What size and quality for e-mailing photos?

teamplayer · 08-03-2011, 05:05 AM

Cheers also, tibbitts, colbyt, and icejam. I actually have Flickr and Picassa accounts, and do use also.

As for why a K5 - the simple reason is that I was made redundant, and with a lot of my payment having to go on rent, bills etc., I had a lump sum to spend on something to cheer me up. I had indeed been researching DSLRs of a lower capability for the previous year, and even then hadn't quite got the cash to spare, so I seized the opportunity to treat myself, upgrade, and give myself a camera that I could learn on, grow into, and which I wouldn't need to upgrade in a year or two's time.

I am aware it's over-specced, but if I won the lottery, I wouldn't still drive around in a Ford Fiesta, but probably treat myself to something a little more capable, even if I still drove roughly the same routes! It's all about possibilities!

And I will clarify that my question was only about this particular instance, with my somewhat technophonic family (without online photo-sharing applications) all clamouring for my photos to send around to their friends etc., and me just needing to sort that issue asap. I would have snapped them on my phone, and done it that way, but none of them have a camera phone, so what can I do? So I was just curious about the quality system itself, and also find it useful knowing how others shoot.

More generally, I do indeed plan to be shooting on varying quality levels, blowing up, and printing shots. I am piled high with books from the K5 ebook to 'Understanding Exposure', and got plenty of time to read them!

I am also aware that there are many great photographers using a less specced kit than me, and who will always get better shots from it. I just took the chance to future-proof myself, and that's what's great about this forum - there's very little passing judgement. Just a job lot of very helpful people - hopefully all making everyone else better photographers!

teamplayer · 08-03-2011, 05:10 AM

And I do have other cameras, including a low end Canon DSLR and a Sony point-and-press, but I had grand ideas with the baby pictures - I imagined they might be blown up one day. But for now, they wanted them e-mailed around. Got to give the people what they want!

**Schraubstock** · 08-03-2011, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by asp1880

I guess you're right, I don't NEED a K-5. But I want one, that's different.
I also have a K-x and I can get the same shots from that one, I just have to work a little harder and be more anticipating when shooting, because operation is slower (more menu diving, fewer buttons - K-5 hyper P is awesome!). I also have a p&s and I can get good shots from that one too, but that's really hard work and a lot of frustration.

I enjoy the facial expressions, composition, mood and colour of my images, not the resolution. I also enjoy the shooting experience, and the K-5 soundly trumps everything else there. As I said, I'm not an artist. Maybe you are.

Sincerely,
--Anders.

Just read my post back to myself and it sounds perhaps a bit offensive. Please be assured it was not meant this way. It just appeared to me you might perhaps be better off with a less complex camera. (And save some money in the process)

Greetings

Colbyt · 08-03-2011, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by teamplayer

And I will clarify that my question was only about this particular instance, with my somewhat technophonic family (without online photo-sharing applications) all clamouring for my photos to send around to their friends etc.,

Then I would resize them to no more than 800 pixels and compress them to about 80% using Photoshop.

If you don't have or want PS, pixresizer, a free download works great also on a windows machine. It can do one file or an entire directory with just a couple of clicks.

GerryL · 08-03-2011, 04:28 PM

It would be hard to email images since there is required limit for the total attachment size.
Been there and done that.
My advice would be to just get a Kodak Gallery account.
You can share your photos with the Kodak Gallery (just add the email address of who you want to share that album to..the album will be sent to their email and viewed as a slideshow) and they can also order prints from the site itself and pick the images they want printed.
You don't even have to resize to a really small size to a point where they won't be printable like in the case for emails.
With the Kodak Gallery account, as long as you order prints from them of the photos you stored, even for just once a year, you will have some sort of a photo storage site without really paying for the storage.

icejam · 08-03-2011, 11:35 PM

I would still take pictures in full resolution and then resize on the computer, save as a copy and send. That way you have something to work with if you want to print photos later on. If you do not have Photoshop / Paint Shop / etc. or find them too complicated, you could get free IrfanView. It's easy to use and has a batch conversion options. By resizing photos to 1600x1200 it will take about 250kB per photo and with most e-mail account accepting now 20MB you would be able to send 80 pics in single email.

Or as few of us already mentioned - share photos online. All your familly will need to view / save / print an online gallery is a web browser.

Edit:
you can download IrfanView here

Philoslothical · 08-04-2011, 12:27 AM

Not to start any silly flame wars about email clients/services, but Yahoo mail is part of your problem. Others like Gmail are a lot more tolerant on file sizes, and I have never managed to crash the page. As someone else suggested, uploading them to a website (Flickr, 500px, heck even imgur if it's not private stuff) and emailing links either to individual pics or whole albums would be MUCH easier for you. You could then email the same link to the same album to multiple people in a fraction of the time, and only have to upload the images themselves once.

cats_five · 08-04-2011, 02:17 AM

Originally posted by icejam

...
resizing photos to 1600x1200
...

I would go for 800 x 600. Most screens are too small to display 1600 x 1200 full-size.

08-03-2011, 05:05 AM	#16
teamplayer Inactive Account Join Date: May 2011 Location: London Posts: 14 Original Poster	K5 - the reasoning Cheers also, tibbitts, colbyt, and icejam. I actually have Flickr and Picassa accounts, and do use also. As for why a K5 - the simple reason is that I was made redundant, and with a lot of my payment having to go on rent, bills etc., I had a lump sum to spend on something to cheer me up. I had indeed been researching DSLRs of a lower capability for the previous year, and even then hadn't quite got the cash to spare, so I seized the opportunity to treat myself, upgrade, and give myself a camera that I could learn on, grow into, and which I wouldn't need to upgrade in a year or two's time. I am aware it's over-specced, but if I won the lottery, I wouldn't still drive around in a Ford Fiesta, but probably treat myself to something a little more capable, even if I still drove roughly the same routes! It's all about possibilities! And I will clarify that my question was only about this particular instance, with my somewhat technophonic family (without online photo-sharing applications) all clamouring for my photos to send around to their friends etc., and me just needing to sort that issue asap. I would have snapped them on my phone, and done it that way, but none of them have a camera phone, so what can I do? So I was just curious about the quality system itself, and also find it useful knowing how others shoot. More generally, I do indeed plan to be shooting on varying quality levels, blowing up, and printing shots. I am piled high with books from the K5 ebook to 'Understanding Exposure', and got plenty of time to read them! I am also aware that there are many great photographers using a less specced kit than me, and who will always get better shots from it. I just took the chance to future-proof myself, and that's what's great about this forum - there's very little passing judgement. Just a job lot of very helpful people - hopefully all making everyone else better photographers!

08-03-2011, 05:10 AM	#17
teamplayer Inactive Account Join Date: May 2011 Location: London Posts: 14 Original Poster	Oh... And I do have other cameras, including a low end Canon DSLR and a Sony point-and-press, but I had grand ideas with the baby pictures - I imagined they might be blown up one day. But for now, they wanted them e-mailed around. Got to give the people what they want!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Aspect ratio - printing original size photos	bmoore013	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	3	06-14-2010 06:12 AM
What's the largest size I can print photos from k-x?	hockmasm	Pentax DSLR Discussion	11	05-05-2010 12:04 PM
What is better 10M / or 6M / * for normal size photos ?	brosen	Pentax DSLR Discussion	4	10-14-2009 07:01 PM
Sample size of photos to email	jbrowning	Photographic Industry and Professionals	12	08-24-2009 08:24 PM
PPL: JPEG quality vs compression vs size	wasim_altaf	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	4	08-13-2009 03:13 PM

08-03-2011, 06:19 AM	#18
Schraubstock Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,386	Originally posted by asp1880 I guess you're right, I don't NEED a K-5. But I want one, that's different. I also have a K-x and I can get the same shots from that one, I just have to work a little harder and be more anticipating when shooting, because operation is slower (more menu diving, fewer buttons - K-5 hyper P is awesome!). I also have a p&s and I can get good shots from that one too, but that's really hard work and a lot of frustration. I enjoy the facial expressions, composition, mood and colour of my images, not the resolution. I also enjoy the shooting experience, and the K-5 soundly trumps everything else there. As I said, I'm not an artist. Maybe you are. Sincerely, --Anders. Just read my post back to myself and it sounds perhaps a bit offensive. Please be assured it was not meant this way. It just appeared to me you might perhaps be better off with a less complex camera. (And save some money in the process) Greetings

08-03-2011, 04:16 PM	#19
Colbyt Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Central Kentucky Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,418	Originally posted by teamplayer And I will clarify that my question was only about this particular instance, with my somewhat technophonic family (without online photo-sharing applications) all clamouring for my photos to send around to their friends etc., Then I would resize them to no more than 800 pixels and compress them to about 80% using Photoshop. If you don't have or want PS, pixresizer, a free download works great also on a windows machine. It can do one file or an entire directory with just a couple of clicks.

08-03-2011, 04:28 PM	#20
GerryL Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: CA Posts: 2,731	It would be hard to email images since there is required limit for the total attachment size. Been there and done that. My advice would be to just get a Kodak Gallery account. You can share your photos with the Kodak Gallery (just add the email address of who you want to share that album to..the album will be sent to their email and viewed as a slideshow) and they can also order prints from the site itself and pick the images they want printed. You don't even have to resize to a really small size to a point where they won't be printable like in the case for emails. With the Kodak Gallery account, as long as you order prints from them of the photos you stored, even for just once a year, you will have some sort of a photo storage site without really paying for the storage.

08-03-2011, 11:35 PM	#21
icejam Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Lancs Posts: 30	I would still take pictures in full resolution and then resize on the computer, save as a copy and send. That way you have something to work with if you want to print photos later on. If you do not have Photoshop / Paint Shop / etc. or find them too complicated, you could get free IrfanView. It's easy to use and has a batch conversion options. By resizing photos to 1600x1200 it will take about 250kB per photo and with most e-mail account accepting now 20MB you would be able to send 80 pics in single email. Or as few of us already mentioned - share photos online. All your familly will need to view / save / print an online gallery is a web browser. Edit: you can download IrfanView here

08-04-2011, 12:27 AM	#22
Philoslothical Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 1,889	Not to start any silly flame wars about email clients/services, but Yahoo mail is part of your problem. Others like Gmail are a lot more tolerant on file sizes, and I have never managed to crash the page. As someone else suggested, uploading them to a website (Flickr, 500px, heck even imgur if it's not private stuff) and emailing links either to individual pics or whole albums would be MUCH easier for you. You could then email the same link to the same album to multiple people in a fraction of the time, and only have to upload the images themselves once.

08-04-2011, 02:17 AM	#23
cats_five Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Fife, Scotland Posts: 835	Originally posted by icejam ... resizing photos to 1600x1200 ... I would go for 800 x 600. Most screens are too small to display 1600 x 1200 full-size.