Thread: thumbnail sizes
View Single Post
  #12  
Old January 8th 18, 03:14 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default thumbnail sizes

On Jan 7, 2018, Carlos E.R. wrote
(in article ):

On 2018-01-07 22:26, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 7, 2018, Carlos E.R. wrote
(in article ):

On 2018-01-07 21:46, Mayayana wrote:
"Phillip Helbig (undress to
wrote

I've been using this to make thumbnails of jpeg files:

for img in *.JPG; do
echo thumbnailing $img
convert -geometry 105x70 $img $img
done

Are people supposed to know what OS/software
you're using that code with?

Linux/bash and ImageMagick, obviously :-P


That figures.

I wonder why you don't just extract the thumbnails
when possible. Don't your cameras create them in
the JPGs? It should be quicker and yield better
quality images.

To customize the size and quality, for instance.


Quality for thumbnails?
To what purpose?
It seems to be a waste of time, and a futile, unnecessary exercise.


No. I said "to customize the size and quality" which is different than
doing a quality thumbnail. ie, to have thumbnails of the exact quality
(small quality) that one wishes.


I am still baffled as why these thumbnails have to be produced in the first
place. A proof/contact sheet, some sort of project, what?

If there is some odd reason to produce them, which has yet to be explained,
why would the concept of “quality” be attached to thumbnails of all
things?

I have been doing this digital photography thing for some time, and I have
yet to have the need to produce a thumbnail of any quality.

--

Regards,
Savageduck