Ibanez JEM Forum banner

1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Vendor
Joined
·
26,379 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I'll be shooting with a new Cannon this year and since it has a 2gig card, well, i'm never had unlimited storage like that before. I'll shoot in 3200 [just because I can!] and then batch reduce the size in photoshop to useable size for the site. The question is, what size would you guys like to see, or be most useable to the majority these days? They'll be in 2 sizes, one for the pages and then I'll be linking all the individual pics to large pics [hopefully opening in a new window if I get it all right]. I used to run 800 resolution years ago, now at 1180, but you can see it in the evolution of the site with the pics getting larger and larger [especially in the gallery]. Anyway, I hate making decisions like these, and then end up wrong anyway.

For posting on the pages, the choice would be 640 or 800.

The linked pics, 1200 or 1600, unless somebody has a good argument for another size.

Or, go with one single medium size like 1024 and not link to larger pics.

What do you guys think? Majority will decide. Just remember I have to load all these on a slowish DSL, at least that's been the norm.

********************************************************

Forgotten last point. I usually save these at around 5-6 in photoshop. It's not like anybody is going to be printing glossy 8x10's with these. I'm still a complete noob at photoshop. I don't know what "quality" scale I need to have, I just know I mistakenly saved some of the catalog images at 2 and they look like doo. Is 5-6 addequate? Too high adding to load times? What should I be saving at for internet only viewing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,986 Posts
With most today have high speed broadband access and loading large high quality pics not being a problem the higher/bigger quality the better.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
26,379 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Display size is limited to the resolution of your monitor. Doesn't do any good putting up a 3200 picture if you're running 1100 resolution as you'll have a picture 3 times the size of your screen. A little bigger, still useable, 3 times, not so much. Much less if I had to load them from LA you can forget it. Half of them would be loaded by the time I'd have to yank it and head for the airport ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,205 Posts
Rich: as long it's in 72dpi and ya do the Save for Web function in photoshop, it's fine to have your images fit on a 800x600 monitor (is anybody still using 640x480 nowadays???). Quality of 6-8 does the job, 10 if you want a "real representation" for the web. Plus you don't want your hi-q pix "yoink'd" for print purposes.

Reg
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
26,379 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Rich: as long it's in 72dpi and ya do the Save for Web function in photoshop, it's fine to have your images fit on a 800x600 monitor (is anybody still using 640x480 nowadays???). Quality of 6-8 does the job, 10 if you want a "real representation" for the web. Plus you don't want your hi-q pix "yoink'd" for print purposes.

Reg
You just lost me with the "save for web". I know where that in under file but no idea what makes that different. I know if I choose save for web I don't think it asks to choose a quality later. Is that correct?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,482 Posts
unless you want hires, just save at 1024x768 (or larger as i told you) and don't bother with the links. that's a waste of time. today's browsers scale images down and the bandwidth is minimal.

800x600 is futile.... glen
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,205 Posts
the "save for web" is a pop-up window in photoshop... what version are ya using anyhow? I'm running CS2... I know this function's been around since CS
the save for web has more control to preview and optimize your web images before you save :)

Reg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,740 Posts
The first time I did the "save for web," I managed to just walk myself through it. It wasn't real hard. It should be fine, like you said, it's not like anybody's going to want to blow up real hi-res versions of these photos.

And I thank you as well. Next best thing to being there!
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
26,379 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
unless you want hires, just save at 1024x768 (or larger as i told you) and don't bother with the links. that's a waste of time. today's browsers scale images down and the bandwidth is minimal.

800x600 is futile.... glen
Wait, browsers scale images?! My XP doesn't, does it?! LOL I haven't noticed Vista doing it on my lapper. That was the whole point of linking the larger size, so the pages still load fast and you can choose what you want to see bigger, cause not everybody cares about the same thing.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
26,379 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
the "save for web" is a pop-up window in photoshop... what version are ya using anyhow? I'm running CS2... I know this function's been around since CS
the save for web has more control to preview and optimize your web images before you save :)

Reg
I'm familiar with it, but not in what it does different to the image. I did a test save and didn't answer any of my questions about it. Does it limit the image to 72dpi or something? I can see where the "quality" is part of the window, and it was at 60 [or 6] but not sure if that's a preset or because that's what I usually save at anyway.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,482 Posts
IE6, IE7, firefox has extensions for this & does it by default. you shoudl play with the HTML, perhaps leaving off the IMG size tags to allow for autoresize on the fly if needed (if you went larger than 1024x768 for example)... glen

By default, Firefox rescales large images so that they fit in your browser window. If you want to change that behavior so that you get the full image, here's how to do it.

- Type about:config into the address bar.

- Scroll down to the entry called browser.enable_automatic_image_resizing.

- Double click on this line and the value will be toggled.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,205 Posts
I'm familiar with it, but not in what it does different to the image. I did a test save and didn't answer any of my questions about it. Does it limit the image to 72dpi or something? I can see where the "quality" is part of the window, and it was at 60 [or 6] but not sure if that's a preset or because that's what I usually save at anyway.
Think of it as a fine-tuner for optimizing images that are set to 72dpi. Default is 60 under the JPEG HIGH preset [was opening PS when I first posted]. Did ya click the 2-up and 4-up tabs? those are your preview windows for one preset/setting.

Reg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
555 Posts
Make sure to take plenty of Ibanez Jems and PGMs. maybe get an autograph from gilbert?? id love to see if any new PG stuff is coming out. also steve vai stuff. is the new legacy going to be released this NAMM? id love to see that and maybe if its on display, the Jemini pedal.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,482 Posts
i think i told you rich this by email.... target the common denominator of 1280x768 wXGA. This is by and large the most popular resolution for laptops and 19-20" screens nowadays (i'd wager too some 21" monitor users have them set wrong for this too LOL).

if you save 1024x768 it's almost a nobrainer. all you need to decide is if you want LARGER ones available linked (i'd say it's a wasted given the quality they'll be anyways in NAMM w. the lighting, etc)... glen
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
26,379 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Think of it as a fine-tuner for optimizing images that are set to 72dpi. Default is 60 under the JPEG HIGH preset [was opening PS when I first posted]. Did ya click the 2-up and 4-up tabs? those are your preview windows for one preset/setting.

Reg
I just did, 60 is definitely good, so slightly different than original to be good, 30 was very noticeably worse, although minor still. I think I'd leave it at 60.

Jeez, you can even do the resizing in the Save for Web window!
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
26,379 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
i think i told you rich this by email.... target the common denominator of 1280x768 wXGA. This is by and large the most popular resolution for laptops and 19-20" screens nowadays (i'd wager too some 21" monitor users have them set wrong for this too LOL).

if you save 1024x768 it's almost a nobrainer. all you need to decide is if you want LARGER ones available linked (i'd say it's a wasted given the quality they'll be anyways in NAMM w. the lighting, etc)... glen
Yea, I apreciate the long convo, but still left me confused as to what to actually go with. I still think the smaller size on the htm pages is better for load times with a larger link, but then going 1024 with no link would be a LOT less work, and that's always a good thing ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,596 Posts
i think i told you rich this by email.... target the common denominator of 1280x768 wXGA. This is by and large the most popular resolution for laptops and 19-20" screens nowadays (i'd wager too some 21" monitor users have them set wrong for this too LOL).

if you save 1024x768 it's almost a nobrainer. all you need to decide is if you want LARGER ones available linked (i'd say it's a wasted given the quality they'll be anyways in NAMM w. the lighting, etc)... glen
I've honestly never seen a prfab computer that has the correct rez/dpi for the monitor, I suppose they're all set up on one monitor and never changed. It's especially retarted when you have a 16:10 widescreen set to 5:4.

At uni we were told all websites should be 800 x 600 (if fixed) and 50% of people still use dial up.
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Top