Anything interesting...

On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 21:26:10 +0000 (UTC), "Dre"
wrote:

What are you guys up to? Photographing anything interesting???

This...

http://www.pbl33.fast24.co.uk/goodwood2004a.html

Sky is clear tonight though ;-)

--
Pete
Homepage at http://www.pbl33.co.uk
Home of the Lunar Parallax Demonstration Project

Hi Dre

What are you guys up to?

Do you mean apart from cloud cursing?

Photographing anything interesting???

Since reading an article in March's AN I've found these interesting:-

http://www.astronomy.ndo.co.uk/solar_halos.htm (Sorry for the big download)

ATB Neil

--
P.S. Please remove the obvious from the address to reply

Cool stuff guys )

Pete Lawrence wrote in message . ..

This...

http://www.pbl33.fast24.co.uk/goodwood2004a.html

Nice one of 'The Crab'! But what were the other ones? ;-)

Sky is clear tonight though ;-)

Lucky bøgger. I haven't seen the night sky for months!
Last time was a "boiling" low contrast Moon against a bright blue sky
at 11pm.! These things are not easily forgotten when you are deprived
of a dark sky 'fix' for this long. ;-)

Chris.B

"Neil Booker" wrote in message ...

http://www.astronomy.ndo.co.uk/solar_halos.htm (Sorry for the big download)

ATB Neil

Very atmospheric "Superman". ;-)

You can get free (or time limited) image compressors online.

I use "Image Optimiser". Have a fiddle with that and see how you get
on.

Some functions are time limited but you can still compress images.

You can also "resize" with XP in 'My Pictures'. If "resize" doesn't
come as standard you'll have to get this function from the "Windoze"
download center.

A combination of compression & "resize" will often leave you with a
nice, big, clear picture without needing half a meg download.

No doubt the compooter imaging experts with Photoshop etc are rolling
on the floor laughing at these (more humble) suggestions. But do I
care? :-)

Regards
Chris.B

Hi Chris.B

Very atmospheric "Superman". ;-)

Thanks for the complement.

You can also "resize" with XP in 'My Pictures'.

XP? I'm quite happy sticking to 98 but I'll have to move on before I get
left too far behind

No doubt the compooter imaging experts with Photoshop etc are rolling
on the floor laughing at these (more humble) suggestions. But do I
care? :-)

And as a compooter imaging duffer with Photoshop they'd also be laughing at
my attempts to use it. I thought 800 by 600 wouldn't be too small or too big
but with hind sight I think 640 by 480 would still work OK.

Thanks for the reply and the suggestions.

Neil
--
P.S. Please remove the obvious from the address to reply

"Neil Booker" wrote in message
...
No doubt the compooter imaging experts with Photoshop etc are rolling
on the floor laughing at these (more humble) suggestions. But do I
care? :-)

And as a compooter imaging duffer with Photoshop they'd also be laughing
at
my attempts to use it. I thought 800 by 600 wouldn't be too small or too
big
but with hind sight I think 640 by 480 would still work OK.

Thanks for the reply and the suggestions.

Neil
--
P.S. Please remove the obvious from the address to reply

Hi Neil,
As well as the image size, you can also adjust the compression ratio used to
store the jpeg image. This should allow you to get the file sizes down to
50-70K with minimal compression effects. The images should then load in
about 1/4 the time.

My old version of Photoshop 4 puts up a jpeg options form when saving,
reduce the image quality and you also reduce the image size.

Experiment by saving progressively lower quality copies (keeping the
original version for reference) and see how small you can get before the
loss of detail gets too much.

Neil Booker wrote:
Hi Chris.B

Very atmospheric "Superman". ;-)

Thanks for the complement.

You can also "resize" with XP in 'My Pictures'.

XP? I'm quite happy sticking to 98 but I'll have to move on before I
get left too far behind

No doubt the compooter imaging experts with Photoshop etc are rolling
on the floor laughing at these (more humble) suggestions. But do I
care? :-)

And as a compooter imaging duffer with Photoshop they'd also be
laughing at my attempts to use it. I thought 800 by 600 wouldn't be
too small or too big but with hind sight I think 640 by 480 would
still work OK.

Thanks for the reply and the suggestions.

Have a look through the 'Graphics Tutorial' on my website in sig.
The current issue (Aug2004) of PC Advisor has a full copy of ULead
PhotoImpact Ver 6 which I highly recommend for the ease of use
of its facilities. There is also version 6 of Serif Page Plus on it.


--
Graham W http://www.gcw.org.uk/ PGM-FI page updated, Graphics Tutorial
WIMBORNE http://www.wessex-astro-society.freeserve.co.uk/ Wessex
Dorset UK Astro Society's Web pages, Info, Meeting Dates, Sites & Maps
Change 'news' to 'sewn' in my Reply address to avoid my spam filter.

OG wrote:
...
My old version of Photoshop 4 puts up a jpeg options form when saving,
reduce the image quality and you also reduce the image size.

It actually reduces the filesize of the image, not the X * Y image size.

Experiment by saving progressively lower quality copies (keeping the
original version for reference) and see how small you can get before
the loss of detail gets too much.

For a 640 X 480 image, you should be able to get a filesize of around
50kbytes. Nearly all the photos on my website are under 50K.

HTH
--
Graham W http://www.gcw.org.uk/ PGM-FI page updated, Graphics Tutorial
WIMBORNE http://www.wessex-astro-society.freeserve.co.uk/ Wessex
Dorset UK Astro Society's Web pages, Info, Meeting Dates, Sites & Maps
Change 'news' to 'sewn' in my Reply address to avoid my spam filter.

In message , OG
writes

"Neil Booker" wrote in message
...
No doubt the compooter imaging experts with Photoshop etc are rolling
on the floor laughing at these (more humble) suggestions. But do I
care? :-)

And as a compooter imaging duffer with Photoshop they'd also be laughing
at
my attempts to use it. I thought 800 by 600 wouldn't be too small or too
big
but with hind sight I think 640 by 480 would still work OK.

Thanks for the reply and the suggestions.

Neil
--
P.S. Please remove the obvious from the address to reply

Hi Neil,
As well as the image size, you can also adjust the compression ratio used to
store the jpeg image. This should allow you to get the file sizes down to
50-70K with minimal compression effects. The images should then load in
about 1/4 the time.

My old version of Photoshop 4 puts up a jpeg options form when saving,
reduce the image quality and you also reduce the image size.

And even with the save for web option enabled PhotoShop stores a small
essay with every JPEG saved. Forget to do that and it saves a thumbnail
and colour management info as well (which for small images can be much
bigger than the main image).

Xat.com's Image Optimiser isn't bad for quick intuitive JPEG optimising.

Be aware that several programs just rename and label the original image
in memory when you save as JPEG with new settings. You have to close and
reopen the image to see the effects of the compressed save.

This can be very confusing for novices who find it looks "the same" at
all compression settings until they try to reload it later from disk.

Experiment by saving progressively lower quality copies (keeping the
original version for reference) and see how small you can get before the
loss of detail gets too much.

Acceptable JPEG quality is quite subjective. But as a rough guide
IJG level 80 or PSPro level 20 is a reasonable compromise to start from.

Regards,
--
Martin Brown