10-27-10 – He’s a Fun Guy
-
Thanks CauseIsaidSo. That Canon DPP seems to help some but I had to reduce quality all the way and then resize down to less than half its original size on top of the quality thing. This has been damned frustrating to say the least. I have been using Gimp to do most of this stuff but I just could not make it look good and still have a small file size no matter what I tried. I always seem to forget all the software that comes with my Rebel. Hopefully I will not forget DPP in the future.
so how do I reduce the file size on this to make it work in Fark?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lokisbongs-pictures/5121996431/sizes/o/
this is the picture I was fighting with last night.
i tested the “medium 500” version in the scratchpad, and it worked fine….
So the mushroom you are talkin about sounds like an (Amanita muscaria) Very poisonous but very pretty mushrooms. I once saw one that was probably a foot across but alas I had no camera with me back then.
not actually poisonous in the kill you way, but certainly not without effects, and ones that are not particularly pleasant.
there’s a lot of horribly tortured sleep, for example, and the loss of the ability but unfortunately not of desire, to try and walk around.
it falls squarely into the “do not recommend at all” category.
When I look at the file size it says its 219 kb. that won’t stay up very long at that size.
I think I will just start doing like CauseISaidSo suggested. I just wish I didn’t have to make the original that damned small just to get Fark to let it stay up.
So the mushroom you are talkin about sounds like an (Amanita muscaria) Very poisonous but very pretty mushrooms. I once saw one that was probably a foot across but alas I had no camera with me back then.
not actually poisonous in the kill you way, but certainly not without effects, and ones that are not particularly pleasant.
there’s a lot of horribly tortured sleep, for example, and the loss of the ability but unfortunately not of desire, to try and walk around.
it falls squarely into the “do not recommend at all” category.
Yeah that sounds like an Avoid at all costs thing. I was told they can and do kill people in northern california but wikipedia says deaths are extremely rare. Either way I will stick to the little brown caps(Psilocybe cubensis) if I wanna trip.The worst side effect I ever had from them is the urge to climb every tree I saw. Not that I do shrooms any more.
Yeah, I got Snakeytongue’s HDR.
And lokisbong: Fark’s always had the file size limits, but with Flickr’s most recent site changes, Flickr is playing more games with their sizes and compression. In their view, they’re improving service by offering more size choices and less lossy compression. But for Fark purposes, it complicates things because high quality compression comes with big file sizes. The most certain way to address it is to upload files at or near 640 wide max and under 130-150k (I personally aim for 70-90k myself). As someone else said, Fark will resize the pixel real estate for you, but then you aren’t guaranteed any particular quality when it does. I almost never upload anything bigger than 600-800 pixels wide myself anyway, but when I do want to provide a larger size, I do upload a separate image.
Yep, what Elsinore said.
I forgot to mention that when I use DPP, I resize while creating the new JPGs, which is what’s required to get the file size down. I generate a 640-wide version for Fark and a 1024-wide version for my popup “large” image (unless it’s portrait oriented, in which case I use a max height of 900 for Fark and 1100 for popup large).
I missed the bit about GIMP. I use GIMP, and it has a very handy feature to allow you to tweak your compression, see the resulting file size, and also see a preview of what that compression is doing to your jpg. When you save a file, be sure to click the box to look at advanced options, make sure preview is on, and watch the numbers for your file size vs your compression. 85% compression quality is usually pretty good and I think that’s the default, but you can play with it and see how it affects both file size and image quality. Very handy.
I take a two-fold approach. I save a 640xWhatever on my fileserver, then clicky-pop to the high-res at flickr to use their bandwidth instead of mine.
I found this one too late for the contest:
Weird Roots by pjern, on Flickr
Silverstag, the colors in these pictures are amazing! What a crazy, magical place that is.
I found this one too late for the contest:
Weird Roots by pjern, on Flickr
Silverstag, the colors in these pictures are amazing! What a crazy, magical place that is.
Yeah, it was riotous. Unfortunately, I was under time pressure, and jumped out of my truck (air-conditioned to within an inch of subzero) out into a hundred degrees and a thousand percent humidity, and spend more time wiping condensation from glass than actually shooting. It was nuts, and most of my files from that morning have focus or haze artifacts from that.
(yes, I overstate the temperature/humidity thing. It was about maybe 85, and had been raining, and was misty, and my lens had been right in front of an A/C vent for 2 hours. Some days, you just shoot yourself in the foot.)
SilverStag – That’s a cool shot. You could always use it for Autumn II in a few weeks.
Yeah, it was riotous. Unfortunately, I was under time pressure, and jumped out of my truck (air-conditioned to within an inch of subzero) out into a hundred degrees and a thousand percent humidity, and spend more time wiping condensation from glass than actually shooting. It was nuts, and most of my files from that morning have focus or haze artifacts from that.
(yes, I overstate the temperature/humidity thing. It was about maybe 85, and had been raining, and was misty, and my lens had been right in front of an A/C vent for 2 hours. Some days, you just shoot yourself in the foot.)
Living in AZ my entire life, I’ve never seen anything like that, the lavender that pops out is amazing. So thanks for going nuts and sharing it with us! 😀
A little late to chime in on the sizing thing, but… I rarely re-size in DPP, other than the convert-and-save (and sometimes cropping). Then I use gimp to scale images and drop the quality down to 91% or so, which gets me a file size of anywhere from 60-150 depending on the size (dimensions) of the pictures. Personally I can’t perceive the quality loss at that level on a computer screen. The smaller numbers are for what I post inline, the larger numbers are for what I link. Yeah, the linked ones don’t have to meet the posting file size requirements, but they generally do anyway.
Definitely sounds like a flickr thing. Flickr and I never learned how to get along. I was using photobucket before I switched to just using our own server… which I realize is a luxury that isn’t available to everyone. 😉 Even photobucket is annoying. But seriously, wtf is up with adding file size to your files?! Fliiicckrrrrrr? You’ve got some ‘splaining to do!
It’s because they take your original file, then make a variety of smaller images from that file, from thumbnail size up through large. In the process of resizing and saving these smaller images, they’re compressing/re-compressing, but because it’s a site for photo geeks, they err on the side of higher quality compression (read: less lossy), which results in much larger file sizes than it otherwise would. If you’re uploading a Fark size image as your original, it isn’t much of a problem since you can just grab the original size to link with/to. The problem comes in if you’re banking on Flickr’s resizing to save you a step for posting to Fark when you want to just upload a full size photo to Flickr. The pixel/file size maximum is a Fark thing that’s outside of Flickr’s knowledge or control. It’s otherwise a decent arrangement that preserves photo quality while giving you various size options to use when posting to other sites.
- The topic ‘10-27-10 – He’s a Fun Guy’ is closed to new replies.
.
