WARNING: This is a photograph

On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 20:55:00 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/25/2015 5:13 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:06:20 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/24/2015 11:17 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 22:38:39 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/24/2015 6:46 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 18:04:37 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/24/2015 4:36 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 12:21:18 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/24/2015 2:17 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../LR--00126.jpg
13 years ago, 5 Mpx. A paddle wheel on the Murray River


Neat shot.
A small request. I have high speed cable and the image loads slowly. Can
you post smaller images in the future.

Sorry about that. I overlooked that that was a print sized for an A4
output. This one should be better.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../LR--00126.jpg


I like the way 'high-speed fibre' is slow. It's like the way the
smallest tube of toothpaste is 'large' and the next size is 'giant
family size'.



Actually high speed fiber cable is pretty quick. However, if I am not at
home, and am using my cell--- slow + $$$

I'm sorry but I don't think it is possible to present images
caterering for both cellphones and 27" iMac 5k Retina displays. Even
leaving out the question of the number of pixels, the size of the
image is a major consideration in it's selection.

But then, you were joking, weren't you?


It ya don show me mo respet a'll git ma fren joey atter u. ;-)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20131117_five%20pointz_0096.jpg


... an I'll get my mum to deal with joey
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kV5xPg5kbU8/hqdefault.jpg


But Joey is an original image I created.

I didn't realise that. It's rather good. Did you apply any of the
graffiti?


Nope. I saw that guy shadow boxing in an area that used to be full of
grafitti. He had just finished his workout, but was happy to go at it
again. Here is what part of the area looked like.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/five%20pointz%20partial.jpg

That's all been cleaned off now, hasn't it?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 01:11:16 GMT, Savageduck
wrote:

Savageduck wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 15:05:59 GMT, Savageduck
wrote:

Whiskers wrote:
On 2015-01-25, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I'm sorry but I don't think it is possible to present images
caterering for both cellphones and 27" iMac 5k Retina displays. Even
leaving out the question of the number of pixels, the size of the
image is a major consideration in it's selection.

of course it's possible but you need more than a direct link to a jpg.
the web server needs to serve up the appropriate image.

That might work for some people, but web servers don't recognise all the
factors influencing the sort of image most suitable for each visitor.

I tend to use "imagemagick" or "graphicsmagick" to download image files
without the usual browser overheads.

Perhaps posters could consider providing URLs for images of different
sizes, so that people could choose for themselves? QVGA, VGA, 720p,
1080p, perhaps? Or just indicate the file size?


In these NGs most of the regulars are sharing images of recent, or reedited
work, and each of us has a different motive for doing that. None of us are
sharing image files here for general publication. That said, I don't
particularly like image files which have been downsized to the point of
being useless. Also, I have a particular workflow, and if I am going to
resize an image file for online sharing I have a preset export
configuration in Lightroom which restricts the vertical dimension to
940-960px and the jpeg file size to a max of 800MB.
What I do not have the time for, and I am not going to do, is is post a
selection of sizes. If any of my images don't work for you on whatever
device/display you choose to use for viewing images, so be it.

As Eric, Peter, Tony, and others here know, if an original RAW or jpeg file
is requested we are prepared to share those within reason.

So the regulars here have probably seen this before, but for demo purposes,
and the benefit of newcomers, or lurkers, here is one of my images resized
with Lightroom to what I believe is a reasonable size.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ef7v7exxua1g805/DNC_5166-Edit-1.jpg?dl=0

I'm looking at it on a 24" screen 1920 x 1200 at about 95 dpi. Your
image has a brilliant blue sky as a background, a sharply delineated
subject, and yet it still doesn't look as sharp as I have come to
expect from you. Have you overdone the down-sizing or is it an
artifact of Drop Box?

With my desktop out of operation until Tuesday I am not sure quite how to
respond to your remarks regarding sharpness, as for now I can only open the
DB link on my iPad in various apps, and it seems to be as it last appeared
on my desktop when I exported it to DB via Lightroom.

The sky was blue, not a cloud anywhere that day. I have posted other images
from that shoot and this is the first time that sort of observation has
been made.
That said, here is the same P-38L this time passing left to right, and a
few frames away from the "not so sharp" shot. There might be an issue using
the Dropbox iOS app to get the link, but I just don't know how that could
cause problems with a jpeg on their server.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4pnva6zxuz6u43m/DNC_5153-Edit-2-1.jpg?dl=0



Just for the Hell of it, here is a shot pulled from My CC into PS Touch.
Resized and added to my camera roll, then to DB.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/y2m0b79g7n2zep5/Photo%20Jan%2025%2C%204%2052%2055%20PM.jpg?dl=0

It seemed to have the same trouble. This time I managed to download it
straight into Photoshop. It still seemed slightly fuzzy. I applied the
'sharpen edges' filter and that made a small improvement, but not
really enough. I then applied the 'sharpen more' and the whole imaged
popped. I could even read the fine print on the air screw. Maybe it
was a bit overdone but I can't help feeling that the image as you
presented it was soft.

We are going to have to experiment further once I get my Mac back on line.
The iPad does OK as an emergency fill in, but it does not fully replace a
desktop when it comes to critical examination of a fat file.




--
Savageduck

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 22:56:48 GMT, Savageduck
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 15:05:59 GMT, Savageduck
wrote:

Whiskers wrote:
On 2015-01-25, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I'm sorry but I don't think it is possible to present images
caterering for both cellphones and 27" iMac 5k Retina displays. Even
leaving out the question of the number of pixels, the size of the
image is a major consideration in it's selection.

of course it's possible but you need more than a direct link to a jpg.
the web server needs to serve up the appropriate image.

That might work for some people, but web servers don't recognise all the
factors influencing the sort of image most suitable for each visitor.

I tend to use "imagemagick" or "graphicsmagick" to download image files
without the usual browser overheads.

Perhaps posters could consider providing URLs for images of different
sizes, so that people could choose for themselves? QVGA, VGA, 720p,
1080p, perhaps? Or just indicate the file size?


In these NGs most of the regulars are sharing images of recent, or reedited
work, and each of us has a different motive for doing that. None of us are
sharing image files here for general publication. That said, I don't
particularly like image files which have been downsized to the point of
being useless. Also, I have a particular workflow, and if I am going to
resize an image file for online sharing I have a preset export
configuration in Lightroom which restricts the vertical dimension to
940-960px and the jpeg file size to a max of 800MB.
What I do not have the time for, and I am not going to do, is is post a
selection of sizes. If any of my images don't work for you on whatever
device/display you choose to use for viewing images, so be it.

As Eric, Peter, Tony, and others here know, if an original RAW or jpeg file
is requested we are prepared to share those within reason.

So the regulars here have probably seen this before, but for demo purposes,
and the benefit of newcomers, or lurkers, here is one of my images resized
with Lightroom to what I believe is a reasonable size.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ef7v7exxua1g805/DNC_5166-Edit-1.jpg?dl=0

I'm looking at it on a 24" screen 1920 x 1200 at about 95 dpi. Your
image has a brilliant blue sky as a background, a sharply delineated
subject, and yet it still doesn't look as sharp as I have come to
expect from you. Have you overdone the down-sizing or is it an
artifact of Drop Box?

With my desktop out of operation until Tuesday I am not sure quite how to
respond to your remarks regarding sharpness, as for now I can only open the
DB link on my iPad in various apps, and it seems to be as it last appeared
on my desktop when I exported it to DB via Lightroom.

The sky was blue, not a cloud anywhere that day. I have posted other images
from that shoot and this is the first time that sort of observation has
been made.
That said, here is the same P-38L this time passing left to right, and a
few frames away from the "not so sharp" shot. There might be an issue using
the Dropbox iOS app to get the link, but I just don't know how that could
cause problems with a jpeg on their server.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4pnva6zxuz6u43m/DNC_5153-Edit-2-1.jpg?dl=0

The question is, what does Drop Box do with it? I tried to download it
but Drop Box required that I sign in and presented me with a giant
immovable form which vastly overflowed my screen. I couldn't see more
than a quarter of it, let alone complete it. :-(


That is odd. I sent that as a public link which all viewers should be able
to viewer in a browser, or download without having an open DB account.

As for what DB does with it, that is an area where I can say I don't have a
clue.



--
Savageduck

Eric Stevens wrote:


A large screen means a large image e.g.
http://www.rembrandthuis.nl/media/im...htwachtrh.jpeg
A small screen means a small image e.g. http://tinyurl.com/lpcsj6n

nope. those are two different size images, which can be viewed on any
size display the user wants.

And there is a best size for the viewing of each.


I liked having an entire wall at the Rijksmuseum for viewing the "Night
Watch".






--
Savageduck

On 1/25/2015 10:12 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 20:55:00 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/25/2015 5:13 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:06:20 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/24/2015 11:17 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 22:38:39 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/24/2015 6:46 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 18:04:37 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/24/2015 4:36 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 12:21:18 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/24/2015 2:17 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../LR--00126.jpg
13 years ago, 5 Mpx. A paddle wheel on the Murray River


Neat shot.
A small request. I have high speed cable and the image loads slowly. Can
you post smaller images in the future.

Sorry about that. I overlooked that that was a print sized for an A4
output. This one should be better.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../LR--00126.jpg


I like the way 'high-speed fibre' is slow. It's like the way the
smallest tube of toothpaste is 'large' and the next size is 'giant
family size'.



Actually high speed fiber cable is pretty quick. However, if I am not at
home, and am using my cell--- slow + $$$

I'm sorry but I don't think it is possible to present images
caterering for both cellphones and 27" iMac 5k Retina displays. Even
leaving out the question of the number of pixels, the size of the
image is a major consideration in it's selection.

But then, you were joking, weren't you?


It ya don show me mo respet a'll git ma fren joey atter u. ;-)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20131117_five%20pointz_0096.jpg


... an I'll get my mum to deal with joey
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kV5xPg5kbU8/hqdefault.jpg


But Joey is an original image I created.

I didn't realise that. It's rather good. Did you apply any of the
graffiti?


Nope. I saw that guy shadow boxing in an area that used to be full of
grafitti. He had just finished his workout, but was happy to go at it
again. Here is what part of the area looked like.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/five%20pointz%20partial.jpg

That's all been cleaned off now, hasn't it?


Defacedd is a more accurte work. that was an art school. The lease was
up. The owner whitewashed the building to keep it from being called
"significant art." The building demolished. That whole are has become
yuppified.

--
PeterN

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

I am the one who asked the question. I do not know of
any way to download images from the net using
ImageMagick tools. It was stated that it could be done,
and I asked how.

you misunderstood what he meant and you wont admit it. it's that simple.

What are you ranting about? I have no idea what he
meant! That is exactly why I asked!
You don't have any idea either, or you would answer the
question.

i know what he meant.

You don't know how, you don't even know what the
question is or who asked it!

wrong on that too.

his wording was not precise but it's clear to anyone who has done this
before what he meant and how it works. you obviously have not and are
thoroughly confused (or just want to argue).

I want to know what he meant. If you would get over wanting to
argue, maybe you could answer the question.

i'm not arguing. i'm simply pointing out that you missed the obvious.

But it seems that as usual, you know nothing and just argue.

The fact is that what he said was:

"I tend to use "imagemagick" or "graphicsmagick" to
download image files without the usual browser
overheads."

Personally I use wget for that purpose, and I have no idea
how one would do it with ImageMagick.

the thread is about serving up images in an appropriate size, which is
one use for imagemagick. i'm surprised you don't know that.

he's no doubt using it server-side to resize an image for a *user* to
download.

he's not using it himself to download (nor could he).

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Are you proposing that usenet be modified so that screen size be
registered to enable senders to restrict their images to what they
regard as suitable screens?

it has nothing to do with usenet.

don't post direct jpeg links. post a link to a web page that sends the
appropriate sized image, including ones sized for retina displays.

this stuff is standard web design and anyone who has set up a web site
knows how to do this.

here's a start:
https://bensmann.no/the-hidpi-web/


https://developer.apple.com/library/...orkingInternet
/Conceptual/SafariImageDeliveryBestPractices/ServingImagestoRetinaDisplays/Se
rvingImagestoRetinaDisplays.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40012449-CH3-SW1

I know your views on the wrapping of URLs but the harsh fact is that
most news readers *do* wrap long URLs. More people will read what you
say if you concede to this fact and use TinyURL or similar. The
monster from Apple that you used can be compressed to
http://tinyurl.com/mklhlzf

get a better newsreader, one that properly handles rfc compliant urls.

in other words, you newsreader is *broken*.

or just copy/paste the entire url into a browser's address bar. unless
your browser is also broken, it will automatically remove whitespace
and the delimiters.

there is no need for tinyurl or other url shorteners except for things
like twitter where there's a 140 character limit. url shorteners can
(and are often) abused to link to sites people might not otherwise go
to.

You have misunderstood what I was saying. It's not a question of
screen resolution: its a matter of image size. That's why I have some
of my prints at A2 size and others at A5 (or thereabouts).

again, there's no point in serving an image that is higher res than can
be seen on a given device.

PeterN wrote:
On 1/25/2015 10:12 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 20:55:00 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/25/2015 5:13 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:06:20 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/24/2015 11:17 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 22:38:39 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/24/2015 6:46 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 18:04:37 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/24/2015 4:36 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 12:21:18 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/24/2015 2:17 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../LR--00126.jpg
13 years ago, 5 Mpx. A paddle wheel on the Murray River


Neat shot.
A small request. I have high speed cable and the image loads slowly. Can
you post smaller images in the future.

Sorry about that. I overlooked that that was a print sized for an A4
output. This one should be better.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../LR--00126.jpg


I like the way 'high-speed fibre' is slow. It's like the way the
smallest tube of toothpaste is 'large' and the next size is 'giant
family size'.



Actually high speed fiber cable is pretty quick. However, if I am not at
home, and am using my cell--- slow + $$$

I'm sorry but I don't think it is possible to present images
caterering for both cellphones and 27" iMac 5k Retina displays. Even
leaving out the question of the number of pixels, the size of the
image is a major consideration in it's selection.

But then, you were joking, weren't you?


It ya don show me mo respet a'll git ma fren joey atter u. ;-)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20131117_five%20pointz_0096.jpg


... an I'll get my mum to deal with joey
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kV5xPg5kbU8/hqdefault.jpg


But Joey is an original image I created.

I didn't realise that. It's rather good. Did you apply any of the
graffiti?


Nope. I saw that guy shadow boxing in an area that used to be full of
grafitti. He had just finished his workout, but was happy to go at it
again. Here is what part of the area looked like.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/five%20pointz%20partial.jpg

That's all been cleaned off now, hasn't it?


Defacedd is a more accurte work. that was an art school. The lease was
up. The owner whitewashed the building to keep it from being called
"significant art." The building demolished. That whole are has become yuppified.


I believe the term used today is "gentrification".
"Yuppie" & "hippie" are passé these days.





--
Savageduck

On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 03:28:29 GMT, Savageduck
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:


A large screen means a large image e.g.
http://www.rembrandthuis.nl/media/im...htwachtrh.jpeg
A small screen means a small image e.g. http://tinyurl.com/lpcsj6n

nope. those are two different size images, which can be viewed on any
size display the user wants.

And there is a best size for the viewing of each.


I liked having an entire wall at the Rijksmuseum for viewing the "Night
Watch".

Just imagine the impact you wouldn't get if you had to look at it on
an iPad, let alone an iPhone.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/menesje/8693243033/
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 03:28:27 GMT, Savageduck
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 01:11:16 GMT, Savageduck
wrote:

Savageduck wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 15:05:59 GMT, Savageduck
wrote:

Whiskers wrote:
On 2015-01-25, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I'm sorry but I don't think it is possible to present images
caterering for both cellphones and 27" iMac 5k Retina displays. Even
leaving out the question of the number of pixels, the size of the
image is a major consideration in it's selection.

of course it's possible but you need more than a direct link to a jpg.
the web server needs to serve up the appropriate image.

That might work for some people, but web servers don't recognise all the
factors influencing the sort of image most suitable for each visitor.

I tend to use "imagemagick" or "graphicsmagick" to download image files
without the usual browser overheads.

Perhaps posters could consider providing URLs for images of different
sizes, so that people could choose for themselves? QVGA, VGA, 720p,
1080p, perhaps? Or just indicate the file size?


In these NGs most of the regulars are sharing images of recent, or reedited
work, and each of us has a different motive for doing that. None of us are
sharing image files here for general publication. That said, I don't
particularly like image files which have been downsized to the point of
being useless. Also, I have a particular workflow, and if I am going to
resize an image file for online sharing I have a preset export
configuration in Lightroom which restricts the vertical dimension to
940-960px and the jpeg file size to a max of 800MB.
What I do not have the time for, and I am not going to do, is is post a
selection of sizes. If any of my images don't work for you on whatever
device/display you choose to use for viewing images, so be it.

As Eric, Peter, Tony, and others here know, if an original RAW or jpeg file
is requested we are prepared to share those within reason.

So the regulars here have probably seen this before, but for demo purposes,
and the benefit of newcomers, or lurkers, here is one of my images resized
with Lightroom to what I believe is a reasonable size.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ef7v7exxua1g805/DNC_5166-Edit-1.jpg?dl=0

I'm looking at it on a 24" screen 1920 x 1200 at about 95 dpi. Your
image has a brilliant blue sky as a background, a sharply delineated
subject, and yet it still doesn't look as sharp as I have come to
expect from you. Have you overdone the down-sizing or is it an
artifact of Drop Box?

With my desktop out of operation until Tuesday I am not sure quite how to
respond to your remarks regarding sharpness, as for now I can only open the
DB link on my iPad in various apps, and it seems to be as it last appeared
on my desktop when I exported it to DB via Lightroom.

The sky was blue, not a cloud anywhere that day. I have posted other images
from that shoot and this is the first time that sort of observation has
been made.
That said, here is the same P-38L this time passing left to right, and a
few frames away from the "not so sharp" shot. There might be an issue using
the Dropbox iOS app to get the link, but I just don't know how that could
cause problems with a jpeg on their server.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4pnva6zxuz6u43m/DNC_5153-Edit-2-1.jpg?dl=0



Just for the Hell of it, here is a shot pulled from My CC into PS Touch.
Resized and added to my camera roll, then to DB.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/y2m0b79g7n2zep5/Photo%20Jan%2025%2C%204%2052%2055%20PM.jpg?dl=0

It seemed to have the same trouble. This time I managed to download it
straight into Photoshop. It still seemed slightly fuzzy. I applied the
'sharpen edges' filter and that made a small improvement, but not
really enough. I then applied the 'sharpen more' and the whole imaged
popped. I could even read the fine print on the air screw. Maybe it
was a bit overdone but I can't help feeling that the image as you
presented it was soft.

We are going to have to experiment further once I get my Mac back on line.
The iPad does OK as an emergency fill in, but it does not fully replace a
desktop when it comes to critical examination of a fat file.

Shhh ... Nospam may be listening.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens