It seems a few of us, for a reason that escapes me, are able to post larger images that really pop (all else being equal). Why are my railimages files a “standard” size, but some images hosted elsewhere nearly fill the screen? You would think the software here limits images to a certain size, but that isn’t the case apparently. Or am I forgetting something?
-Crandell
Well, I use Photobucket to host my photos and it offers lots of options for size. For web use, I just chose the forum size, seems to work OK:
PG mill fire above BTW.
I could post bigger or smaller too. Try looking to see if your photo hosting site offers similar options
I start with whatever size pic I have on my computer, which is usually large, upload it to my hosting site (VillagePhoto.com in my case), then copy the URL and paste it here, (using the button above with the little tree). MR’s site does the rest, taking my large pic and turning it into a thumbnail and allowing us to click on the pic to make it large again. You have to start with a large enough pic.
I usually change the DPI to 150 before I upload, so it doesn’t take so long to upload to the host and load here, (I have DSL). I use Irfanview (Free, http://www.irfanview.com ) to do quick edits.
This one is sized for 17" screens
CN north/east bound at Valemount, BC last Sunday:
mmmm, smoke
Pathfinder, when you say sized for 17" screens, how do you do that? What I have been doing is using Microsoft’s Office Picture Manager to down-size full density images taken by the camera. I click on “email this file” and it automatically asks if I want to resize if for email, which if I do tends to speed things on uploads to railimages.
I guess I’ll have to sleuth around railimages a bit more and see if I have options, but even on their forum and on ModelRailroadForums.com the odd image is much larger than my own. It’s almost as if it is something about a host site that determines how much density the server here will accept.
Thanks for you answers, Everyone.
-Crandell
Crandell, It matters not how large the photo is. Trains.com is not hosting them, we only provide links to our own hosts, and they are downloaded from there when we view them. I looked at your WPF photos and Exif (a utility that shows size, fstop, shutter speed, camera make and model, etc) reports that your photos there are 640x480. Either you took them that size, are uploading them that way, Or Trainboard.com restricts photos to that size.
My guess is, you are saving them for web (or email) and uploading them that way. Which, in some cases is good enough for a view, but they Rarely pop at 640x480.
Crandell,
This may help explain why so many of us use Photobucket. Here’s a section of a screenshot that I see when preparing to upload a photo. Photobucket allows users to choose what size we want the photo to be when uploaded:
Don Z.
Unfortunately my photos at Photobucket are all sized to 640x480 because of repeated complaints about images being too large at another forum I frequent. [:(] So I put a lot of time and thought into the scenery, then show the photos at that disappointing size.
Mike
I use the Photo Bucket 15 inch option. Four photos in the thread, “Spectrum 4-6-0 DCC ready”, I uploaded to Photo Bucket, vary from about 17 kb to about 55kb in my PC.
Rich
Thanks, fellas. Mike, don’t I know it. You will probably be entering the contest in the other place I recently joined ?, the June one just posted with Shamus blasting us all right away. Skipper’s images are huge, if excellent, but mine look darned good if I look at them on my monitor full screen using FastStone and opening even a highly reduced file of the image…if I say so myself. [:(] Nuts!!!
I have left an email to the folks at railimages/trainboard for help or consideration for those of us who actually pony up the bucks to use the site regularly. Seems to me that a person gets so much space. If I want five excellent images to take it all up, paid up or not, why can’t I store/project that density? Or, maybe only two really good images at 780X580-ish and the rest standard size until my account is full? Surely they can rig that up for us?
-Crandell
Large image files from cameras with lots of pixels can still be fairly large even when reduced as you have. In my Paint Shop Pro XI program, there is an option to “optimize” images. This reduces the file size while keeping the dimensions the same. Of course the smaller you make the file size, the poorer the image quality. On another forum that I post on, their recommended file size is 80kb, which I aim for on all of my forum postings that I send to Photobucket. I can reduce 4272 X 2848, 3650kb images from my 12.2MP camera down to 750 pixels and 80kb and they are still OK to view on forums.
I assume other imaging programs have similar capabilities.
Not on my Mac 17" Powerbook G4. There’s quite a bit of space around the image.
Thanks Railphotog/Bob That’s very interesting . I’ve often wondered how images could be smaller in file size yet still retain their quality. We have PSP 11 - I’ll look into it.
Their gripe on the other forum is image dimensions, particularly width, rather than file size.
Crandell - yes I’ll possibly be entering that competition you mentioned. Incidentally,that’s not the forum that moans about image sizes - it occurs on yet another, mainly UK forum.
Mike
Look for the “JPEG Optimizer” tool. I keep in on my toolbar all the time. It will work automatically, but still leaves a large file size. I use the “Wizard” option in the selection window. With it you can use the slider to adjust the file size. Move the slider, click on “Next” twice, and you’ll see the file size. If it’s too big or too small, go back two windows and try again. It sounds more complicated than it is. Then save the image with a different file number or name so the original stays the same size. I often just add an “a” to the end of the file name for the reduced image, so I know which one was the original.
Thanks for all your inputs. Despite what seems to be a clear statement on railimages that “file sizes are unlimited”, and I tried to upload a file that is in the 100K range, when it was posted on my album it came up as the standard 640 X whatever like all the rest! [V]
-Crandell
Crandell–
Since I started using Photobucket a couple of months ago, when I decide to post a photo on the web here, I click the original Photobucket picture to full size before I hit “Properties” and “Copy.” Actually, when they post here, they’re ‘normal’ size, but if you click them for full size, they fill up the screen–and more! They’re even larger than the ‘full size’ on Photobucket!!
Actually, yours become relatively large when I click on them–at least on my computer’s 14" monitor. Certainly enough to let me know what an AWESOME modeler you are.[:D]
Tom
Thanks, Tom. I may have to scoot over to photobucket and check them out. If I am going to bother entering “contests”, at least the playing field should be green on both sides of the centre line…know what I mean?
-Crandell
Okay, I’m on photobucket and will try this image.
Edit (added) Oh my! [:D] That’s a lot better. You can actually see the weathering on the frame of the combine. Thanks, everyone, for your help.
-Crandell
And for better or worse, large photographs make it easier to see flaws in our model work. Many of my efforts are more suitable for the background rather than the foreground. Maybe I will go for the “fuzzy picture” look. That’s what the world looks like to me sometimes.[X-)]
Mark