I just came back from Japan and have a bazillion pictures I am working with. When I took them off the camera, they were close to 2 MB big (per picture) because they were taken with a 5 mega pixel camera.
I have resized several of the pictures to 640x480 and they average around 135k in size. I did that for posting on my blog so family and friends could see our vacation.
I posted my pics on my photobucket site. Photobucket lets you order customized pictures/calendars et cetera from their site.
Here is may question: If the quality of my pics have been reduced from 2MB to 135k, will there be a significant quality reduction if they print out the pictures for me?
I usually print them off at Wal*mart for 15 cents per picture. I use the original 2MB pictures to print from and the quality is GREAT--and cheaper then film.
I know you can have differences sizes and quality between computers and prints. A 135k 640x480 looks great on my comp. Does anyone know what size in pixels and storage will make for good prints in 4x6, 8x10, and other prints?
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you try to print a 640x480 file on print film, you're definitely going to see a reduction in quality. If you're going to print the photos, you will want to retain as much of the original file size as possible.
I don't know the exact file size conversion between pixels and print size, but generally, more is better. If you have any intention of making prints, save the larger file and make a smaller copy for web use.
With a 5MP camera, you should have no trouble printing your good photos 8x10. You could probably cut the file size about half and still get a decent 4x6, but you really can't go wrong with the larger file size, since it gives you more room to crop, color correct, and so forth without losing too much data.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
The problem is I use Photobucket to store lots of files, but the largest individual picture file you can save is 2 MB (I am a member, 1 MB for non Members).
Since I use it for my blog and need to reduce the size, I guess I can't use photobucket to print pictures. That is fine, I keep my originals. I can continue to use Wal*mart or try making home made custome stuff.
grrarrgh...but thanks for the reply.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Always save the original size photos. Always.
Always.
I do. I have a dedicated 80G external HD for my pics and short video clips from my camera. I also save them on my second 200G Hard Drive.
I use photobucket because I need a place to host pics for my family blog. Plus I really like the layout of photobucket. It is very easy to navigate for my family, and it is easy for me to upload pictures--an easy way to share hundreds of pictures in a nice order.
I just can't use their printing services, since I reduce the picture quality so pictures load faster.
I LOVE Shutterfly!! Thank you for the link. This is exactly what I was looking for. I don't have an inkjet printer. I think ink is too expensive, but I would like to make an occasional project that I can hold in my hand.
Again, thank you for the link!
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a similar thread as what you are ending with here -- how do some of you find the most efficient way of organizing your digital image files? (mack?)
On my drive, I didn't start out with any idea of a "system" because I didn't realize I would have so darn many photos. So under "My Pictures" I just have tons of sub-directories. And for each sub-directory, there is usually another sub-folder that I use for edited/change/compressed/re-sized versions of the originals in that folder.
So, for instance - I have a folder that says "Picnic_May2006" and under there a folder that just says "web" and those are the ones I've resized for putting up on the web or sending via e-mail to others in a lower-resolution version.
But now I'm kinda overwhelmed with folders and images, and truthfully I haven't really backed up much of any of it, because I don't seem to have a good, systematic approach.
posted
The best way would likely be some sort of photo-management software, along the lines of what iPhoto does on OS X. Lets see . . . Adobe Lightroom should have a windows beta out soon. Oh, but better for you would probably be Picasa, I've heard good things about that.
Yeah, I'd try out Picasa. Also, you'll find you think less about having copies of your pics in multiple resolutions around and more about having your pics around and just exporting them in various formats and resolutions as needed. If you actually perform alterations, just make a duplicate and keep both versions around.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have three places I Organize Photos. The first place is where I keep all my photos in Raw Format. I have one folder called "pics." I then create a subfolder for the year. As I transfer pics from my Camera to my folder, I just create a new folder based on the date range of the photos and put it in the correct year (ie 2005, 2006, et cetera).
I want to have as little copying around as possible because each time you copy a photo, (I hear) it degrades the quality. I do cut and paste the video clips out of my photo folders and place them in a "vid" folder.
I copy the entire contents of my External Drive onto my 2nd hard drive--as a back up.
The second place I put my pics ( I am not counting my backup) is in a folder called "blogready." These are all my pictures that have been renamed and reduced in quality for web posting or emailing.
I keep the pictures in the same organization as my raw photos. I use Irfanview to batch resize and rename my pics. I do it one folder at a time. Each folder usually has well over 100 pics. I do it at the same time I transfer my pics from my camera. I put the raw pics in a folder and use irfanview to edit the pics into my blog ready folder.
The third place I put photos is on my photobucket page. It is on this page where I am organizing based on content. I only have my generic video folder and my travel folder. As I go to more places (ie Grand Canyon in August), I will make subfolders based on date and place were I can import pics.
I like photobucket because I can share experiences with family and friends.
I am still deciding exactly how I am going to organize my photos based on content, but I like how I have set up my traveling pics. I will do something similar with pics that are not related directly to traveling.
I am a novice at this and appreciate anyone’s advice. I just share what has been working for me. I do love having a separate folder for raw pics and resized pics. I LOVE irfanview's batch rename/resize ability.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone else here once referred me to Picasa -- I don't think I had time to play with it much -- I will have to look at it again.
lem -- I think you really hit the nail on the head. My problem has been deciding whether to store them by date (Chronologically) or by subject, etc. I mean, in five years will I remember the get-together was in June 2006, or will I have to go searching through random photos to find what I'm wanting? (like I do with my old negatives and hard prints). And if I sort them by subject (Ivygirl, forinstance) - then you get into overlapping subjects, and photos without remembering what date/event they were taken at, etc.
Perhaps need a cross-reference... FG
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apps like Picaso obviate the need for doing that. They allow one to organize by roll and assign keywords to photos. Rolls are usually organized by date/event/whatever, while keywords can be anything you might want to retrieve photos by.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The photo album I'm using on my website, which is a heavily-modified version of Gallery, searches by keywords in the caption, subject, and location.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Apps like Picaso obviate the need for doing that. They allow one to organize by roll and assign keywords to photos. Rolls are usually organized by date/event/whatever, while keywords can be anything you might want to retrieve photos by.
I have a quesiton for you fugu13.
Does Picaso physically reshuffle your photos or does it make this changes only within the Picaso Program? Lets say my computer crashes and I am using Picaso, can I then just retrieve my photos, or do I need to rescue some type of .dat file?
If I organize my photos on my external with picasso, can I then use my external on my work ocmptuer and continue working on them, or will app only apply to the computer I am working on?
I like the tagging ability (one reason I like photobucket), but I want to be able to move my pictures around and maintain their tags.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Apps like Picaso obviate the need for doing that. They allow one to organize by roll and assign keywords to photos. Rolls are usually organized by date/event/whatever, while keywords can be anything you might want to retrieve photos by.
I have a quesiton for you fugu13.
Does Picaso physically reshuffle your photos or does it make this changes only within the Picaso Program? Lets say my computer crashes and I am using Picaso, can I then just retrieve my photos, or do I need to rescue some type of .dat file?
If I organize my photos on my external with picasso, can I then use my external on my work ocmptuer and continue working on them, or will app only apply to the computer I am working on?
I like the tagging ability (one reason I like photobucket), but I want to be able to move my pictures around and maintain their tags.
Picasa2 does not change the physical location of your photos. It works by indexing your photos and using that index to refer to searches, etc.
It works across only one computer; your work computer will have a seperate Picasa index.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right now they're organized by subject on my external drives as well as backed up on DVD. Each folder has the RAW images (as of late, the Adobe Digital Negative format), the processed PSD of the photograph, and the differing resolutions/sizes of JPGs, each in sub-folders.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The photo album I'm using on my website, which is a heavily-modified version of Gallery, searches by keywords in the caption, subject, and location.
The raw version of Gallery2 does that as well. Plus, it integrates with the search for several CMS platforms, including Joomla.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
