Question

How do the photos in this post appear to you ? I'm getting various appearance complaints--from their alleged size to some flatness--but they appear perfectly normal to me, both in size and in proportion; and they load just fine. I need some feedback.

Comments

[Jheka]

They look fine from here. I'm using firefox, btw.

[Lockjaw the Ogre]

I tried it in three browsers. Opera shows the images stretched vertically. Firefox and Internet Explorer both seem to handle them fine. This is odd, because Opera is usually the browser that gets them right where others fail.

[Reese]

Ms 'Locks,

My complaint (and that's a strong word given I'm talking about "free ice cream") is that your page today is about six megabytes. I'm on a dialup in rural New Mexico (not too far from your parents, I believe).

Here's what I'd do:

Use MS Photo Editor, resize to 25%, compress by 50%. On the one I tried, "glory_days" I reduced the size by a factor of about 18. Of course, save the original high-res for yourself, but for internet posting 27 Kb beats 987 kb and is adequate.

Give me about 5 minutes and time to find your e-mail address in the about section (if it's there) and I'll send you the compressed pictures (from my real address) with the subject line "compressed pix"

Normally I would have stopped loading the six megs, but you asked, so I let them load. My my, nice high-res camera. I think I can see your reflection in Roger Simon's glasses.

Reese

[baldilocks]

My email address is at the bottom on the left. I'm using Firfox also.

[Reese]

Got it! Wow, what instant feedback.

I hope you don't mind me not using my real address in comments. Given the way you typed your address, you're also aware of those harvesting 'bots.

[Don Surber]

Looking good on whatever browser I got with Windows XP -- explorer (I go back to 3.11 -- actually Fortran and IBM cards back in college; I'm like a Day By Day cartoon -- even graduated in 1981; still don't own a cell phone)

I digress: Looking good

[AH·C]

I looked at them yesterday and the way they took so long to download -- with a fractional T1 line no less, I immediately thot that you must have posted the pictures as taken from your camera at hi-rez.

Reese is right about optimizing images for the web.

My rule of thumb is 92pixels/inch (sometimes refered to as "dpi") for the web and 300dpi for print quality, this is not the same as photo quality which is much higher. Also in deference to those that might be on dialup, I usually try to keep them at 150Kb or less.

Even if you don't have M$ Photo Editor, most digital cameras come with a basic program for eliminating red-eye and touching up your photos, etc and they should have the necessary tools to resize/compress a copy to a manageable size.

In any case, enjoy your camera and do share some interesting shots :)

[Mike Veeshir]

They look fine to me in IE 6.0.

[Steve in Boston]

They do appear to be slightly stretched vertically, but not by a huge amount. I'm running XP Pro and browsing with IE.

[Al]

The problems your having stem from using HTML to resize a fairly large picture--browsers handle this in different ways. This is a separate issue from the file size--which is also large for web use. These photos weigh in at about 1M each and could easily be much smaller.

The easiest way to demonstrate this is with an example. Have a look at http://fultonchain.net/crap/baldilocks.html for an illustration. If you do not have an image editing application handy (your camera should have included at least a basic one) the freeware IrfanView will do what you need.

[Michael]

No issues here. Pictures load fine.

[Iron Mike]

The pix aren't too big and they load fine. Although the second and fourth down look like they were "pulled" out of aspect ratio. I don't know if that makes sense or not...but nice pix nonetheless!

[Zendo Deb]

Seem fine in my Mozilla browser - haven't upgraded to FireFox yet.

IE is non compliant and will have all sorts of fits for no apparent reason.

[Marty]

Slightly stretched vertically (everyone is "thinner").

[DaveH]

They're stretched vertically in Safari.

[Kevin Murphy]

Yeah, I gotta complain about the file size, too. When you use HTML to reduce the displayed size (vsize, hsize), it does not reduce the file size, it simply renders it smaller. But the full 2028x1536 image is passed to the reader's browser. The first image there is nearly a megabyte.

Nearly any graphics program will allow you to cut it down to size quickly. Instead of 929K, a 512x384 version of glory_days.jpg is 38K, and still bigger than your column width.

For ease of use I like LViewPro, a shareware program costing $39. It translates many different formats and does resizing and cropping extremely quickly.

[birdwoman]

They look great to me, IE 6 XP office ed.

(*)>