Trick to file uploading/posting on this site

I don't do a lot of picture posting as I find my uploads do not represent the original file as well as I would like.

I'm shooting 8x10, scanning original at 1200 dpi or 1440 dpi.

Editing with Photoshop CS3 (5)

To create a file for posting I, under image size, invoke bicubic sharpener and resize to 640 in the longest dimension. I save as Jpeg 10 (I could be wrong here, its what ever fits the parameters the site requires. I leave resolution at 300 in image size.

What I see is highlights and especially shadows compressed (smashed) and an appearance of oversharpened.

Any suggestions??

Some of you are getting larger on-screen images, how??

thanks,

bob

Don't you need to have a website in order to post larger images on this forum?

You can either attach an image file (of limited size) or embed a link to an image file which is hosted elsewhere.

I place my images on my own site, and then follow the second option.

I embed, using picture files from my Flickr account, which provides options for display of various size formats. In Flickr, I select the size I want (in this case, 500 x 407 pixels), right click on the picture (on a PC running Windows and Firefox) and select "copy image location". On the "reply to thread" window of this site, I select the "Insert image" tag, press Ctrl-V (Windoze-ese for pasting a block of text such as the web address of my image) and voila:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4095/...dc3ba08352.jpg
Warehouses and railroad terminal, St. Paul, MN 2010

Instant image, in the size I specify. A bit involved (we are linking between Internet sites after all) but not too complicated to understand. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gem Singer

Don't you need to have a website in order to post larger images on this forum?

---

Eugene, you do need a site and I have one, but I'm so massively compresssing the bejezzus out of the file to keep it small I'm loosing delicate tone and microdetail. I'll put up an example later when I get home.

Wasn't a prob with 4x5 but since I went 8x10 I'm seeing significant degradation. Maybe posting larger files thru "method" 2 will solve the issue.

What I don't want to do is post so large they become part of the public domain, if you know what I mean.

bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob McCarthy

What I don't want to do is post so large they become part of the public domain...

---

Why don't you show us an example of the photos you're talking about? I need to replace my avatar anyhow... :p But seriously, if you're so worried about somebody stealing your work, why post it on the Internet anyway? Most photogs would LOVE to get their work taken up by a big ad campaign, so they can collect royalties. Big ad campaigns don't steal stuff, they buy it off the stock photo sites. And nobody else has the money to pay, so don't sweat it.

You may already know this as your measuring your images by pixels... On screen, images are measured in pixels and its resolution is 72dpi (300 dpi is for print.)

I use my Flickr account to host my photos but I usually make 72 dpi images that are no larger than 1000 pixels at their longest side.
The way you see images on screen depends on other factors aswell, size of your screen (I commonly check the forum on a 8'' laptop, when I do on my desktop computer images adapt to a larger monitor 21''.) My dad's 32'' iMac looks pretty awesome (and shinny.)
Browsers display images differently too.
I've heard people worry about image size, these days of fast internet connections you can get away with a lot more. Try 12 instead of 10 jpg compression, image size increases very lightly and it should look better.
I prefer to have people watch my photos large and nice to fully appreciate them than uploading tiny pics. I don't worry about image use by others, specially if they're not making a profit. A big company will not use photos without permission.

Here is a crop of roughly 1000x1000 reduced with bicubic to 450x4XX

Compare to http://www.largeformatphotography.in...734#post607734

higher tones

Pretty obvious (to me anyway) there's just not enough info in the compressed full file.

bob