# photos ? graphic problem



## SherrieC (Aug 24, 2002)

What kind of program do I need to cut down on the intensive Graphics of my photo's. I have a new digital camera, and it takes 10 mins to upload a photo jpg. to my images, then they are soooooo long to load on the page. I want people to be able to Quickly see a photo, not wait so long they give up.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Change the resolution setting on the camera to a lower setting. You can also do it on pics already stored on your computer.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/digitalphotography/learnmore/resolution.mspx

The higher settings are only needed for prints . Lower settings do fine for posting , and you can get more pics on your memory card


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

You can get a lot better control of photo sizes with a digital photo editor, since you can reduce the size to anything you want. There are a few free photo editors available. A good free basic photo editor is Irfanview:

http://www.irfanview.com/

For a more advanced free photo editor, there is a Photoshop clone called GIMPShop available for free:

http://plasticbugs.com/index.php?p=241

GIMPShop can be downloaded for Windows, Linux, Mac, or OS X. You can learn more about the various versions and where to download them for free at this link:

http://plasticbugs.com/?page_id=294

GIMPShop for Windows is less than 8 megabytes, perhaps only a 45 minute download for dialup users. Here is the Windows version download link :

http://www.plasticbugs.com/blogimg/gimpshop_2.2.8_fix1_setup.exe

I normally reduce my digital photos for emailing or posting on the Internet to between 60K and 80K. That's usually enough resolution for most casual work. Remember, it is considered rude to send email attachments of over 100K without making prior arrangements, particularly when you are sending attachments to dialup users.

I hate it when some clueless AOLer sends me a 5 megabyte scanned photo of their dog or garden, and they never know what I'm talking about when I suggest they reduce the image size. Geesh!


----------



## Gary in ohio (May 11, 2002)

If you dont want the big picture to start with then dont take it, You can greatly improve the number of pix you can take by dropping the resolution back. I only run full rez when I know I will be printing the image.

If you want to keep everything hirez then 
http://www.irfanview.com/ is the tool to quickly resize an image.


----------



## SherrieC (Aug 24, 2002)

Thank you I'll have to find my Camera's instruction book, because when I looked at it's menu, thats where it said to find resolution adj. 
I have found it now on my stored photo's on the computor. 

Sherrie


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Gary in ohio said:


> If you dont want the big picture to start with then dont take it, You can greatly improve the number of pix you can take by dropping the resolution back. I only run full rez when I know I will be printing the image.


It's true that you have a lot more storage capacity when you use low res when you don't need it, but when I take photos at the lowest resolution my digital camera will take (640 x 480) the images are still around 250K. That still a lot larger than I want to use on a web page or to email as an attachment. To get the images down to around 60K you'll still need photo editing software.

But that brings up an interesting point. When someone purchases a digital camera specifically to create images to be used on the Internet (on a web page, in an eBay auction, to post in a forum, to email as an attachment, etc.) it isn't necessary to spend a lot of money on a digital camera. If you are going to take your photos are a low resolution anyway, you won't benefit by buying a super high resolution digital camera. 

Certainly, even a 3 to 5 megapixel digital camera is many times higher resolution that what's necessary to take photos for Internet use, and a camera of that resolution can still take terrific photos for making 3x5, or even 4x6, color prints. Digital cameras in the 3 to 5 megapixel range can be found for around $50.

http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=IAI-KR50&cat=CAM
http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=AIPTEK-4000&cat=CAM

It does seem, however, that when I take a photo at high resolution and reduce it to about 60K with photo editing software that I get a better image product than if I take the photo at lower resolution and reduce it to 60K. I suspect that's because when more pixels are used in the original photo that more lighting is available to create the reduced photo.


----------



## giffy (Jul 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> It does seem, however, that when I take a photo at high resolution and reduce it to about 60K with photo editing software that I get a better image product than if I take the photo at lower resolution and reduce it to 60K. I suspect that's because when more pixels are used in the original photo that more lighting is available to create the reduced photo.


The good thing too about taking high resolution photos is that if you crop out a large portion of a photo you will still get a decent picture. Also the high resolution photos always print better............I also use IRfanview, good freeware program. I take all my photos at the highest quality possible and save them as originals, photos for email and the web are reduced in size greatly........as a dialup user I know how important that is!  

giffy

-------------
GiffsFarm


----------



## chuckhole (Mar 2, 2006)

Taking my photos at 1 megapixels works great for me. I have even printed some of my photos on 11"x17" and they still look good.


----------



## Rocky Fields (Jan 24, 2007)

Hey.

Usually when you buy a digital camera it is bundled with some sort of photo program... check the disc(s) that came with the camera.


----------

