Please do not read this article unless you’re genuinely interested. It’s not really a post.
All the picture files here are .jpg (.jpeg). If other formats are used the numbers may be different, but the principles remain the same.
First we’re going to look at two identical picture representations which have different storage requirements. Then we’re going to explore some other possibilities. Here we go –
File Resolution: 1,654 x 2,518 pixels
Display resolution: 700 x 1,065 pixels
Size: 2.6 MB (2,630 kB)
Location: Chariot media store
Better place: Owner’s media store
Click once to see at increased resolution,
Click again to see at full resolution.
[Browser dependent]
File Resolution: 700 x 1,066 pixels
Display Resolution: 700 x 1,066 pixels
Size: 0.57 MB (573 kB)
Location: Chariot media store
What you see is what there is.
Both of the above versions look exactly the same, don’t they? Even though the second picture is occupying less than a quarter of the storage space of the first.
That’s because it is your monitor that is limiting the resolution (sharpness and detail).
Now here is a thumbnail, medium sized – which means it’s 196 pixels wide. It uses the same file as the first picture, and therefore occupies just as much storage space, even though it’s very small to look at.
File Resolution: 1,654 x 2,518 pixels
Display Resolution: 196 x 300 pixels
Size: 2.6 MB (2,630 kB)
Location: Chariot media store
Better place: Owner’s media store
If you want to see what it is,
you’ll have to click on it.
You can’t see much, can you?
Nothing has been gained by using a thumbnail, but the reader impact has been reduced.
Moving on.
The next picture contains significantly greater detail, but includes less of the general scene. The resolution is better for the bit we want to see – that’s because it was cropped before the resolution was reduced to something that your monitor can handle.
File Resolution: 700 x 866 pixels
Display Resolution: 700 x 866 pixels
Size: 0.45 MB (455 kB)
Location: Chariot media store
More detail in the Bambi, but –
less storage space is needed.
If we want to, and we don’t mind losing the littlie’s legs, we can crop it to a landscape format.
File Resolution: 700 x 430 pixels
Display Resolution: 700 x 430 pixels
Size: 0.21 MB (215 kB)
Location: Chariot media store
Same detail, but takes up less column
inches on the Chariot’s page.
Less than a tenth of the storage.
But if we want to see the greatest detail, as clear and sharp as it emerged from the camera, we can merely crop the original and not reduce the resolution at all.
File Resolution: 700 x 446 pixels
Display Resolution: 700 x 446 pixels
Size: 0.26 MB (263 kB)
Location: Chariot media store
Exactly the same detail as when you
click twice on the first picture.
If you need even greater detail, save the picture from the camera in raw format, edit it to choice and then upload the result as a .png file, avoiding the compression inherent in .jpg.
Boadicea's Chariot 
Thank you, another excellent post.
May I take this opportunity to remind members that I can’t view a picture larger than 600px high in my browser without scrolling up and down or reducing the display size.
Like this…
Anything bigger is wasted on me 😕
Here’s Bearsy’s previous Techo post on resolutions which I found most informative.
Thanks Soutie, for reminding us! 🙂
Really appreciated Bearsy. You cannot speak plainer can you!
Techie stuff duly noted, but drool! Oh drool! Oh drooooool!
OZ
It really must be far too much for a hungry wolf to look at, should I send you a wild boar sandwich? 🙂
Send boar. Keep the bread. 🙂
OZ
Very good Bearsy, would you now remove my photograph from your post, and use someone else’s please?
Val, when you stick a picture on here or elsewhere it’s gone, I haven’t bothered to save your pic, why should I, it’s nothing spectacular. I was tempted to edit my comment and substitute the pic but didn’t because I felt that I’d be violating my privilege here.
Why do you want Bearsy to use someone eles’s?
He put a lot of hard work into creating this educational post, I’d be proud if he’d picked one of mine.
Thank you Soutie. I would like my photograph removed from this post please.
Evening Val, that’s not my decision, I’m sure that Bearsy will act as soon as he sees this.
Val: it’s late night in Australia. Bearsy will remove it later on today, morning Australia time.
G’day all.
Nope, Bearsy will not remove this post, nor will he change the image used. Far too much work was invested in this article.
I note that Val has removed her post in which this image originally appeared. That is her right, but it means that all the comments made on it by other Charioteers have been discarded, rendering their efforts nugatory. Boadicea and I deplore the unnecessary wholesale removal of Charioteer’s comments. It is our opinion that members will cease to bother to comment on posts which are prematurely removed by their author.
Material published on or uploaded to the Chariot becomes the property of the site. It was made clear in the early days that we would not exercise this right in any deleterious manner, but would assist in protecting our members from third party breaches of their/our copyright.
We reserve absolutely the right to use members’ uploaded material in the Chariot for illustrative purposes, or for fair comment.
B & B
Evening Bearsy.
I understand the copyright issue, and yes, I can vouch for the fact that you did assist in a breach of copyright by a third party when one of my photos published here was reproduced and Photoshopped elsewhere on the internet.
I was very grateful for your assistance.
Sorry late as usual and I missed the whole Val blog, but I do like the pictures,
Well reasoned and better explained, I can see why the subject is of concern, we (the Broomstickers?) have used about 40% of our media space since inception. I try not to put much into the Chariot Media Library and anyone with their own site should be able to do the same. I do on occasion transgress mostly I admit through laziness
Just curious Bearsy, you have generously opted for several upgrades from WordPress is there any way to limit the size of images uploaded to the media library? As you point out large high definition image files are wasteful of the storage space and not usable by the geometry and mechanics of the site.
LW – If there were, I would have applied it, but sadly there isn’t. 😦
Araminta – Thanks. 🙂
There are three components to this site:
1. The site itself, which we (B & B) pay for and own, and run with the assistance (for which much thanks!) of Soutie. Legally, we own the copyright of any article or picture posted here – but have always said that we won’t use the material in any underhand way and will support the right of authors to assert their ownership of material posted here.
We also maintain the right to reformat authors’ posts and pictures to fit in with the ‘house style’. We do have the right to change authors’ posts – but we only use that right to correct spelling errors!
2. Then there are the authors, without which the site would keel over and die! We have given authors complete control of their posts – to remove comments etc…
3. Finally, there are the comments – which bring colour and life to the site. While authors do have the right to remove their posts – I would ask them to remember that some people put a lot of thought and time into what they post – and for their comments to be removed, without any consideration of the fact that those comments rightly belong to those posters, rather annoys me.
Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, bother to take ten or more minutes of my time responding to a post when what I’ve said will be consigned to the rubbish bin? No, I don’t think my words are that wise or that important! But, it seems to me to be rather discourteous to invite people to comment and then discard their efforts.
But, it seems to me to be rather discourteous to invite people to comment and then discard their efforts.
Hear, hear!
Thanks FEEG 🙂
Howzit B&B, well said, I heartily endorse both comments.
I’ve often thought it bad manners to remove a post which colleagues have commented on, not just here but anywhere!
In fact I’d go as far to say that once an interaction has taken place authors / originators sort of lose ‘title’ to the post and it becomes a community page.
That’s how I’ve always operated.
Thanks for the comment Soutie… 🙂
Good morning Boa and Bearsy.
My copyright to this photograph is embedded in the image, so in principle, and law, you used it without my permission, and whilst I could, if I wished, take action, I would not do that, its a minor detail, the image isn’t worth it for a start.
Yes, I do make constant sizing mistakes when submitting photographs to your site, and it must be frustrating having to keep changing them on my behalf. I’m sorry.
Now for the important bit, who removed my post ‘For Bravo’ ?? I DID NOT REMOVE IT.
Yes, I did do a lot of housekeeping, and Boa and I have chatted about this before, and she reprimanded me, in a friendly way, I have to add, about doing it, and I haven’t.
It’s obvious to me, that my account, or email address here, has been hijacked, or similar.
Can I repeat to you Bearsy, and Boa, I have NOT, I repeat, I have NOT, removed my post titled ‘For Bravo’.
I have NOT removed any of my posts, since Boa and I had a discussion, via email, several weeks ago.
With Boa’s permission, I feel I need to change my email address contact on this site, perhaps Boa, you would agree, and just confirm, do I just change it in my profile?
Bearsy, I might get up your nose displaying photographs incorrectly, and for that I, apologise, but I’m innocent of removing my posts.
And just one more thing Bearsy, I’m a blonde, live with it 🙂
Low Wattage – You ask if there is a way to limit the size of all our pictures?
Yes there is, although I too am guilty of not doing this ( I have apologized to Bearsy about this and for flooding his gallery with large camera pixxies)
BEFORE pictures are posted, it is a good idea to use any photo shopping software such a Photo Shop, Paint Brush or Photo Editor to “resize” the pictures to a … say … 800x 600 size. It is easy and only takes but a minute of anybody’s time.
Since my apology I always make sure that I first load the pictures into my own wordpress account, then I view them from there, copy the URL and post “only a link” to the pictures in my blogs.
It works and avoids trouble for everybody.
Should you need help in learning to resize just ask 🙂
PS: Photo Editor is available Free inside all Microsoft Office software, it is usually to be found in the following directory inside your PCs
“C:\Program Files\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\PhotoEd\photoed.exe”
Else just type “PhotoEd.exe in your search area and let the software find it for you
Mmmmmm 🙂
Donald
LW is very techo-savvy! He really doesn’t need help in resizing pictures – there’s also a help page on this site!
He was asking whether there was a way of stopping people posting large piccies on the site – and there isn’t. Word Press allows anyone to post whatever size picture they want…
Also might I teach you guys something about copyright … it only applies to commercial stuff which is for sale; try doing anything about it for any other reason and you are wasting your time, if you posted something for free, then you gave it away to the world.
Why do you think the dark side rarely removes our pictures or links that we post from other sites? Because their lawyers know they can’t be touched.
I copy whatever I need from the internet provided it is not for sale, and shall continue to do so all the while thanking my lucky stars that I too have PAID for my own copyrights to the appropriate patent office. Copying a picture for personal use in a web site is not a copyright breach provided it is not used for commercial reasons.
And adding a little @ or “C” to a picture means bugger all in law unless you have a single or multi copyright certificate in hand or can prove the pictures were sold or given away for commercial reasons.
Please stop believing what you read in internet sites, try talking to a lawyer first and make sure he is a copyright lawyer as well, all the while remembering that different countries will apply the law differently
Maybe the new knowledge might help others
Actually, Donald, the Dark Side does take notice of copyright issues on occasions. They removed one of my posts which consisted of two pictures of flowers, cropped from an original.
When I contacted them to complain, they replied that someone had accused me of not owning the copyright to said pictures. They also said that they had contacted me by email to ask if I could “prove” that they were my photos!
They hadn’t, and couldn’t produce a copy of the email which they had supposedly sent. Since the photos included my usual copyright, and I emailed them the original photo, they agreed that they were in error to remove the post and I was welcome to republish.
Donald mate – you have the wrong end of the stick. Read the page Boadicea linked for you and the others in that menu.
I shall answer Val when I have the time, but I’m in the middle of curry-making right now.
Catch you all later.
Minty – off course if there is a complaint most site will simply remove the offending piccie, but this is done to avoid complications, not because they have to. And again, having proven they were truly yours they let you post them.
There is nothing wrong with people complaining about pictures being copied and re-posted, I can understand the feelings there, but the fact remains that unless you had them posted for commercial reasons then you gave them away to the world the day you posted them.
Most commercial photography sites take out what is known as a batch copyright, this means that every time they have new pictures they include them in their batch files (with their lawyers or other such legal department)
Inventors such as myself take out single copyright on pictures (about $100 for 99 years) because we are only concerned with the “shape” and maybe even proportions of our ideas .. not the pictures themselves.
I did Bearsy, I simply posted what I thought were good ideas for everybody, nobody has to follow them
PS: There are ways to limit upload sizes … but personally I don’t think it’s worth the bother, here is an example
http://www.tizag.com/htmlT/htmlupload.php (not this page, they have a lot of stuff)
What kind of curry? Indian? 😦
Why wasn’t I invited?
Just one more comment … I’m sure many will check on the net to see if I’m right just as I am also sure many of you will find this
Click to access Copying%20and%20the%20Internet.pdf
Please understand that my comments are with regards the fact that you published the stuff for free on public sites therefore making your property “Public Domain”
“Note that granting something to the public domain is a complete abandonment of all rights. You can’t make something “PD for non-commercial use.” If your work is PD, other people can even modify one byte and put their name on it. You might want to look into Creative Commons style licences if you want to grant wide rights”.
“While copyright law makes it technically illegal to reproduce almost any new creative work (other than under fair use) without permission, if the work is unregistered and has no real commercial value, it gets very little protection. The author in this case can sue for an injunction against the publication, actual damages from a violation, and possibly court costs. Actual damages means actual money potentially lost by the author due to publication, plus any money gained by the defendant. But if a work has no commercial value, such as a typical E-mail message or conversational USENET posting, the actual damages will be zero. Only the most vindictive (and rich) author would sue when no damages are possible, and the courts don’t look kindly on vindictive plaintiffs, unless the defendants are even more vindictive. ”
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
I’m just popping into make a brief comment to Donald. As I am now a fully paid member of the Professional Photographers guild, I know a small bit about copyright. You are right Donald, anything you expose to the Internet, is public property. I don’t post any of my important photographs on the internet, only pretty, amusing, or unimportant ones.
I know every time someone looks at any photograph I have posted, I know their details, and where in the world they are, and I pay for this service. I’m not that interested be truthful, if someone wants to steel any of the photos I do post, I would consider an honour. If the people I do photographs for, wish to post them, then they can, and I am still notified when they are viewed.
Now I’m off to climb into a Cherry picker, with my camera. Have a good day all.
Hi Donald.
Having looked at your links, I am a wee bit confused by the first paragraph of this extracted quote from your comment.
The second paragraph is an accurate quote from Brad Templeton in his answer to his own posed True or False statement that “If it’s posted to Usenet it’s in the public domain.”
The first paragraph of Mr Templeton’s answer is:-
‘False. Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, “I grant this to the public domain.” Those exact words or words very much like them.
(*) Copyrights can expire after a long time, putting something into the public domain, and there are some fine points on this issue regarding older copyright law versions. However, none of this applies to material from the modern era, such as net postings.’
My reading of that is that your first paragraph is wrong and that nothing goes into the Public Domain simply because it has been published to a public site. If Mr Templeton is to believed that can only happen when copyright in it has expired in any of the usual ways or the author has made a clear statement that he is placing it in the Public Domain.
I have no idea of what authority Mr Templeton has in the field of copyright law and he could, of course, be wrong.
I would consider it an honour “for all of you” if you would paste a picture of “me” on all your walls.
No, no …. please don’t be shy … do it …I don’t mind 🙂
PS: To this day I continue to stir a certain lady about having her picture pasted to the ceiling of my bedroom, unfortunately she wrongly believes that her doing the same with a picture of Hugh Jackman instead of me is the same thing … ludicrous I tell you … totally ludicrous. I demand something be done about this 🙂
John, exactly my point, there are so many explanations on the net that no one can say for sure; I have my own beliefs, my lawyer has another, yours might have a different one and so on.
There was a judgement by an English Court only this year that what you publish to blog sites is public domain … I stick to that one, it’s fresh and suits me fine because Crown law is followed by just about everybody. 🙂
Your #36.
Citation for the English Court case please so that I can look it up? So far, everything I have been finding on t’Internet is supporting Mr Templeton’s position and not yours.It would be interesting to look at any case law authority opposing what seems to be the overwhelmingly prevalent view on the matter.
As an example, No 4 in a series of Top 10 copyright myths on a site calling itself The UK Copyright Service.
“Everything on the Internet ‘public domain’ and free to use”
‘This highlights a common misunderstanding about what is meant by ‘public domain’ when referring to copyright work.
A work will fall into the public domain once copyright expires, this will typically be many years after the author’s death.
While work published on the Internet may be publicly accessible, it is certainly not in the public domain.’
http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/copyright_myths
I cannot, right now, be bothered to answer the rubbish that has been plastered on this thread from #22 onwards.
However, many thanks to JM for his thoughtful contributions at #34 and #37. Much appreciated.
I will probably summon the patience necessary to address all the points raised sometime in the near future, but not before tomorrow morning Australian time. Currently I am far too irritated by the ignorant nonsense that is befouling my post to remain civil.
In the meantime consider –
If neither point appears relevant, think again.
Irate Bearsy.
Unfortunately the comments area is for commenting, if my comments appear to be rubbish to you then by all means, keep it all to yourselves.. perhaps blogs is all you want .. that is fine by me .. blog away and enjoy it.
I have never once said anything about the quality of some of the rubbish some of you have posted here with regards other issues, preferring to add my own rubbish to it instead and following the rules I never attacked anybody over their comments ,, only the blogs.
Don’t waste your time addressing anything I wrote, I think I shall do a Janus and just take a break from you all ..
Don’t be such a big girl’s blouse, Donald. 🙄
Words, ideas, pictures and so forth are copyrightable and remain legally the property of their creator, unless that creator has signed a legally binding agreement with another party, effectively handing over the copyright to them. A website can function like a third party, sometimes by default, since you agree to its terms and conditions, which may include copyright. Someone once nicked a story of mine from Elsewhere ;), and claimed it as their own on a writing forum: I was mildly outraged, but then amused and flattered, to be honest. At any rate, you do take your chances with tinternet, as Ara said the other day, and it is common sense, and just basic politeness to assume that if you have the privilege of posting on a forum like this, you are sort of happy to share and do not have the screaming ab dabs about who owns what.
Copyright can be hard to prove; ownership of ideas even more so, since ideas are not subject to copyright law. Think JK Rowling and her would be detractors: establishing original ownership of ideas is where the bitter battles commence.
Hi Bleuebelle – can we have an avatar, please?
Thanks for that comment, most helpful. I used to know quite a bit about IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) because it was part of my job, but I never had much to do with copyright, other than the fact that at times they overlap.
I shall keep what little tinder I have dry until tomorrow. 🙂
By the way, were were temporarily disconnected from the web just now, thanks to a “violent electric storm”, as they call it these days. It made us feel very isolated. 🙂
Some considerable time later.
This post was intended to be informative and helpful. Huh! I was wasting my time, as usual. After a few sensible comments – thanks, guys – the thread dissolved into farce. How utterly boring and cringe-making.
If you really didn’t delete your Bravo post yourself, Val, someone has nicked your password, because neither Soutie, Boadicea nor I removed it. So change it immediately. WordPress offers you full facilities for changing your logon ID, e-mail address and your password. It won’t affect the Chariot one jot or tittle, nor will affect your own site.
Then go and read the WordPress Terms of Service.
If you want to sue me – bring it on. You’ll lose. Never make threats that you can’t keep.
In your dreams!
This post is now closed to further inane comments, but will reappear in due course as a help page in the Images menu, shorn of all comments, in case anyone with more than half a brain wants to refer to it in the future.