Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 19

Thread: Portfolio function - need input on image sizes etc.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    810
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Portfolio function - need input on image sizes etc.

    Hey everyone...

    The portfolio function is slowly getting closer to being done. But before it is put online I would like some input so that it's done (somewhat) properly from start.

    What I'm wondering now is how you would like it to handle the images. I'll try to explain...

    The gallery script that we're using for this function automatically saves a thumbnail and a (resized if too big) large image when you upload an image. We can also specify if we want to save the original uploaded file (if the large version needs to be smaller) or not.
    We have set the thumbnails to be max 250 pixels in whichever direction is largest. I doubt this size will be changed.
    We can specify a max width and a max height for the large images, which seems like a good idea (setting it to max 800 pixels wide or so should prevent us from having to scroll horizontally when viewing certain large images)
    We can also set what quality the thumbnails should be (normal JPEG stuff, 100 being the best and 0 the worst)
    Same thing applies for the large/original image - note that it seems to use the same setting for both, so if you upload an image and the quality isn't set to 100, it will apply the quality to the image, which may make it look worse.

    I can understand if this is a lot to digest at once...but hang on, we're getting somewhere now

    Right now it's set up so that everyone gets 1MB space to upload images. This may still change...in fact, it may be less than that at the start, as we don't really know how many people will upload stuff. Note that you can of course delete an image if you're running out of space and want to upload a new one.

    I'd like to know what settings you think would be best. Should the original file be saved, even though it will use more space (ranging from not-very-much-more to much-much-more, depending on how big the images are and in what quality they are saved)? Or is a max width of 800 pixels ok? And what about quality? Something like 80% for both thumbnails and large/original images?

    To get a better idea of what the settings do, I ran a very small test using my awesome photo of Yes from Sweden Rock Festival a couple of years ago. Note that the total size does not include the thumbnails as the script doesn't seem to count them.

    Code:
    Test 1.
    Thumbnail size:         250px
    Thumbnail quality:      100%
    Large image max width:  600px
                    height: 600px
    Large image quality:    100%
    Save original file:     On
    
    Result:
    Thumbnail:    250x188px,  41kB
    Large image:  600x450px, 202kB
    Original:    1280x960px, 419kB
                             -----
    Total                    621kB
    
    ------------------------------
    
    Test 2.
    Thumbnail size:         250px
    Thumbnail quality:      75%    <-- changed
    Large image max width:  600px
                    height: 600px
    Large image quality:    75%    <-- changed
    Save original file:     On
    
    Result:
    Thumbnail:    250x188px,   8kB
    Large image:  600x450px,  29kB
    Original:    1280x960px, 119kB
                             -----
    Total                    149kB
    
    ------------------------------
    
    Test 3.
    Thumbnail size:         250px
    Thumbnail quality:      75%
    Large image max width:  800px  <-- changed
                    height: 800px  <-- changed
    Large image quality:    75%
    Save original file:     Off    <-- changed
    
    Result:
    Thumbnail:    250x188px,   8kB
    Large image:  800x600px,  46kB
    Original:    1280x960px, 419kB <-- not saved this time
                             -----
    Total                     46kB
    
    ------------------------------
    
    Test 4.
    Thumbnail size:         250px
    Thumbnail quality:      80%    <-- changed
    Large image max width:  800px
                    height: 800px
    Large image quality:    100%   <-- changed
    Save original file:     Off
    
    Result:
    Thumbnail:    250x188px,   9kB
    Large image:  800x600px, 348kB
    Original:    1280x960px, 419kB <-- not saved this time
                             -----
    Total                    348kB
    
    ------------------------------
    
    Test 5.*
    Thumbnail size:         250px
    Thumbnail quality:      75%    <-- changed
    Large image max width:  600px  <-- changed
                    height: 600px  <-- changed
    Large image quality:    75%    <-- changed
    Save original file:     On     <-- changed
    
    Result:
    Thumbnail:    250x188px,   8kB
    Large image:  400x300px,  44kB
    Original:     400x300px,  44kB <-- not saved this time
                             -----
    Total                     44kB
    * = Test 5 - Note that the original image was saved directly this time - it didn't modify the quality in any way.



    Thanks for your help
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,082
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    i didnt quite understand everything you said, but i guess 800 px width is okay for the full sized images. how much portfolio space does every member have from the beginning?
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    810
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Lim
    how much portfolio space does every member have from the beginning?
    Quote Originally Posted by Pontemonti
    Right now it's set up so that everyone gets 1MB space to upload images.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Castrop-Rauxel, Germany
    Posts
    1,133
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 15 Times in 11 Posts
    I think this should work and I´m in for a size of about 800x800 pixels for the complete picture. Wasn´t there some kind of plan to make the space available (or the number of pctures) dependant on forum activity, professionalism and so on? 1 MB (ca. 15 - 20 pics) is quite a lot for a decent gallery and so I think this is fine, too.

    I´m not really sure about the question of resolution. I think that personally I´ve got quite a good grip on compressions etc. and wouldn´t want a program to mess with it. Most of my pics for the web are saved with a quality setting of about 40% that gives mostly a decent quality by comparatively small size. What would your gallery function do to such an image?

    Keep up the good work!

    Fipse
    <Insert witty remark here>
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    810
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Good questions, Fipse!

    I performed some additional tests...using 800 as max width, not saving the original image.

    If I resize my image to be 800x600 (at Very High quality in Photoshop it is 78.3kB and looks pretty good, to compare with what is to come) and upload it, the gallery script doesn't do anything about the quality, regardless of how large (talking about bits/bytes here - not pixels) the file is...

    But if I resize my image to be 880x660 and upload it, the gallery will of course resize the image, and try to "optimize" it at the same time. This is where the large/original image quality comes in.
    I first saved the image at quality 60 (High) in Photoshop, which resulted in a 94.3kB large file. I set the gallery's quality to 60 and uploaded - it resized the image to 800x600, 33.7kB, which looked pretty ugly IMHO.
    So, I changed the gallery's quality setting to -1, which means that it should keep the current quality (whatever that is - it can't know the quality setting I used to save the image, so it's probably just guessing). Uploaded and got a 800x600 image, 45.4kB, which looks a little bit better than the previous, but not much.
    I then changed the quality to 100 and uploaded again. Got a 800x600, 289kB file, which perhaps looked a little bit better than my 800x600 reference image, thanks to the resizing algorithm's blur function.
    I saved a new 880x660 image, this time with 100% quality in Photoshop...and I set the gallery quality back to -1. Uploaded, got a 800x600 image, 44.9kB, which perhaps was slightly better than the previous image with quality -1.
    Also uploaded this image, and the one at quality 60%, with gallery quality set to 80, resulting in a 52.6kB and a 53.2kB file, respectively. These looked okay. It's hard to compare with the -1 setting...heh

    To sum this up, it seems that setting the quality to -1 or somewhere around 80 is good when resizing to 800. If you want better quality than what this setting offers you can always resize the image "manually" and upload it, as it won't do anything about images which are already "small" enough.

    I hope this wasn't too confusing.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    990
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 19 Times in 17 Posts
    i´d vote for 100% quality (aka no php tweaking of the file xept for thumb generation) so i can decide between uploading 3-4 good looking images or 36 webcam puppy shots myself.
    and yes it was quite confusing for a simple problem. how about simply forbidding to upload anything bigger than 800px? i mean anybody claiming to be able to paint/draw whatever an image should also be able to resize an image in photoshop.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    990
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 19 Times in 17 Posts
    Test 6
    Thumbnail size: 250px
    Thumbnail quality: 100%
    Large image max width: 800px
    height: 800px
    Large image quality: 100%
    Save original file: off
    Result: up to me and my preferences
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Castrop-Rauxel, Germany
    Posts
    1,133
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 15 Times in 11 Posts
    O.k. when I understood it right the picture won´t be changed automatically by uploading it when I put it in the right size (meaning max. 800x800)? This would be fine for me - and as Dan said, people using digital picture processing should know about size reduction ...

    Fipse
    <Insert witty remark here>
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    810
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Yeah, image won't be changed as long as you keep it within the max width/height settings (800 pixels wide sounds good to me, but what do you think about height? should it be the same, or more, or less?).

    Dan - keeping the quality at 100% sounds like a good idea...as you said, if you know what you're doing you can resize the image yourself to be able to upload more good-looking images
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    990
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 19 Times in 17 Posts
    i'd say 800x800 max. if you allow more height propably enviroment guys will complain and if you allow more width you'll end up havin char artists bitch all the time.
    800x800 seems to be neutral.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,623
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 76 Times in 62 Posts
    800x800 is good, maybe provide an extra option to allow artist to link it to the super full size image on their own host if they want to? I've seen a few works that should be viewed above that dimention, but I think a remote linking to the full piece should be sufficient.

    1MB is plentyful for storage. and would require artists to do careful planning instead of upload every scrap up.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  13. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    1,282
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    I think Test 3 is probably the best. Who knows, though?
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  14. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Seattle, WA USA
    Posts
    727
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Ponti-

    i think it's amazing that you guys are even offering this.

    i mean, there are over 23 thousand members now! that's one hell of a big server. but kudos to you for doing what it is you do. your work around here is greatly appreciated, even if most of us don't understand what the hell you do!

    ps - love your new myspace pic! we need more shots of you pondering over a glass of wine
    Hey dog. . . . did you see the size of that chicken?!
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Image Sizes
    By JuiceBoxCowboy in forum PHOTOSHOP
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 31st, 2012, 08:28 AM
  2. Image sizes and resolution
    By Hydrax in forum ART DlSCUSSION
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: May 21st, 2012, 06:58 PM
  3. pre-load image sizes
    By karmiclychee in forum SUPPORT
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 3rd, 2010, 10:03 AM
  4. Different image sizes!
    By Pippis in forum ART DlSCUSSION
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 3rd, 2008, 10:54 AM
  5. Art: Your thoughts on image sizes and Copyright?
    By JustinBeckett in forum ART: PHOTOGRAPHY
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 5th, 2006, 04:00 AM

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
  • 424,149 Artists
  • 3,599,276 Artist Posts
  • 32,941 Sketchbooks
  • 54 New Art Jobs
Art Workshop Discount Inside

Developed Actively by vBSocial.com
SpringOfSea's Sketchbook