About digital images (mine, on the .org site)

[roccit_53 at scirocco.cs.uoguelph.ca (C Boyko)]

On 4:36 pm 08/10/06 "Allyn" <amalventano1@tds.net> wrote:
> Cathy,
> I resize the pics for scirocco.dhs.org, mainly because my outgoing
> bandwidth is limited.  The pics on Bretts site (I'm assuming Brett
> came back to life and Drew uploaded them), are the originals, and are
> limited by the quality of scanner, combined with the compression
> level.  I took a look at the pics, and they look pretty good/clear
> actually.  The only places I see any kind of smearing are the pics
> that had grain (004 for example), which did not play nice with the
> compression, resulting in some smearing.  Were you viewing the full
> size versions of the pics (there is a drop down box at the upper
> right)? Al

Oh, I, of all people understand why you'd resize them, trust me! Drew on
the other hand, really doesn't have bandwidth issues, so I'm assuming they
went full size to Brett, (and Brett told me to send them full size) but
since I don't know how they got up there, and who was nice enough to do it,
I can't speak to that :). But in the thumbnail, shouldn't the identity of
the person be discernable? Like 007, I can't tell who's in that picture,
except that I took it so I know it's Daun and Drew. I can't open that one
at all from thumbnail. 004 that you mentioned wasn't so much grainy as
blurred by the heavy rain. Both of those were right from the camera at 5
Mpixels, so the scanner isn't an issue, and I don't think I signed them, so
Photo Paint isn't the culprit either. And the scanned ones were from either
5X7 (colour) or 8X10 black and white, so I wouldn't think resolution would
be an issue there either. Like I said, maybe it's something I did to them
here. Meh, I guess they'll have to do eh? And don't for a second think that
I'm not grateful for the help/space, I sure am!
cathy