On 3/18/07, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Brian Swale wrote:
> > Joel wrote
> >> I increased the quality settings. I hope you will find the images to
> >> be better. Thanks for taking the trouble to comment.
> >>
> > I looked at every image again. I used browser Opera 3.62 which loads the
> > site easily. It also has the very useful facility of reporting the bytes
> > loaded on
> > every re-fresh and new page.
> >
> > I can see that it looks like the maximum size per image is about 70 kb, and
> > quite a few are only about 40 kb; and it seems to me that these could
> > benefit
> > from a little more size.
> >
> Full circle. I commented on the ease of use of Joel's old site. Chris
> nagged more gently. Joel found and used JAlbum. I liked what I saw in
> his new gallery. I looked at JAlbum and found it had improved a lot
> since I looked before. I tried a gallery in it, but found the downsized
> images look crummy......
>
> What was happening was that I had already prepared the display JPEGs as
> I wanted them. The default image size in JA was smaller than that, so it
> was resizing and resharpening.
>
> The solution was to set a display size larger than the actual images. JA
> doesn't try to upsize, so it simply uses the already prepared images.
>
> I don't know if this applies, Joel. Just trying to help.
>
> Moose
There are several ways to do the image sizes, including simply going
transparently to versions sized by the user in PS or whatever -- in
other words, no sizing by JAlbum whatever. It looks like you've found
a workaround to do the same thing, Moose, but it's an actual selection
item in one of the menus. However, your method may prove useful down
the line, so thanks for suggesting it.
I asked Brian to look at the Isle Royale photos because those versions
are the originals. If he was seeing a lot of artifacts there, I would
be suspicious of his monitor set up (not that my PS skills are
flawless!).
If you want to mess around with things like watermarks, you have to
turn the scaling over to JAlbum. The default is something like 75% on
scale, 25% sharpening IIRC. I don't really know to what the
percentage refers. On the March images, I let JAlbum scale directly
from the full-size jpgs. Initially I thought that since the originals
were 10-12MB, scaling to 25% might still result in enormous files for
the web, but I was wrong, which is why I say that I don't know what
the percentage in the scaling method is referring to. After Brian's
initial comments, I simply let JAlbum re-scale everything at 100%
IIRC, again going against the original images. Incidentally, I put
sharpening to 0%.
I think the images look their best if they aren't processed/scaled in
JAlbum. But that means they are have to be done in PS. I like and
don't like the watermark feature. But it's just a web page, not the
Parthenon. It will be blown away in a week or so. That's the lovely
thing about JAlbum. I'll try a few other things the next time.
Thanks for the comments!
Joel W.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|