Entertainment For Lively Minds

Word RSS FeedsWord Magazine on YouTubeWord Magazine on Last FMWord Magazine on Share My PlaylistsWord Spotify PlaylistsWord Magazine on FacebookWord Magazine on Twitter

ATM: Digital photography 101

ceepee's picture

I know there are a few photography buffs on here so I was hoping someone could help with some basic advice. I've had a digital camera for a few years now and I've been happily snapping away with the resolution set to maximum (8mp). I've never bothered printing any of my photos, though I may want to in the future, but have recently started using Flickr. What I've found is that my free Flickr account is rapidly being used up because most of my photos are around 1.2 - 1.6 MB in size. What I'm trying to find out is what is the optimum size for photos to be for viewing on screen and/or printing? I assume there is some formula for the amount of pixels needed for a 6x4 print, for example? Or should I be changing the size of the picture that I take rather than the resolution? And what is the relationship between the two?

Sorry to be so "asky". I promise to be more "answery" in any thread I can.

0

72dpi

So a picture on screen 10" wide would have a width of 720 pixels.

1
Brookster | 7 July 2011 - 3:41pm

You can also reduce file size

by increasing the JPEG compression, although you'll lose some picture quality (how much is a subjective thing).

You can also reduce the number of colours in the image.

0
Brookster | 7 July 2011 - 3:44pm

I Do Both

I generally upload pics at 72dpi and 750 X 500 pixels. The other thing you can do is replace some of the pics on your Flickr site - or subscribe. I gave in to the inevitable a few weeks ago, having got fed up with deleting pics.

0
wayfarer | 7 July 2011 - 3:48pm

Fires up Photoshop

By way of illustration, wayfarer's 750 x 500 photo at screen resolution (72 dpi) would be 10.4" x 6.9" on screen.

For a home colour printer, however, you need around 200 dpi. At that resolution, your photo is now 3.75" x 2.5".

If you wanted to print that photo using a commercial printer — in Word magazine for example — you'd need 300 dpi and your photo would be an unimpressive 2.5" x 1.7".

0
Brookster | 7 July 2011 - 4:08pm

300 dpi...

This is still the mantra, but it isn't really required anymore for most scenarios. 180-220 can suffice.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=8468373

0
DougieJ | 7 July 2011 - 11:43pm

As far as I was aware

The Flickr free limit was 200 images rather than having a data limit (of X MB),so if it's filling up then that should relate to the number of pics only, not whether they're 500KB each or 1.5MB each or whatever

Also I think Flickr costs something like $25 a year for unlimited storage which (around 50c a week) seems like quite a good deal ... (I pay the fee and have done for the last couple of years).

0
Glenbervie | 7 July 2011 - 4:21pm

Other photo repositories are available

My free Photobucket account gives me:

- Unlimited* storage for photos.
- Up to 500 videos permitted with up to 10 minutes in length per video.
- Maximum display size of photos is 2048x1536 pixels each.
- Maximum file size permitted is 5MB per photo and 500MB per video.

*Photobucket reserves the right to limit excessive use and the unlimited storage offer pertains to non-commercial use only.

No idea what 'excessive use' entails...

There's also a 'Pro' option for $25/year.

0
Paul Waring | 7 July 2011 - 6:52pm

or just pay 12 quid

for a flickr pro account I processed a film and it cost this much for 36 photos so it's good value and v reliable I wouldn't reduce the size of pics unless you have to.

0
Chris G | 7 July 2011 - 11:20pm

Agreed

The flickr pro account is very good value. You'll soon reach the limit of usability in the free account, however much you reduce the size of the photos.

0
Steve Riddle | 8 July 2011 - 9:06am

Sounds like the pro account is the way to go

At first Flickr didn't mention the 200 photo limit, just gave me a percentage of data used but when I logged in this morning I got a message saying I was limited to 200. $25 a year sounds more than reasonable so I'm going to go for that, particularly as I can upload directly from my whizzy new HTC Incredible S, that I like very much.

Thanks for all the advice.

0
ceepee | 8 July 2011 - 10:09am

speaking of flickr...

Looks like there's quite a few users on here, and plenty interest in photography. I'm user lilJim on there (and the reason for that username can be found in the nicknames thread...), do stop by and make contact if you feel like it.

0
Steve Riddle | 8 July 2011 - 10:52am
Chris G | 8 July 2011 - 12:28pm

Only just started

with little evidence of quality control so far, but this me - http://www.flickr.com/photos/ceepeee/

0
ceepee | 8 July 2011 - 2:36pm
wayfarer | 9 July 2011 - 9:52pm

wow

those shots of the aeroplane displays are amazing.

0
badartdog | 9 July 2011 - 10:13pm

Cheers!

:0)

0
wayfarer | 10 July 2011 - 11:01am

i'm rubbish at name consistency on the interweb

on flickr my screen name is torrybattery, despite the URL
http://www.flickr.com/photos/glenbervie/

PS: have added everyone above as contacts on flickr - hope that's ok

0
Glenbervie | 10 July 2011 - 1:09pm

thanks for the contact

Some mouth-watering shots in your photostream there!

I have a similar issue with the consistency - username is lilJim as above, but URL is http://www.flickr.com/photos/steve_riddle/

There was a good reason for this once, but I forget what it was.

0
Steve Riddle | 11 July 2011 - 8:52am

Facebook?

That's another way to share.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=653010736#!/pages/Clive-Temple-Photography/148048298542892?sk=photos

0
clivetemple | 10 July 2011 - 2:33pm

I've Said It Before

but it's worth saying again: Your photos are superb Clive; I love your portraits.

0
wayfarer | 10 July 2011 - 5:49pm
Privacy Statement    ©  2006 - 2012 Development Hell Ltd