Express your nature.

Upload, Share, and Be Recognized.

Join with Facebook
or join manually
X
Comments:

Old Comments:

2011-03-17 05:05:24
Thank you to have taken time to explain. Some months ago, I wrote to Environmentalgraffiti to know "the rules", and never they answered. I now know the good sizes, and the good number of dpi. And also some rules about Internet deontology :) Why isn't there a window when we open Pixdaus where there are the "rules" to post ? They speak about copyright. But not about "rules". Thank you for me, and probably for others :)
2011-03-17 04:44:45
Ok, Jujuba. I am happy to know who was/is "retoucher". Thank you :) Yes, like you, I begin to "work" with light, contrast, and so on. With less pixels than the originals, it becomes necessary. ( But, for me, most often, it is less good/worst ... Less "poetry", sensibility.... But also, it is more appreciate by the Users and Posters ...). And I am going to watch what "Internet Problem" said. And learn it :) " See you soon " :)
2011-03-16 16:51:22
Let me suggest that you upload everything at 72 pixels per inch (which is pretty much the standard for the internet) and size to fit the page, which is 11 to 11-1/2 inches for landscape formats and 8 to 8-1/2 inches for portrait formats. Of course constrain the proportions. Uploading at more than 72 pixels per inch really does not improve the image, for viewing on the internet and it substantially adds to the amount of data on a page. Pixdaus is extremely slow in page loading to start with and to help with this we should all try to minimize the data in as much as possible. When you load pages, you have probably noted that some images load significantly slower than others. These are the images that are at greater than 72 dpi. There is an increasing amount of internet traffic in these days, and this is increasingly becoming a problem, especially for those of us (across the Atlantic) that live some distance away from the Pixdaus server in Holland. Until Pixdaus moves to a better server there is not much any of can do other than to minimize the amount of data in our uploads.
2011-03-16 03:25:51
Hi libellule, sorry for replying only now... Yes you´re right - I choose percentage / number of pixels from the original photo to reduce it. The size of my pictures vary, this flower one is for example 233KB. About 'retoucher' - that´s me - I´ve modified that photo and uploaded it just to show it to you. 'Retoucher' being French was a coincidence, it means someone who retouches something in English. I was surprised when I saw you wrote in French, I was like - ok, now what? :P Anyways, I do understand your point of view (about your photo showing more of the cat´s softness), I guess it´s a matter of opinion and the way you want to have your photos interpreted. I just wanted to show you how I´ve reduced it actually :-) About 'brainfeeze' - well, it is getting cold in Brazil (it´s autumn here) but that was just a joke and an excuse for my typing error ;-) Take care!
2011-03-13 04:27:07
" I my original "cat" without any change. What do you want to say to me ? It is too clear without " ... My turn to be "brainfreeze" :-) I forgot to put out this little part :)
2011-03-13 04:23:54
Thanks, Jujuba. Maybe I understand : you choose ratio/per cent/ per thousand of pixels of the original picture ?. And not a number of pixels by inch. Do I understand ? Do you know how heavy are the files you post ? I check the file you indicated. Why did you indicated it ? A man or a woman whose pseudo is "retoucher" in French - "retouch" in English - put a lot of darkness on my own picture. Look at his/her poster name .... Maybe the result is better than mine ? But it is far away the reality. My neighbour cat is very much clearer,softer,more " female", with beautiful oysters-colored eyes. It is like "the original picture without any change" I posted ... "Brainfreeze" ? Because it is so cold in Brazil ? :) I my original "cat" without any change. What do you want to say to me ? It is too clear without
2011-03-12 04:57:38
* typo - 'ratio', not ration Sorry, brainfreeze :-|
2011-03-12 04:56:57
* my typo - size I understand what you´re saying libelulle - sometimes when I try reducing the size of my photos on Microsoft Office Picture Manager they also lose their clarity a little. So I usually adjust color, brightness and contrast on the Picture Manager and then reduce it by pixels on Paint. I don´t understand the numbers you gave me, those look like ration, not pixels. I usually reduce the photos to 850 pixels or a little less... Don´t know if I´ve helped you or made you more confused :P Check this:
2011-03-12 04:15:10
Thanks, jujuba, to answer me. I am using ACD see : I can do like you say. Contrast, sharpness, sizes, and so on. You say you "reduce the size" : do you reduce the width and height, or the number of pixels. Or both of them ? For me, the worst for the quality is to reduce the number of pixels. And if I don't reduce it, it seems to me the files are too heavy to enter on Pixdaus : 1.2 - 1;4 Mo do not enter.
2011-03-12 03:16:26
Thanks libellule :-) Well, the garden where I took this picture was really colorful, hence the color intensity...I do adjust the contrast and sharpening a little and reduce the seize on Paint, which does not interfere in the quality of the photo. I don´t know what tools/software you´re using to deal with your pictures.
2011-03-11 02:21:49
Beautiful, jujuba. How do you do to have such a "sharpness", such a precision, such color intensity ? Once, I tried to post a picture without none changes - 3.5 Mo : it did not "enter" on Pixdaus. Since, I have changed their size ( 9 x 6 ), and their number of pixels ( only 120 ). They enter ( 300-400 Ko ). But they loose a lot of their quality :(