Size of photos allowed

[nerdsforprez]

Okay, we all know the size rule of photos.  No larger than 1000 in any dimension.  It has been a long time since I fiddled with photos, and camera/phones these days take huge photos.  So in resizing some photos I took of a build I recently did I noticed a decrease in quality.   I am not using anything fancy.  I have tried various photos apps in my phone, various microsoft apps, etc.  All decrease the photo quality.  

Does it matter what software you use to resize images?  I tried also the built-in features in Flickr and I saw the same results.  I have used GIMP in the past, but not recently.  I did not notice such decrease in quality in GIMP.  Should I download GIMP again?  Is it necessary to use some high-powered, or at least with more power, software to down-size images so as to not lose quality?  Took quite some time and effort to get good quality phots, I would hate to lose some quality. 

[Alexandrina]

I can only speak to GIMP, since that's what I use anyway, but I've found that decreasing the size of images is all in the settings used. GIMP is good for reducing the dimensions of an image while retaining quality even with default settings (I personally use linear interpolation rather than the default cubic, since cubic does a number on the smallest graphics for Football Manager games! ) but I always make sure to export at the highest quality. It's possible that other software - particularly web-based apps - use a lossy compression which causes the drop in quality.

[nerdsforprez]

41 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

decreasing the size of images is all in the settings used. GIMP is good for reducing the dimensions of an image while retaining quality even with default settings

I am not sure what you mean here.  Is there a distinction?  Decreasing size of photo versus just the dimensions?  Doesn't decreasing the dimensions automatically mean the size of the file is decreasing as well? 

[Alexandrina]

1 hour ago, nerdsforprez said:

I am not sure what you mean here.  Is there a distinction?  Decreasing size of photo versus just the dimensions?  Doesn't decreasing the dimensions automatically mean the size of the file is decreasing as well? 

Yes, but depending on the algorithm used to decrease the dimensions, the results will be different. Say you're halving each dimension - you can effectively break the image into 2x2 squares of pixels which need to be merged into one pixel, and the result if you have say the bottom right pixel of every square is going to differ from the result if the software averaged out all the pixels in the square. 

[nerdsforprez]

This makes sense I think.  So instead of specifying my dimensions perhaps I just need to play with resizing parameters.  New computer coming this week....I'll play with things.  This for the feedback...

[MKJoshA]

Have you tried hosting a photo on Bricksafe? I've put a lot more photos there since Flickr dropped the number of photos I can upload. They seem to retain quality while decrease size when you pick a smaller dimension to display your photo at. Here's an example with the longest side at 640:

[Toastie]

On 3/16/2021 at 2:17 PM, nerdsforprez said:

So instead of specifying my dimensions perhaps I just need to play with resizing parameters.

Ever played with IrfanView? (https://www.irfanview.com/)

Public domain (well, I donated), blistering fast. You can either resize or resample and upon saving set the file size. There is batch processing and numerous more options.

Very little memory demand and overhead. Nice plugins - should you be wanting to going crazy.

And as said: For free.

Best
Thorsten

 

 

[nerdsforprez]

Thank you both for your responses.  I will look into both irfanview and bricksafe.  I am w/o computer right now as my old one died... but I have ordered a new one and it arrives tomorrow so your responses come at a great time!

 

Cheers!

 

 

[Generaltrons bricks]

Um... I may have missed domething somewhere but the allowed size keeps dropping with each pic i post.... Is there a daily limit???

[Toastie]

53 minutes ago, Generaltrons bricks said:

Is there a daily limit???

Yes. Because you are challenging The Limit 

You need to find a "space", where you can store your pictures - other than on EB that is. There are many options.

Then, in your posts on EB, you >link< to the pictures stored elsewhere. Thus, the EB site does not need to allocate unpredictable amounts of picture storage space; all there is, is essentially "text". A link is about 50 bytes, whereas a picture may well exceed a couple of Mbytes.

Best
Thorsten

 

[TeriXeri]

I like that this site offers option to scale down linked images (double click on them when posting)

For example , this is the same image linked from Brickset in 50 - 100 - 150 pixel resize (the original is 1024 wide and you can still click on it to view it).

 

For quick uploads I usually post at imgur, but I don't really use that for albums/long term storage.

Edited July 17, 2021 by TeriXeri

[MRYJ]

On 3/17/2021 at 11:52 PM, MKJoshA said:

Have you tried hosting a photo on Bricksafe? I've put a lot more photos there since Flickr dropped the number of photos I can upload. They seem to retain quality while decrease size when you pick a smaller dimension to display your photo at. Here's an example with the longest side at 640:

oh yeah! Bricksafe is wondeful~~ the photo size limit is just ridiculers

[jxu]

Imgur seems to be safe for long term storage (I don't think they've deleted any images yet like Photobucket hosting has)

[CarloDavis]

On 12/23/2022 at 3:09 AM, MRYJ said:

oh yeah! Bricksafe is wondeful~~ the photo size limit is just ridiculers

Simply amazing

[CarloDavis]

 I'm preparing work on this subject. Additionally, I discovered cinco de mayo vector, which was helpful for planning. When seeking for photographs on any subject, stock material has proven to be a lifesaver.

Edited July 2, 2023 by CarloDavis

[Peppermint_M]

Um. You okay there? A little odd to bump the thread was repeat post.