A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

thumbnail sizes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old January 8th 18, 04:24 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Carlos E.R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 278
Default thumbnail sizes

On 2018-01-08 04:12, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 7, 2018, Carlos E.R. wrote
(in article ):

On 2018-01-08 03:17, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 7, 2018, Carlos E.R. wrote
(in article ):

On 2018-01-07 22:22, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 7, 2018, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply wrote
(in article ):

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

Why?
Why not use decent software?

"convert" is very decent and powerful software.
What would you use in a script, then?

Why use “convert” which I have never heard of when I have Lightroom,
Bridge, and a few others in my photgraphic tool box?


Because it is a tool designed for scripts and other repetitive tasks.
Most Linux users doing image handling will be familiar with it, but you
also have it in Windows, and is used by other tools in the back without
telling you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImageMagick


Interesting. However, I do not use Linux, or Windows, or ImageMagick.


But the OP is using Linux :-)

Can you help him?

I don't criticize people for using Windows or whatever. Why have some
people got to criticize people for their choices?


The tiny code excerpt from the OP would process an entire directory in
one click. Or one "enter". As you can see in the documentation,
"convert" has dozens of possible options, several pages:

http://imagemagick.org/script/convert.php


Did I say that I do not use ImageMagick?


Then don't post, perhaps? :-P


I have all sorts of tools I can use (including scripts) for various types of
bulk processing.

There are also many examples of use. For instance, there is one
"-thumbnail":

https://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/resize/#thumbnail

A whole chapter of it:

https://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/thumbnails/


...and in my opinion, all of that appears to be a royal PIA.


Everybody is entitled to his opinion :-)


And it has some information that may explain what is happening to the OP:

«Many images from digital cameras, scanning software, and some paint
programs (photoshop is notorious for this), save extra information about
the image in the form of profiles. This includes image formats such a
JPEG, PNG, TIFF and as of IM v6.2.4-1 GIF. Of course the IM specific
format, MIFF also does this. (See Image Profiles for more detailed
information).»

«These profiles can be up to 60 Kb in size, so can make a big difference
to your file size, and by default IM will preserve this profile
information. Thumbnails have no need for this data and often not even
the main image needs it.»


...but why the need for thumbnails in the first place, or have I missed
something?


Why does it matter? It doesn't to me, at all.

--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #32  
Old January 8th 18, 04:25 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Carlos E.R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 278
Default thumbnail sizes

On 2018-01-08 04:23, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:


The tiny code excerpt from the OP would process an entire directory in
one click.

so will other apps, *without* needing to write a script.


But having to navigate several menus to set the options right.


not at all, but even if that were true, it would be much easier than
writing (and debugging) a script to do what is *already* built in. not
only that, but those apps can also be scripted.


Yeah, sure :-P

--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #33  
Old January 8th 18, 04:25 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Carlos E.R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 278
Default thumbnail sizes

On 2018-01-08 04:23, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:


...er, OK. It seems we are talking at cross purposes. While I have produced
many JPEGs, I have not gone out of my way to deliberately produce
thumbnails.


Me neither, but some people do :-)

Maybe he wants to have a directory that loads and browses fast with
small versions of the photos. Who knows?


no point in that when apps do that far better, faster and with far more
flexibility.

For instance, somebody I knew generated them in order to create a web
page on his home server. The user would see a bunch of photos, click on
one and get the large version. So he wanted to generate much smaller
versions to optimize load time for the preview.


couple of clicks to export a webpage that does that (and more).

Yeah, sure, there will be some product out there that does it all. Where
is the joy in it, instead of doing it yourself completely? Or maybe he
was creating one of those "products" :-P


if you like making more work for yourself, go for it.

it's the linux way.


Have fun your way, then! :-P



--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #34  
Old January 8th 18, 04:27 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Carlos E.R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 278
Default thumbnail sizes

On 2018-01-08 04:11, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:


"convert" is very decent and powerful software.
What would you use in a script, then?

there's no need to use a script at all. why make things more difficult
than they need to be?


Scripts are trivial to use for automation. What, you do not know...? Wow.


wow what? i know what a script is. the point is there is no need for
one when existing apps *already* can do it.


Ok, I'll bite. Which one?
In Linux, of course. You know all. :-P

--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #35  
Old January 8th 18, 04:42 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default thumbnail sizes

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:


"convert" is very decent and powerful software.
What would you use in a script, then?

there's no need to use a script at all. why make things more difficult
than they need to be?

Scripts are trivial to use for automation. What, you do not know...? Wow.


wow what? i know what a script is. the point is there is no need for
one when existing apps *already* can do it.


Ok, I'll bite. Which one?


lightroom and photos both can export photos in whatever sizes the user
wants. plenty others.

there is also no need to generate separate thumbnails anyway. it's a
manufactured problem.

In Linux, of course. You know all. :-P


no, not in linux.

linux has the least amount of available software and most of what does
exist for linux isn't particularly good.

that's why you have to resort to writing scripts to do basic tasks such
as exporting photos.
  #36  
Old January 8th 18, 04:42 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default thumbnail sizes

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:


The tiny code excerpt from the OP would process an entire directory in
one click.

so will other apps, *without* needing to write a script.

But having to navigate several menus to set the options right.


not at all, but even if that were true, it would be much easier than
writing (and debugging) a script to do what is *already* built in. not
only that, but those apps can also be scripted.


Yeah, sure :-P


it's true.
  #37  
Old January 8th 18, 05:02 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 2018-01-08 04:12, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 7, 2018, Carlos E.R. wrote
(in article ):

On 2018-01-08 03:17, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 7, 2018, Carlos E.R. wrote
(in article ):

On 2018-01-07 22:22, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 7, 2018, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply wrote
(in article ):

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

Why?
Why not use decent software?

"convert" is very decent and powerful software.
What would you use in a script, then?

Why use “convert” which I have never heard of when I have Lightroom,
Bridge, and a few others in my photgraphic tool box?

Because it is a tool designed for scripts and other repetitive tasks.
Most Linux users doing image handling will be familiar with it, but you
also have it in Windows, and is used by other tools in the back without
telling you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImageMagick


Interesting. However, I do not use Linux, or Windows, or ImageMagick.


But the OP is using Linux :-)


For the task he has in mind, an unfortunate choice.

Can you help him?


Since he hasn’t responded to any of our questions yet, probably not. Unless
of course you are his self-appointed spokesperson.

I don't criticize people for using Windows or whatever.


Neither do I. Feel free to use Linux, Windows, macOS. However, there is one
of those which is not a good choice for phographic work.

Why have some people got to criticize people for their choices?


So far in this thread there has been no criticism for any choice of OS.
However, don’t take offence when it is pointed out that perhaps a
particular choice for a specific job is a bad one.

The tiny code excerpt from the OP would process an entire directory in
one click. Or one "enter". As you can see in the documentation,
"convert" has dozens of possible options, several pages:

http://imagemagick.org/script/convert.php


Did I say that I do not use ImageMagick?


Then don't post, perhaps? :-P


The OP, Phillip said nothing about ImageMagick, you did. He said that he was
using a script to make thumbnails.


I have all sorts of tools I can use (including scripts) for various types of
bulk processing.

There are also many examples of use. For instance, there is one
"-thumbnail":

https://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/resize/#thumbnail

A whole chapter of it:

https://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/thumbnails/


...and in my opinion, all of that appears to be a royal PIA.


Everybody is entitled to his opinion :-)


Well, you have mine.

And it has some information that may explain what is happening to the OP:

«Many images from digital cameras, scanning software, and some paint
programs (photoshop is notorious for this), save extra information about
the image in the form of profiles. This includes image formats such a
JPEG, PNG, TIFF and as of IM v6.2.4-1 GIF. Of course the IM specific
format, MIFF also does this. (See Image Profiles for more detailed
information).»

«These profiles can be up to 60 Kb in size, so can make a big difference
to your file size, and by default IM will preserve this profile
information. Thumbnails have no need for this data and often not even
the main image needs it.»


...but why the need for thumbnails in the first place, or have I missed
something?


Why does it matter? It doesn't to me, at all.


However, there is something pointless about the idea.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #38  
Old January 8th 18, 03:09 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default thumbnail sizes

"Savageduck" wrote

| Can you help him?
|
| Since he hasn't responded to any of our questions yet, probably not.
Unless
| of course you are his self-appointed spokesperson.

Maybe Carlos and Phillip are 2 aliases for the
marketing person at ImageMagick. That would
explain a lot. Phillip asked what seems to be an
unimportant question in an almost childish way,
with no context, and then checked out. While
Carlos uses every post to sing the praises of
ImageMagick.

I've looked into ImageMagick before as a
possible programming tool for graphics operations.
I've never seen the sense of it. As a resource for
programming it's very clunky and indirect, having
no value in actual usage because the operations
are all inside. A programmer is a cook. ImageMagick
is a waiter's order window. You tell it what you
want. It loads an image, does that operation,
then resaves the image.

As a command-line tool.... A vast collection
of graphic editing functions that only work from
the command line? Only Linux people could
think that makes sense. Here's an example of
drawing a line across an image, from their drawing
tutorial:

convert rose: -fill none -stroke white -draw 'line 5,40 65,5' rose_raw.png

How do you know the coordinates to draw from/to
without a GUI? You don't, of course. Then that
one operation has to resave the image. It's
nonsensical.

But I suppose he has
a point in a very limited context: If you only
have Linux and if you don't have any tool to
do batch thumbnail production... and that's what
you want to do... and you don't mind spending a
couple of hours learning commandline incantations...
and you don't much care about the quality of
the thumbnails... then ImageMagick might be a
very good choice. It could also be handy for similar,
simple batch tasks like resizing hundreds of images.
But on Windows (and no doubt on Mac) there are
plenty of options for things like that.


  #39  
Old January 8th 18, 04:00 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default thumbnail sizes

On Jan 8, 2018, Mayayana wrote
(in article ):

wrote

Can you help him?


Since he hasn't responded to any of our questions yet, probably not.

Unless
of course you are his self-appointed spokesperson.


Maybe Carlos and Phillip are 2 aliases for the
marketing person at ImageMagick. That would
explain a lot. Phillip asked what seems to be an
unimportant question in an almost childish way,
with no context, and then checked out. While
Carlos uses every post to sing the praises of
ImageMagick.

I've looked into ImageMagick before as a
possible programming tool for graphics operations.
I've never seen the sense of it. As a resource for
programming it's very clunky and indirect, having
no value in actual usage because the operations
are all inside. A programmer is a cook. ImageMagick
is a waiter's order window. You tell it what you
want. It loads an image, does that operation,
then resaves the image.

As a command-line tool.... A vast collection
of graphic editing functions that only work from
the command line? Only Linux people could
think that makes sense. Here's an example of
drawing a line across an image, from their drawing
tutorial:

convert rose: -fill none -stroke white -draw 'line 5,40 65,5' rose_raw.png

How do you know the coordinates to draw from/to
without a GUI? You don't, of course. Then that
one operation has to resave the image. It's
nonsensical.

But I suppose he has
a point in a very limited context: If you only
have Linux and if you don't have any tool to
do batch thumbnail production... and that's what
you want to do... and you don't mind spending a
couple of hours learning commandline incantations...
and you don't much care about the quality of
the thumbnails... then ImageMagick might be a
very good choice. It could also be handy for similar,
simple batch tasks like resizing hundreds of images.
But on Windows (and no doubt on Mac) there are
plenty of options for things like that.


I agree.

While Linux has a place in the computing spectrum, it is not the most
sensible choice for most folks when it comes to doing anything productive
with photography, or graphics. There is a reason that the great majority of
photography, and graphics software is only written for, and supported by WIN,
and/or macOS.

At this point in this thread I would have expectedthat we would have heard
from Floyd Davidson to challenge that assertion. I am surprised that he
hasn’t as he has been the champion of Linux, and GIMP in this NG.
Floyd, like many of us in this NG is no youngster, so I hope that he is in
good health up there above the Arctic Circle in Barrow. Regardless of his
support of all things Linux, Floyd is knowledgeable with regard to many
photography, and technology related things, and would probably have had an
answer that Carlos would have approved of.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #40  
Old January 8th 18, 04:02 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default thumbnail sizes

In article .com,
Savageduck wrote:


While Linux has a place in the computing spectrum, it is not the most
sensible choice for most folks when it comes to doing anything productive
with photography, or graphics. There is a reason that the great majority of
photography, and graphics software is only written for, and supported by WIN,
and/or macOS.


linux is well suited for servers and embedded devices, but a very poor
choice for the desktop.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thumbnail puzzle VanguardLH Digital Photography 2 February 15th 14 03:28 AM
Thumbnail puzzle Martin Brown Digital Photography 1 February 14th 14 08:12 PM
Thumbnail orientation Terry Pinnell Digital Photography 1 March 21st 05 05:54 PM
Thumbnail Software? Dave Digital Photography 40 September 23rd 04 06:28 AM
Thumbnail software Ron G Digital Photography 1 August 23rd 04 05:43 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.