OT web pages

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 12:01:02 -0700, Penny S <[email hidden]> penned:

Quoted message said:

I'm in the process of redoingsome of my persoanal pages, and I have a general question for whoever
wants to pipe up:

for photo album viewing, is page of thumbnails that link to images preferable to a page with let's
say, a half dozen or so medium size photos?

penny

I just figured out, sort of ( d'oh) the automated weg gallery part of photoshop...

thanks...

It depends on how you're doing it.

If you're just using the html to resize the image, then the viewer still has to wait for the
full-sized picture to be downloaded, so there's not much point in a thumbnail (from a bandwidth
perspective, anyway).

If you have thumbnail-size images stored on your server (fastest), or if you are using a dynamic
language to create thumbnail-size images that you're then passing down (depending on the server and
number of images, probably fast enough), then thumbnails are probably best. That way, your viewer
can decide which pictures they really want to see.

Me, I admit to being too lazy for any thumbnail approach -- I name my images and have a PHP script
search through the directories, using the filenames as the links. There are many "album"-type
applications out there for free, if you can use PHP, perl, etc on your server, but so far I haven't
liked any of them well enough to use them.

--
monique Please respond to the group OR to my email, but not both. (Group preferred.)

Quoted message said:

Me, I admit to being too lazy for any thumbnail approach -- I name my images and have a PHP script
search through the directories, using the filenames as the links. There are many "album"-type
applications out there for free, if you can use PHP, perl, etc on your server, but so far I
haven't liked any of them well enough to use them.

I wrote the .aspx components for the gallery on my site. You just plop the components and pictures
in a folder and it does all the rest, with server side image scaling (don't download the whole image
to the browser) and a slideshow.

Problems with it are it requires .net hosting and a good server (hostonce servers must be
underclocked 286s)

Here's an example of what it does: johnnyhouse.comgallery.aspOpen ↗

You're free to use the code if you'd like.

John Harlow said:

I wrote the .aspx components for the gallery on my site. You just plop the components and pictures
in a folder and it does all the rest, with server side image scaling (don't download the whole
image to the browser) and a slideshow.

Problems with it are it requires .net hosting and a good server (hostonce servers must be
underclocked 286s)

Another "problem," from a photography standpoint, is that the thumbnails get really soft because
they aren't sharpened after reduction.

pete fagerlin

::Revolutionary! Evolutionary! Yet so retro! :www.yestubes.com

"Penny S" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm in the process of redoingsome of my persoanal pages, and I have a general question for whoever
wants to pipe up:

for photo album viewing, is page of thumbnails that link to images preferable to a page with let's
say, a half dozen or so medium size

photos?

Quoted message said:

penny

I just figured out, sort of ( d'oh) the automated weg gallery part of photoshop...

thanks...

Depends, If it's just a bunch of photos dumped on a page then thumbnails are the way to go, but if
the photos are used to illustrate text I'd rather see medium sized ones with a link to larger.

Chris

Penny S said:

I'm in the process of redoingsome of my persoanal pages, and I have a general question for whoever
wants to pipe up:

for photo album viewing, is page of thumbnails that link to images preferable to a page with let's
say, a half dozen or so medium size photos?

Yes, this is usually better. For people with limited bandwidth, even medium size photos can be quite
painful to download... I've been on broadband for years, but still find accessing graphics heavy
sites in the US quite slow.

Sam

Quoted message said:

penny

I just figured out, sort of ( d'oh) the automated weg gallery part of photoshop...

thanks...

"John Harlow" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Me, I admit to being too lazy for any thumbnail approach -- I name my images and have a PHP
script search through the directories, using the filenames as the links. There are many
"album"-type applications out there for free, if you can use PHP, perl, etc on your server, but
so far I haven't liked any of them well enough to use them.

I wrote the .aspx components for the gallery on my site. You just plop

the

Quoted message said:

components and pictures in a folder and it does all the rest, with server side image scaling
(don't download the whole image to the browser) and a slideshow.

Problems with it are it requires .net hosting and a good server (hostonce servers must be
underclocked 286s)

Here's an example of what it does: johnnyhouse.comgallery.aspOpen ↗

I can't get that page to load, but coencidentally, I was thinking I needed to write something like
that just last night. If I could pilfer your code, that would be wonderful.

Matt

Penny S said:

for photo album viewing, is page of thumbnails that link to images preferable to a page with let's
say, a half dozen or so medium size photos?

Well, I'll be the different one here. Thumbies are nice when the photos are of very different
content, but for riding pics they're not particularly worth the trouble. What would be nicer
is something that can page through a group of pictures so you don't have to go back, click on
the thumb, go back, click on the thumb, etc etc. There are free software packages that can
generate these.

Maybe if I had dial-up I'd feel different. :-)

--
-BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

BB scrawled in bright red lipstick:

Quoted message said:

Penny S said:

for photo album viewing, is page of thumbnails that link to images preferable to a page with
let's say, a half dozen or so medium size photos?

Well, I'll be the different one here. Thumbies are nice when the photos are of very different
content, but for riding pics they're not particularly worth the trouble. What would be nicer is
something that can page through a group of pictures so you don't have to go back, click on the
thumb, go back, click on the thumb,

slideshow format?

etc etc. There are

Quoted message said:

free software packages that can generate these.

like....

Quoted message said:

Maybe if I had dial-up I'd feel different. :-)

don't we all?

Penny

John Harlow scrawled in bright red lipstick:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Me, I admit to being too lazy for any thumbnail approach -- I name my images and have a PHP
script search through the directories, using the filenames as the links. There are many
"album"-type applications out there for free, if you can use PHP, perl, etc on your server, but
so far I haven't liked any of them well enough to use them.

I wrote the .aspx components for the gallery on my site. You just plop the components and pictures
in a folder and it does all the rest, with server side image scaling (don't download the whole
image to the browser) and a slideshow.

Problems with it are it requires .net hosting and a good server (hostonce servers must be
underclocked 286s)

Here's an example of what it does: johnnyhouse.comgallery.aspOpen ↗

You're free to use the code if you'd like.

Why are your photos bitmaps instead of jpegs? I'd think the file size qould me smaller if you used
.jpg format... and Pete's right, they are really soft.

Penny

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 12:43:34 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n <[email hidden]> penned:

Quoted message said:

Another "problem," from a photography standpoint, is that the thumbnails get really soft because
they aren't sharpened after reduction.

pete fagerlin

Soft? Sharp? What does this mean? Examples?

(I bet there's a command-line image manipulation app that will probably do whatever "sharpening" is,
so you could run it through your dynamic code, but I don't know enough to say.)

--
monique Please respond to the group OR to my email, but not both. (Group preferred.)

Monique Y. Herman scrawled in bright red lipstick:

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 12:43:34 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n <[email hidden]> penned:

Quoted message said:

Another "problem," from a photography standpoint, is that the thumbnails get really soft because
they aren't sharpened after reduction.

pete fagerlin

Soft? Sharp? What does this mean? Examples?

I believe he's talking about Photoshop manipulations.

Penny

Quoted message said:

(I bet there's a command-line image manipulation app that will probably do whatever "sharpening"
is, so you could run it through your dynamic code, but I don't know enough to say.)

"Penny S" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm in the process of redoingsome of my persoanal pages, and I have a general question for whoever
wants to pipe up:

for photo album viewing, is page of thumbnails that link to images preferable to a page with let's
say, a half dozen or so medium size

photos?

Quoted message said:

penny

On cable/dsl, I don't mind medium/full size. But, we have to design for the lowest common
denominator. Dialup, coming from overseas.

Of general ride pics, thumbies are the way to go. For an instructional page (maintenance, etc),
small to medium size, so the reader can get a better sense of what's going on. Maybe preload the
pics on the following pages.

Oh..and make the opening page *fast*.

Pete

Penny S said:

slideshow format?

etc etc. There are

Quoted message said:

free software packages that can generate these.

like....

Microsoft has a halfway decent HTML slideshow generator at
microsoft.compowertoys.aspOpen ↗.

I think I've seen others; I usually go to www.nonags.com for freeware.

--
-BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Here's an example of what it does: johnnyhouse.comgallery.aspOpen ↗

I can't get that page to load, but coencidentally, I was thinking I needed to write something
like that just last night. If I could pilfer your code, that would be wonderful.

Matt

Oh there it is. Must have been a temporary condition. I'd still like to check out the code if I may.
Would save me a little time...

Matt

P e t e F a g e r l i n scrawled in bright red lipstick:

Quoted message said:

John Harlow said:

I wrote the .aspx components for the gallery on my site. You just plop the components and
pictures in a folder and it does all the rest, with server side image scaling (don't download the
whole image to the browser) and a slideshow.

Problems with it are it requires .net hosting and a good server (hostonce servers must be
underclocked 286s)

Another "problem," from a photography standpoint, is that the thumbnails get really soft because
they aren't sharpened after reduction.

Pete, my normal method would be to take an original, create two different files) for a thumbnail and
whatever I decide to put on the web. I use the
PS "save for web" feature what i think it for the two files and keep my originals intact. I use
sharpening only if the web file seems to need it, same with any color/balance adjustments.

I can see where JH's thumbnails are really kind of ... almost pixely... is that because they are
bitmaps instead of jpgs?

It's all a learning process for me. I've just discovered the web album feature of PS 6, and I'm
still trying to figure out how to incorporate it into the other simple stuff I do.

Penny S ( you can email if you want)

Penny S said:

Pete, my normal method would be to take an original, create two

different

Quoted message said:

files) for a thumbnail and whatever I decide to put on the web. I

use the

Quoted message said:

PS "save for web" feature what i think it for the two files and

keep my

Quoted message said:

originals intact. I use sharpening only if the web file seems to

need it,

Quoted message said:

same with any color/balance adjustments.

Compare your original and your image after you've changed the resolution. They file that's been
shrunk usually needs some kind of sharpening.

See examples in my other post.

Quoted message said:

I can see where JH's thumbnails are really kind of ... almost

pixely... is

Quoted message said:

that because they are bitmaps instead of jpgs?

I don't know but bitmaps aren't a good way to share pictures via the web due to their size.

Quoted message said:

It's all a learning process for me. I've just discovered the web

album

Quoted message said:

feature of PS 6, and I'm still trying to figure out how to

incorporate it

Quoted message said:

into the other simple stuff I do.

I can't recall if the web photo album contains an automatic sharpening function. If you decide the
auto-generated thumbs need sharpeniing you can always use the batch command to run the thumnail
folder through a simple open, sharpen, save, close action (search in PS help for "batch" and
"actions"😉

Penny S said:

Monique Y. Herman scrawled in bright red lipstick:

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 12:43:34 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n <[email hidden]> penned:

Quoted message said:

Another "problem," from a photography standpoint, is that the thumbnails get really soft because
they aren't sharpened after reduction.

pete fagerlin

Soft? Sharp? What does this mean? Examples?

I believe he's talking about Photoshop manipulations.

I'm talking about basic photography terms that are used to describe a photo's appearance.

"sharp" as in crisp focus and "soft" as in fuzzy focus.

When pictures are reduced in any image manipulation/editing app they become soft. They need to be
sharpened to lose the fuzzy look.

Examples:

original home.pacbell.netd22.jpgOpen ↗

typical soft thumbnail home.pacbell.netd22t.jpgOpen ↗

Sharpened thumbnail home.pacbell.netd22t1.jpgOpen ↗

"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Penny S said:

Pete, my normal method would be to take an original, create two

different

Quoted message said:

files) for a thumbnail and whatever I decide to put on the web. I

use the

Quoted message said:

PS "save for web" feature what i think it for the two files and

keep my

Quoted message said:

originals intact. I use sharpening only if the web file seems to

need it,

Quoted message said:

same with any color/balance adjustments.

Compare your original and your image after you've changed the resolution. They file that's been
shrunk usually needs some kind of sharpening.

See examples in my other post.

Quoted message said:

I can see where JH's thumbnails are really kind of ... almost

pixely... is

Quoted message said:

that because they are bitmaps instead of jpgs?

I don't know but bitmaps aren't a good way to share pictures via the web due to their size.

Quoted message said:

It's all a learning process for me. I've just discovered the web

album

Quoted message said:

feature of PS 6, and I'm still trying to figure out how to

incorporate it

Quoted message said:

into the other simple stuff I do.

I can't recall if the web photo album contains an automatic sharpening function. If you decide the
auto-generated thumbs need sharpeniing you can always use the batch command to run the thumnail
folder through a simple open, sharpen, save, close action (search in PS help for "batch" and
"actions"😉

Or, do what I do: outline the pic on an Etch-a-sketch, and then e-mail a description of the subject
to your pals.

Bill "guess it's nap time" S.

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:50:33 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n <[email hidden]> penned:

Quoted message said:

I'm talking about basic photography terms that are used to describe a photo's appearance.

"sharp" as in crisp focus and "soft" as in fuzzy focus.

When pictures are reduced in any image manipulation/editing app they become soft. They need to be
sharpened to lose the fuzzy look.

Examples:

original home.pacbell.netd22.jpgOpen ↗

typical soft thumbnail home.pacbell.netd22t.jpgOpen ↗

Sharpened thumbnail home.pacbell.netd22t1.jpgOpen ↗

All is clear now. Thanks for the examples!

--
monique Please respond to the group OR to my email, but not both. (Group preferred.)