun 2010 01:02 On Thu, 10 Jun 2010, sf <sf(a)geemail.com> wrote: >Is this the correct newsgroup to ask a basic question about resizing >pictures in Irfanview? > Sure, this group is as good as any other. Irfanview is ultra popular. >I didn't have this problem until I reset my camera to take the highest >resolution, which makes pictures huge. Most of the modern digital cameras provide all of the options which you can set while taking photographs or videos. The best recommendation is to set your camera for the resolution and size that you want. The less post production you need to do the better. Any change at all to an original image or video, although it may improve it in some ways, will certainly degradate the original. Compression is an important factor. So are the optical and digital capabilities of your particular camera, as well as your own capabilities and expertise as a photographer. > >I post occasionally to a news group where the protocol is to post >pictures of 200kb or less, preferably 100 or less. By the time I've >resized my photo to 200 -195, it's down to a very small image. Do I >have to shoot with lower quality to keep the photo large and the kb >small? Yes, but only if your camera allows you to tweak these settings to that particular point. If not, then use Irfanview or other computer program to tweak and compress them afterwards. Again, remember that any tweaking of any kind can result in less than desirable results if you don't opt for minimal tweaking over the original. Original is always best if recorded correctly. This holds true for photography, video, music, or any other medium if it was recorded correctly. The "capture" it is called. Capture it right and it will be right. Thus will the size of your original file be best for resolution and size. You should never have to adjust or tweak what you correctly captured. >If not, how can I substantially reduce kb's without the pixels >noticeably dropping out in a larger sized photo? Set your camera to the right settings, or get a newer/better camera which will allow you to tweak settings to suit your preferences. For inspiration, see Federico Fellini's 1972 film Roma. Simple camera. Simple production. Simple direction. Simple everything. Total masterpiece, four-star film if ever there was one. Capture is everything. Edit is minimal. Post is non-existent. -- @
From: Ian Jackson on 12 Jun 2010 03:15
In message <6dm5169s25lq76kb3637uslnij3o1s74md(a)4ax.com>, FredW <fredw(a)blackholespam.net> writes >On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:55:56 -0700, sf <sf(a)geemail.com> wrote: > >> > >>I post occasionally to a news group where the protocol is to post >>pictures of 200kb or less, preferably 100 or less. By the time I've >>resized my photo to 200 -195, it's down to a very small image. Do I >>have to shoot with lower quality to keep the photo large and the kb >>small? If not, how can I substantially reduce kb's without the pixels >>noticeably dropping out in a larger sized photo? > > >I just tried to resize a photo. > >I selected a photo (4000 x 3000) in JPG format 2.906 KB > >I resized via Image / Resize. > >The photo (1200 x 900) in BMP format is 3.437 KB > >The photo (1200 x 900) in JPG format is 154 KB. > >The quality of the JPG of 154 KB looks the same as the JPG of 2.906 KB. > >Does this help? > Most image viewers have a resize facility among their arsenal of tools. However, I usually do filesize reduction the 'lazy' way, using the Picture Resizer's 'drag-and-drop' method. http://www.rw-designer.com/picture-resize To change the amount of resize, you simply change the initial '400' in filename, 'photoresize400.exe'. 1500 gives around 120kB. If necessary, I then sharpen things up (plus any other necessary tweaks) using one of my usual image viewers (normally FastStone). -- Ian |