Need some tips please Options

[whistler]

I have four fixes to make before this page is ready. I would really a ppreciate some tips as to what to do to fix the following:

web page:


1. The name under the photo -"Once Patios Artesenias Shops" does not align properly. I realize I need to carefully place the heading inside a tabel row and table data, as I have done, but I can't figure out how to raise the text a bit and move it to the right...

2. I have been told by others on the forum that I need to replace the BLOCKQUOTES with some CSS code. Why is that and what should I use to do it, ans does it go in the CSS style sheet, or in the page itself?

3. The picture on the page is size 800 x 997 but on the page I scale it to 240x320. I realize I need to crop the photo to match the ratio and also reduce the image size to something smaller.

In general, how do you manage web photos...it the idea to take a photo with the general idea of the web page photo size in mind, then crop to achieve the desired aspect ratio, then doownsize to around 40 to 50 kilobytes?

This post has been edited by whistler: Jan 25 2011, 01:13 PM

[Darin McGrew]

Firefox can't find the server at jimiinee.com.

Without having seen the page you're referring to...

1. CSS can be used to specify margins and padding. Browsers typically have default margins/padding, which can cause elements to have too much space around them unless you remove/reduce the margins/padding with your CSS.

2. If you're using the blockquote element to create space, then use CSS instead. Yes, it is best for the CSS to go in the style sheet. See also:
http://htmlhelp.com/reference/css/style-html.html

3. A lot depends on the reason for the image. If the image is content, then it's good to provide a larger version, although you may do that by displaying a smaller thumbnail initially, with the thumbnail linked to the larger version or to a page that displays the larger version.

[Christian J]

In general, how do you manage web photos...it the idea to take a photo with the general idea of the web page photo size in mind, then crop to achieve the desired aspect ratio, then doownsize to around 40 to 50 kilobytes?

Even with my camera's smallest setting the resulting image dimensions are much larger than a web page or most computer screens can display, so you might as well use that unless you expect to do some drastic cropping of the images, or print them in large sizes.

It's easier to get a specific dimension if you crop before resizing. AFAIK any sharpening should be done after resizing.

When saving the edited file, use the amount of file compression that gives acceptable results. If the file size is too large, make the image dimensions smaller rather than sacrificing the image quality by overcompressing.

This post has been edited by Christian J: Jan 25 2011, 07:38 PM

[pandy]

Even with my camera's smallest setting the resulting image dimensions are much larger than a web page or most computer screens can display

Now you are just bragging again.

, so you might as well use that unless you expect to do some drastic cropping of the images, or print them in large sizes.

It's easier to get a specific dimension if you crop before resizing. AFAIK any sharpening should be done after resizing.

I'm no expert on this myself, but I've listened to experts that say it's the other way around. Do as much editing ar possible on the full scale image. Then it may need a little sharpening after downsizing. Do I follow this advice? No. I shoot RAW and when I convert to TIFF I downsize to get a more manageable file, but I don't downsize it all the way to a small web graphic.

BTW IrfanView has a downsizing algorithm that is really good. I get a better result with that than with my fairly professional image editor. Could be because I don't handle the choice of algorithms it provides right, but nevertheless, I do the final downsizing in Irfan.

[Christian J]

Now you are just bragging again.

Or you are bragging about your big computer screen.

I'm no expert on this myself, but I've listened to experts that say it's the other way around. Do as much editing ar possible on the full scale image.

I was assuming the OP saved images as JPG in the camera (not RAW). If so the camera applies a Bayer filter, which apparently lowers quality on the high resolution settings since the added pixels are interpolated (if I understood http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bayer.htm correctly --I don't quite understand why his comparison pictures were taken with different lenses though?).

But if you save as RAW I guess you don't choose image dimensions at all in the camera, making the issue moot.

I don't downsize it all the way to a small web graphic.

Sure you do when it's time to upload the image to the web host? I agree it's good to keep larger originals, but do they really have to be huge if the only purpose is to use them on the web?

BTW IrfanView has a downsizing algorithm that is really good. I get a better result with that than with my fairly professional image editor. Could be because I don't handle the choice of algorithms it provides right, but nevertheless, I do the final downsizing in Irfan.

If nothing else it starts up faster.

[pandy]

Or you are bragging about your big computer screen.

Huh? When did I do that? It truly is humongous, but I don't think I've told anyone.

But if you save as RAW I guess you don't choose image dimensions at all in the camera, making the issue moot.

Does not. Point is if you downsize before any editing or not. No, I can't choose the size of a RAW file, but I can resize it at the same time as I convert it. According to experts I shouldn't do that, but I've chosen a middle way.

I don't downsize it all the way to a small web graphic.

Sure you do when it's time to upload the image to the web host?

Yes, but AFTER editing. Of course, if you don't do any editing it doesn't matter.

BTW IrfanView has a downsizing algorithm that is really good. I get a better result with that than with my fairly professional image editor. Could be because I don't handle the choice of algorithms it provides right, but nevertheless, I do the final downsizing in Irfan.

If nothing else it starts up faster.

Not much. But then I've got a whizbang processor and a truckload of RAM sticks. Or maybe not. But I do have a very lightweight image editor. You didn't think I used PS, did you?

[Christian J]

It truly is humongous, but I don't think I've told anyone.

It ought to be, if it can show say a 10+ megapixel image in natural size. OTOH maybe you use a humongous screen resolution to go with it.

Point is if you downsize before any editing or not.

I can agree that things like white balance might be easier to set if you have more pixels to work with. Don't know if it makes any difference with contrast etc, I read you can get more dynamic range from RAW files though.

No, I can't choose the size of a RAW file, but I can resize it at the same time as I convert it. According to experts I shouldn't do that, but I've chosen a middle way.

Didn't quite follow that, but then I don't use RAW myself.

You didn't think I used PS, did you?

What else is there? My version of PS Elements is from 2002...

[pandy]

It ought to be, if it can show say a 10+ megapixel image in natural size. OTOH maybe you use a humongous screen resolution to go with it.

When did I say I could do that?

Point is if you downsize before any editing or not.

I can agree that things like white balance might be easier to set if you have more pixels to work with. Don't know if it makes any difference with contrast etc, I read you can get more dynamic range from RAW files though.

You misunderstand. It isn't about easy, but about limiting damage the editing does to the image. The thought is that the more data you have to begin with, the better it is, the smaller the damage. I don't know enough about graphics to understand the details, I just listen when experts talk.

You didn't think I used PS, did you?

What else is there? My version of PS Elements is from 2002...

http://www.dl-c.com/ It's too advanced for me, but I do appreciate the control I get when I happen to at least party understand something. It's to PS what a text editor is to DW.

But maybe this is getting a little too off topic. Sorry, whistler. We'll stop now.