[photolady95]

Then looking at them after uploading from photobucket, I notice there is a lot of noise in the photos. I use irfanview to make jpgs, compression is 100% quality. This is film or prints not digital camera shots. Also I get a lot of comments about the photos not being full size, even though the sizes range from 950 pixels x 1400 pixels or larger.

What do these members mean when they say not full size. And also, how can you upload full size photos?

[Lowell Goudge]

I use PSP X2 and re-size to between 20 and 40% depending on whether I am posting from my *istD, K10D or K7D. I use the Bi Cubic interpolation to get smooth edges on the re-sized image.

this cuts the file size down and also limits the ability of others to use my image and do a lot with it.

[photolady95]

What is the dpi size on yours when you cut them down?

I keep mine at 600dpi, file size in mb is between 1.2gb and 600mb.

I use photoshop elements before importing to Irfanview. I know that on the web photos don't look any better at 600dpi than they do 96dpi. Or so they say.

Check in this thread:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photo-critique/66475-red-gladiloa-turns-o...tml#post668607

The first one I uploaded was full of noise, then the last one I posted isn't. The last one was saved as jpg in Photoshop Elements, where the first one was done in Irfanview.

Until my photos get better, sharp and crisp like those I've seen in here, I'm not worried that someone will use them for their means besides, I still have the negative. When they get that far, they won't be on the web where they can get downloaded.

[MJB DIGITAL]

i quit using photobucket because it messes with the photos. i use flickr now. because i am a wedding photographer, no one can really 'steal' em because they are other people's wedding photos.
a landscape or product photog might want to steer clear, but i love flickr..its GREAT! 8)

[photolady95]

I'm not sure what you mean by messing with the photos.

I've know I've never had a problem with uploading here with photobucket. But I have seen the broken links from flickr here. And I just don't like yahoo.

[K McCall]

I'm not familiar with photobucket, but my guess is that it does its own compressing in order to save room on its servers. That might be what the above poster was referring to as "messing with photos."

The broken links you're referring to aren't flickr's fault. Any time a user replaces or deletes a photo, the link they used here will be "broken" because there's no photo at that address any more.

[photolady95]

That may be on the compression but I didn't think so. As for this statement

Any time a user replaces or deletes a photo, the link they used here will be "broken" because there's no photo at that address any more.

That does the same thing in any photo hosting site. Even on photobucket. However, I was talking about members here having a hard time loading photos and the links not working correctly. Even Ash had a problem the other day. And he's not the only one with problem.

But I don't have that problem and as far as I can remember, never did have a problem. And my not liking Yahoo goes a long way back to some stupid idea they had about me being under 13 and cancelling my account when I wouldn't give them my credit card to verify my age.

What is the dpi size on yours when you cut them down?

I keep mine at 600dpi, file size in mb is between 1.2gb and 600mb.

I use photoshop elements before importing to Irfanview. I know that on the web photos don't look any better at 600dpi than they do 96dpi. Or so they say.

Check in this thread:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photo-critique/66475-red-gladiloa-turns-o...tml#post668607

The first one I uploaded was full of noise, then the last one I posted isn't. The last one was saved as jpg in Photoshop Elements, where the first one was done in Irfanview.

Until my photos get better, sharp and crisp like those I've seen in here, I'm not worried that someone will use them for their means besides, I still have the negative. When they get that far, they won't be on the web where they can get downloaded.

You don't need 600 dpi. If you scan at 300 and so long as you're not going to enlarge it from your scan your wasting electrons and drive space. Since you're going from a print I assume you have the negative. If you ever wanted it printed larger just use the neg. Unless of course you do post on it.

[Lowell Goudge]

What is the dpi size on yours when you cut them down?

I keep mine at 600dpi, file size in mb is between 1.2gb and 600mb.

I use photoshop elements before importing to Irfanview. I know that on the web photos don't look any better at 600dpi than they do 96dpi. Or so they say.

Check in this thread:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photo-critique/66475-red-gladiloa-turns-o...tml#post668607

The first one I uploaded was full of noise, then the last one I posted isn't. The last one was saved as jpg in Photoshop Elements, where the first one was done in Irfanview.

Until my photos get better, sharp and crisp like those I've seen in here, I'm not worried that someone will use them for their means besides, I still have the negative. When they get that far, they won't be on the web where they can get downloaded.

I don't deal with DPI because theat is a print function. deal with number of pixles. when I resize I resize to 20-40% of origonal pixel count in each direction, this makes for nice small images,

[RollsUp]

Are you using the free version of Photobucket? If so, it has a 1 MB file limit. So when you upload any photos over 1 MB they will be downsized to 1 MB.

[photolady95]

Lowell, that's because you have a digital camera and I have negatives I have to scan in, which asks what dpi I want to scan them at. This is why I deal with dpi.

Rollsup, thanks. I didn't realize they compressed them down to 1mb sizes. I'll sure have to rethink my photo hosting site. That's just.......um.....bad!!

graphic, I'm not worried about drive space, I have plenty in my computer. Besides, every month or so, I burn them to DVDs. But I heard, somewhere, the higher the dpi scan, the better quality the photo. And that was said on this website. I don't know who said it, but it was said in a thread here. I believe it was question from a member about which dpi to use when scanning negatives.

And I do print them occasionally. Mounted and framed.

[Lowell Goudge]

Lowell, that's because you have a digital camera and I have negatives I have to scan in, which asks what dpi I want to scan them at. This is why I deal with dpi.

Rollsup, thanks. I didn't realize they compressed them down to 1mb sizes. I'll sure have to rethink my photo hosting site. That's just.......um.....bad!!

graphic, I'm not worried about drive space, I have plenty in my computer. Besides, every month or so, I burn them to DVDs. But I heard, somewhere, the higher the dpi scan, the better quality the photo. And that was said on this website. I don't know who said it, but it was said in a thread here. I believe it was question from a member about which dpi to use when scanning negatives.

And I do print them occasionally. Mounted and framed.

OK now I understand.

I use 2880 dpi for all my scans. This generates a 10MP scan which is what I use to store all my film shots. From there, if I am going to post, I re-size downwards, as I have described, usually to 25% of origonal, if it is a full frame shot.

If I am dealing with a crop, I do less reduction, in order to get the finished shot down to about 1000 pixels wide by 800 high (depending on crop ratio) but again, I always think in pixels, once the shot is inside my PC.

PSP X2 lets you use any units you want, for the image, pixels, or linear measurement at the printing resolution you specify

[photolady95]

Ok, understood now Lowell. In PSE I can use all those you use to reduce or enlarge my scans too. I just never thought to reduce the size by percentages. I guess I need think pixels instead of inches. And you don't reduce the scanned dpi size through all this?

OK now I understand.

I use 2880 dpi for all my scans. This generates a 10MP scan which is what I use to store all my film shots. From there, if I am going to post, I re-size downwards, as I have described, usually to 25% of origonal, if it is a full frame shot.

If I am dealing with a crop, I do less reduction, in order to get the finished shot down to about 1000 pixels wide by 800 high (depending on crop ratio) but again, I always think in pixels, once the shot is inside my PC.

PSP X2 lets you use any units you want, for the image, pixels, or linear measurement at the printing resolution you specify

I've never had to scan anything that high. And this is what I do for a living. If you're going to print it (on a printing press) or go to a toner based digital output or even a high end inkjet 300 at the finished size is really all you need. even the large format stuff is 300dpi at finished size.

[photolady95]

Then why does my printer state it will print more than at 300dpi? I know, prints from labs are only 300dpi. Guess I could print something at 300 and something at 2800 and see what the difference is, eh?