What happened to the TTC pics? I didn't even get a chance to plagurize them;)

I guess I was a little harsh on her! :emb3:

Sorry :beer:

Originally posted by reddwarf
I didn't even get a chance to plagurize them;)

Ha, ha!:)

Look. I am not a professional computer geek. I am just a freakin' musician (geek)! I spent an incredible amount of time sorting through, resizing, zooming and cropping a large number of photos. I reduced them small enough to be able to post in the only way I know how (my knowledge is limited). I didn't know the quality would suffer that much.

If someone would like to email me detailed instructions on how to reduce pics for posting without losing too much quality, please do. Perhaps then in the future I can meet the POR standards

:rolleyes: (not likely though...)

640x640 under 102K:)

They will end u paround this quality or better.

Marilyn, you should be able to select your scanner to scan at 72dpi (dots per inch). That is the standard resolution that most people use for pictures on the web. This also allows your pictures to be larger in size, while keeping the file size under 100k/per picture. Hope that helps. :)

You can email all the pics (you were going to do that anyway, right? :) ) and I will resize and post them.

Tim.

You've got some nice pics on that page

Originally posted by Old Scout
I guess I was a little harsh on her! :emb3:

Sorry :beer:

Yes, you were a little harsh, but mostly I deleted the original post because I felt it wasn't worth all the time it would take me to post a butt-load of pictures that were of crappy quality. My plan is to try it again when I can do it right.

Lance, the pics are not scanned, they are digital.

Tim, it would be pointless for me to email you the crappy, grainy photos I already resized. It would be impractical for me to email the original files, too. There are way too many and they are so huge my computer will freeze up (even with high speed connection). The best thing for me to do is figure out how to manage my photos better. I have some ideas to play with and suggestions are welcome.

It will just take some more time. Thanks for your patience.:emb:

P.S. Many of the pics I took were from a distance (duh!). The pics were much more interesting when I opened up the huge original file and cropped away much of the background. I still had to downsize them from there in order to post them. John suggested that the cropping might have reduced the quality (fewer dpi, I quess). Is that possible/probable?

In any case, I have just been reminded by JR of the "practice area" for posts. I will do some research, some practicing, and hopefully try again with less embarrassing results.


--Mar

Hi Marilyn, heres a idea, set up folders with 10 to 20 pics in each then compress WinZip) each folder to make them smallenough to send to somebody or several people to work on. I know its a lot of work and I wouldnt mind helping with it.

If you took them with a digital you will be able to select a minimum of three (3) differentt sizes. Mine for example has what they call SQ ("low quality"),HQ, and SLQ or something like that. When i take pics on SQ they are all around 70kb when i download them. All the pics of the bronco that i have are done on SQ. Check your camera for instructions on high vs low quality.

Okay. I believe I figured it out. It is just going to take a little time to organize and re-do them.

It does seem that cropping out the background to zoom in on the subject reduces the quality though. I will find the happy medium there.

Once again, thanks for your patience.


-Mar

you can save them with a lower quality setting as well.
you can go at least 50% and not see a difference.
use irfan or something to open the image then 'save as' and choose 'options' and the window should pop up asking for quality
I missed the previous thread obviously so this is probably common knowledge