photo test

Photo test. I just bought my first digital camera and I'm trying to find my way around Photoshop.

Hi Al....if you need someone to "test" putting that stuff together for you....give me a call.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Okay,Al,I'll take one.I like #2 best.Please send it A.S.A.P.!

Seriously,those are some kinda good lookin'parts!

Regards,(and thanks for the package),I really enjoyed it.

Test apparently worked.

For what it's worth, Al, I use a simple photo editing program, crop my image to show what I want it to show (and no excess work bench, etc.) and then do an "Image Size" or "Image Resize" command so that the photo is 500 pixels wide by whatever number of pixels give the same proportion. This makes all my posts the same width, which has several valuable effects:

It allows me to do things like put a photo I stored when documenting the Southwick Memorial into a post I did on the recent CACLC demo. Since all photos are the same size, the insert seems like it fits.

It makes the page look clean and professional and leaves room on the user's monitor for other browser windows to peek out, which helps the process of using the threads in a richer environment.

Most of all, I think, it limits the width to which the text has to spread out to accomodate the widest image. Newspaper and magazine columns are deliberately narrow because text in that narrow column format is easier to read and comprehend. Since the text on a SSW Forum web page will stretch out to the width of the widest picture in the post, the wider you make the picture, the harder you are making it for the reader to read your text.

It helps the user see all the image in one window setting and not have to go through the added exercise of scrolling back and forth to reveal hidden parts of the photo.

And finally, it makes it easier to us the JPEG compressor to squeeze the image down to 20-25 KB or so. Scale the image to 500 pixels wide, do a very faint (.3 to .5 pixels worth) blur if you have the tool to do so, then use a sliding JPEG compression until the sharp lines begin to show jpeg jaggies and then back off until they don't , which will be a quality level of around 25 to 35 percent.

That will give you a clear enough image to be easily percieved, a consistent image width and thus a more readable presentation and will put a light footprint on Len's server.

Just a thought...

Cy,

We'll get there. So far I've been using about 700 pixels wide and pushing the resolution as high as I can get without exceeding 50kb. My Photoshop 5.0 LE has a blur tool but if there is anyway to slide my compression, I haven't found it yet. The last photo, the molds frames, is 660 wide. I like your idea of settling on a standard width, and will.

I would avoid taking a photo on an angle like those, as you get a fair sized area you can't crop out (without it looking weird) and increases the file size for nothing. You might try to rotate the photo, but easier to do it right from the start, IMO. I have had some luck with rotating an image, but sometimes it just doesn't work, which puzzles me. Keep after it. I had been downloading photos direct from the camera, and had that figured out ok, then bought a card reader, and can't get the darned software loaded. So, after a couple of months of no downloading, the camera was stuffed and it took hours to download them to the computer and delete them from the disc, and some head scratching due to forgetting what was easy before. CRS. Steve

Love that "LASER"!

Wuhhh! Wuhhhhh! Wuhhhhh!

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." -Ann Landers

I want a Snaggletooth!!!!!!