Question regarding e-mailed images an dtheir quALITY

On 06/07/2015 22:46, newshound wrote:
On 06/07/2015 22:43, newshound wrote:
On 05/07/2015 22:30, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-07-05 20:33:28 +0000, Mort said:

Mort wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-07-05 01:19:48 +0000, Mort said:

Hi,

Both my H-P printer and my H-P PC laptop are set to sRGB.

That is probably just fine since you are not working in a color
critical, calibrated environment (I am making an assumption there). What
at minimum you need to be sure of is that you are using sRGB, which
should give the recipient the best opportunity to see things as you
intended.

I cannot find what the Picasa program is set to.

I used Picasa briefly years ago, and no longer do so. What I suspect is
happening is, when you use Picasa to email image files, all it is doing
is sending a representative thumbnail linked to the file stored online.
This saves Google bandwidth.
When the recipient clicks on that thumbnail in the email he/she calls on
the linked file and they get a compressed representation of the JPEG on
the Picasa server. A further Google/Picasa bandwith saver.
That is not a full representation of the image file you intended to
send.

I would log in to your account at picasa.com and look at what options
they have for sending image files via email. You might discover exactly
what they do. Check on Picasa forums, support or other.

The other solution is to stop sending image files from within Picasa,
and just send them directly from your desktop.


Indeed. I tend to export images from Picasa, which lets you chose a
resolution and save somewhere else, and then email the file from my
normal mail software.

Following Mayayana's comment, I should have said "email the jpeg file as
an attachment".

And I should also have said that personally, I use Picasa to manage
files stored on an external hard drive, *not* in the cloud. If you are
using cloud storage then your experience makes more sense.

Rusty Gear wrote:
Mort,
If you want to email higher quality edited photos out of Picasa, select
"Export" to get the command box (very bottom of the page: "Use Original
Size": "Image Quality 'Maximum': then "Export". The photo "as edited"
will be placed in a folder named ...../Picasa/Exports/'folder named in
the export command box'. Then email that edited photo by attaching the
file to your email.
John


Hi John,

Thank you so very much for your very helpful reply, which seems to be
exactly what I was looking for. I will try your suggestion soon, with
the expectation that it will work.

Best,

Mort Linder

Hi Mort,
Hope it works for you. When I saw your original post, I said, "Hey, Mort
sounds like me." I too am an experienced amateur, sitting in my darkroom
next to a Beseler enlarger, a bunch of stainless reels and tanks for 35mm
and 6x6 film, trays..etc, none of which have been used in 10-20 years.
Digital photography made it convenient, but I sure miss the high resolution
of 6x6 for a relatively low cost compared to higher-end digital. My
darkroom is now my computer room. sigh.

Very best regards,
John, the Rusty Gear (old electrical engineer)

"Mort" wrote in message ...

Rusty Gear wrote:
Mort,
If you want to email higher quality edited photos out of Picasa, select
"Export" to get the command box (very bottom of the page: "Use Original
Size": "Image Quality 'Maximum': then "Export". The photo "as edited"
will be placed in a folder named ...../Picasa/Exports/'folder named in
the export command box'. Then email that edited photo by attaching the
file to your email.
John


Hi John,

Thank you so very much for your very helpful reply, which seems to be
exactly what I was looking for. I will try your suggestion soon, with
the expectation that it will work.

Best,

Mort Linder

In article , Rusty Gear
wrote:

Hope it works for you. When I saw your original post, I said, "Hey, Mort
sounds like me." I too am an experienced amateur, sitting in my darkroom
next to a Beseler enlarger, a bunch of stainless reels and tanks for 35mm
and 6x6 film, trays..etc, none of which have been used in 10-20 years.

no surprise there.

Digital photography made it convenient, but I sure miss the high resolution
of 6x6 for a relatively low cost compared to higher-end digital.

you have that backwards. digital provides *higher* resolution with
*lower* cost than film ever could.

My
darkroom is now my computer room. sigh.

which is far more effective.

On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 12:45:54 -0700, "Rusty Gear"
wrote:

Hi Mort,
Hope it works for you. When I saw your original post, I said, "Hey, Mort
sounds like me." I too am an experienced amateur, sitting in my darkroom
next to a Beseler enlarger, a bunch of stainless reels and tanks for 35mm
and 6x6 film, trays..etc, none of which have been used in 10-20 years.
Digital photography made it convenient, but I sure miss the high resolution
of 6x6 for a relatively low cost compared to higher-end digital. My
darkroom is now my computer room. sigh.

That's funny. Had I the money I would have set up a lab for processing
4" x 5" but the cost of setting up a dark room, buying an enlarger
and a bunch of stainless steel reels and tanks put me off. :-)

Digital photography is much cheaper and I'm now into it, boots and
all.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Rusty Gear wrote:
John, the Rusty Gear (old electrical engineer)


Hi John,

No, you're not an old electrical engineer, any more than I am an old
physician. We are just retired, semi-inactive, or whatever euphemism we
like. My birth certificate is 86 years old, but my head and most of my
body refuse to believe it.

In 1945 I built an audio amplifier, to make 78 rpm records on
acetate-covered aluminum discs. In 1950, I built a square wave
generator and did muscle-nerve research. Those were still the tube
days.Now, everything is in tiny chips, way beyond my ken.

I'm going out of town in a couple of days, and when I get back I'll work
on my picture sending, utilizing your very nice suggestions.

Thanks again.

Have a nice summer.

Best,

Mort Linder

On 7/7/2015 8:33 PM, Mort wrote:
Rusty Gear wrote:
John, the Rusty Gear (old electrical engineer)


Hi John,

No, you're not an old electrical engineer, any more than I am an old
physician. We are just retired, semi-inactive, or whatever euphemism we
like. My birth certificate is 86 years old, but my head and most of my
body refuse to believe it.

In 1945 I built an audio amplifier, to make 78 rpm records on
acetate-covered aluminum discs. In 1950, I built a square wave
generator and did muscle-nerve research. Those were still the tube
days.Now, everything is in tiny chips, way beyond my ken.

You just triggered a memory. In the mid 70s I was on the board of a
medical device manufacturer. One of its products was a TENS unit. The
owner insisted that a square wave produced the most effective results.
Although I have a limited knowledge of biological engineering, from what
I understood, he was right.


--
PeterN

newshound wrote:
And I should also have said that personally, I use Picasa to manage
files stored on an external hard drive, *not* in the cloud. If you are
using cloud storage then your experience makes more sense.

Thanks for your comments. I have nothing at all in the cloud; backing
up my hard drive contents with rather inexpensive Toshiba 1TB external
hard drives.

Mort Linder

PeterN wrote:
You just triggered a memory. In the mid 70s I was on the board of a
medical device manufacturer. One of its products was a TENS unit. The
owner insisted that a square wave produced the most effective results.
Although I have a limited knowledge of biological engineering, from what
I understood, he was right.


TENS units, to my knowledge, have never been shown in classic double
blind studies, to offer any improvement in patients.

Square wave stimulation was the classic mode when I did that research in
1950/51 with muscle/nerve stimulation measurements.

Mort Linder

On 7/8/2015 8:11 PM, Mort wrote:
PeterN wrote:
You just triggered a memory. In the mid 70s I was on the board of a
medical device manufacturer. One of its products was a TENS unit. The
owner insisted that a square wave produced the most effective results.
Although I have a limited knowledge of biological engineering, from what
I understood, he was right.


TENS units, to my knowledge, have never been shown in classic double
blind studies, to offer any improvement in patients.

I cannot say whether there were double blind studies. But there were
certainly sufficient anecdotal incidences to make a reasonable case for
efficacy. The original units worked so well as an analgesic that body
builders used them to “work through the pain,� causing excessive, and in
some cases, permanent damage to their ligaments.
A few years ago I needed a replacement unit. My orthopedist prescribed
one, and Medicare paid for it.
I don’t intend to disparage the importance of double blind studies, but
in this case there seems to be sufficient evidence that the placebo
effect is not be a factor.
But then again, isn’t the placebo effect a very real element of healing.



Square wave stimulation was the classic mode when I did that research in
1950/51 with muscle/nerve stimulation measurements.




--
PeterN