Image Test Thread

[Steady]

I think the 'Preset 1200 x 900 and 321kb' looks the best to me

 

[RooFlyer]

5184 x 3888 and 4.54MB

(rejected as too big ... is the limit not 5MB?)

Pair 2111 x 782 146kb





4925 x 3694 3.1 MB




Pre set 1200 x 900 238 kb

 

[RooFlyer]

4912 x 1080px 1.65MB



Pre set 1200 x 263 153kb

 

[RooFlyer]

I think the 'Preset 1200 x 900 and 321kb' looks the best to me

I do too; what do others think? Full size or pre-reduced images better?

 

[moa999]

Both are pretty damm similar.
Although the pre-reduced does look slightly better (although is generally twice the file size) - possibly a higher quality compression algorithm is used (the default gd-jpeg seems to be set at 85%)

Note that the EXIF data is retained in your pre-set version including camera type Sony DSC-HX50V and GPS co-ords

 

[Ric]

Because they've all been compressed on the fly to about the same quality.

In fact the 472kb one isn't compressed (as under 1200x100) and retains its EXIF data.
The others are 133, 279 and 52kb respectively (the last one lowest probably as its mostly grey)

Thanks! Now I know!

 

[coriander]

Re Rooflyer's fjiord shots:

To my old eyes, your preset 1200x900 321kb looks sharper/better detailed than 4666 x 3500 px and 3.7MB, though not by much - windows in white building (for central) and detail on summit at top left looks better.(on my desktop 25" Dell Ultrasharp monitor)

 

[coriander]

With the splashy fish photo above - on my desktop it says 1,200px × 794px (scaled to 959px × 635px) and thus enlarges slightly to the full 1200 pxl wide if I click on it.

On my Samsung S8 however, clicking on the image enlarges the image to 1440 pxl wide and compresses all text to left of screen thus:

 

[RooFlyer]

Note that the EXIF data is retained in your pre-set version including camera type Sony DSC-HX50V and GPS co-ords

I saw those comments up-thread. How are you reading those; also the file size, for that matter, off the screen?

I'm hoping EXIF has been removed from these (except, I think for px and size data?)

5081 x 3811 4.6Mb



1200 x 900 421kb




Straight embedding two pics side by side : 600 x 450 173kb and 600 x 450 181kb



The way I used to do it (2 images put into Word side by side and single snipping tool image taken). 2081 x 778 341kb Which is better?

 

[moa999]

How are you reading those; also the file size, for that matter, off the screen?

Browser specific.
I mostly use Firefox, where I can right click for Image Info for file size, and I have an add-on called FxIF Data which allows me to right click for the Exif info

 

[samh004]

Browser specific.
I mostly use Firefox, where I can right click for Image Info for file size, and I have an add-on called FxIF Data which allows me to right click for the Exif info

Whereas I just download them to my computer and get info on the file

I’m a little old fashioned!

 

[whatmeworry]

Some of the gifs are not uploading for some reason.

 

[moa999]

I suspect animated gifs don't compress that well.

Personally I'm quite happy about that.