Test published large photos

IMHO, very visible artifacts jpeg-a. Such whether they were in the original? The processed (cropped / scale) photos?

PS: In case _lyubom_, larger scale definitely better. Earlier signs and a few do not always see it was possible.

I shake FastStone 'om, because there is a convenient batch mode. Photoshop shakes much better ratio size / quality, but I have it trimmed version, where there is no batch mode and action games ...

Hmm. No Action, and the package has a Coy. Right now, let's see, maybe it is in the world Happiness ...

It is already possible to identify - much better detail.
And will be able to somehow enter the full-size photo provided by the author?

To avoid artifacts in the course of treatment at the site can recommend the authors to lay out ready, ie 600 pixels. and then on the big software huddle only preview that is not essential. But here, too, it is not good ... When we will live up to what you can see and (if desired) 1100 pix.as Plantarium (also started with 600 for large), photo, laid before the smaller will lose. Including yet let it be so, but the recommendations of computation photo ask (if possible) not less than 1100 width and 800 height. In order to reserve for the future it was.

If you need polnorazmer then current version does not roll. A ready-made photo does not help, because where copyright is needed, and needed a photo of two sizes (except preview).

Peter! The current version of the "wheels " because definitely better than what it was, and yet it is. But surely it is impossible to make a full-size photos were tied up pictures where they are (full-size preview by clicking on the button ...)? I recently less than 800 on the big and I send syuda.Smotrel K.Kraevskogo full length - it's quite another thing!

Now completely redo everything. It will be ready - accomplish your goal.

So. Pictures of 600 pixels is no longer displayed. Showing 320. In the case of stock imetsja Fota larger fine phot becomes clickable, and it appears under the "Click on the picture to enlarge." Consequently, the press, it increases.One can picture you can scroll (if other foty of this kind there is only minor, will appear smaller). Most Fota - limit 1027h768 pixels (though many smaller pictures even in the original, but still more than 320). In addition, the shake is now another program foty ratio provides better size / quality.Watch, comment, wait yet.

Looked:
1. better if the images of 600 pixels
2. Big picture should match the size of the exposed photo. Still, compressive quite noticeable loss of quality
3. In order to put up a photo You can set the size limit. Let's say 1200 on the 900 (large scarcely fit on the screen). Weight is also possible to limit the file (say 800 Kb)

Yes, it was much better! The maximum size can be increased to 1200 on the long side, as already mentioned above.

1. What?
2. In what sense? And what is she now does not match?
3. I wrote - a maximum of 1024x768.

Why bring up to 1200? That there will be this new? And that should do 20% of people who have 1024? And where will foty 1200, nenuzhdayuschiesya pruning?

Come on, let it be 1024x768, does not matter))

Come on, let it be 1024x768, does not matter))

All is good, but because in addition to a preview of the site is now used two sizes of photons, I do not know how to pile on truck loading system ready. Just great in smaller scale will not work - will fly copyright and make shipping two types of truck - is also wrong.Maybe then wishing unedited photos upload Krupnyakov without copyright, and I only scale and copyrights paste? Compression is now quite a decent sort of went ... And Vitali, clearly, look, nothing is waiting, and continues to ship foty for editing ...
What say, photographers?

Few understand why bother to squeeze / pinch the author's photographs.

And where did the idea of ​​a general microscopic pictures - someone insisted? Like most of the gallery houses the originals, as the author has decided - and shows.

Peter! IMHO optimally load the author of more photos, set certain limits on the size in pixels and the "weight " and keep them in the original by clicking to view, and can be left on the page, and as in the previous trial version, ie 600 pixels.Size 320 is suitable for preview, and yet no more, although here and even managed to determine for such pictures :)
Well, this question: photos which the authors previously loaded with the size of at-least 700-800 pixels, sozraniv in your database? Or only 320?

Previously limited size of the photo to save memory. Now like this it is not necessary. Maybe we should build a site so that it was convenient to users? and with minimal (physical and temporal) cost of its maintenance?

Boris, author photos need to pinch, because in most cases they require treatment, and where there is no demand, you need to hang copyrights on two sizes - medium and large, and decrease with more on average and automatically put a copyright means PHP is no desire, that is, .K. compresses it sucks, and the inscription puts too much is not good.

Most of the galleries is molded for photographers. And this site - not photographic. Surely the quality of photons is not noticeable? The author can decide a lot of things, it may decide that the phot 2000 pixels - that's good.And when used on this site - 2000 pixels for the original well, because in 90% of cases downloadable foty need sprinkled, but not for the final photo to view.It is the size of 320 took out that at the beginning of the site, many thematic resources published foty about this size and would not agree to issue a large republication, while 320 in most cases you can see the same number of really important, as for 2000.At the same time, I agree that large foty also needed, because, in fact, run in the system now, and their publication with your help.

Eugene, it's not about whether to keep the pages 320 and 600. The thing to do that will still be two basic sizes - medium and large, and can not be of a large machine to make intermediate (cm. above). And that is a problem.And how to solve - not a banner. For it is not the same ship foty in two sizes? I guess I still have to pinch again, not changing anything other than copyright and size that, if ...Many foty, of course, there is a large amount, is now loaded to only part of an experiment to determine already exactly to what extent that mold, and then we load all that is. ZY And the size of the 320 is still not completely go away, because the illustrations for the descriptions on a large scale is clearly not good.

Vitaly, I'm just trying to build a site that he was comfortable. If you see any shortcomings in this area - please specify the specific embodiments, which is inconvenient now?

Well usually do thumbnails (which is necessary) - this is understandable. The average size - limiting the size for comfortable viewing on the page (usually in the range of 800 ... 1200). And if uploaded more photos - View original (if the author has decided to show the size of this - why not give the opportunity to watch it).
Iestore thumbnails of different sizes (in the limit of one), the average size of the original - if the photo is greater than the average size, or just the original (which is smaller than the average size).
According to copyright - I think a feature is not particularly in demand. If the author wants it badly, he usually puts, although I do not know - maybe then someone and insisted.Judging by makroidu / makroklubu / molbiol with tens of thousands of photos - automatic "kopirayteniem " was not much concerned about, at least I do not remember some heated discussions on this subject ... If the author wants it badly - he usually signed himself original and it is generally in the preparation of photo technology is already incorporated.About lousy compression and very good labels in PHP - what they mean specifically? It is through the GDI as I understand it. The degree of compression jpg where indicated. Applied more than once - like the special problems are not met. There is even a transparent overlay layer, alpha-blending of type png, you can superimpose watermarks ...Are you saying that you're forced through the photos handed some programs before they get to the site ??? Duck because no one else does, and that is when you have lost the inspiration ...

I have his comments probably tortured.
Expose your photos on two sites: macroid.ru and plantarium.ru - they are somewhat similar. Maybe we should do something similar. There's a great photo exhibit (limited size) and from the icons are the correct size. At both sites the identification of good and convenient accommodation.Yesterday, for example, I agonized with the placement of moles that are identified to genus. On plantarium no such problem: you do not know - is placed in a section of unidentified, you know kind of - the section of vague, you know for sure - in certain (search by Latin and Russian names). Almost similar for makroide.And given the possibility of correcting the authors contributed to the information (the one in the database).
I do not know what to advise :-(

Boris, there are no contradictions with your words, I do not. Just some of the questions can be left to the discretion of the authors of the pictures (you're right, and usually is), but you can not leave.Most of the photos uploaded to this site, come here in such a way as if the author or do not know the existence of what some Levels-s and Crop-s, or until very well is, in what direction images is changed, or just lazy do it.Yes, often there is nothing wrong globally, because the form is determined, and the pictures are not infinitely ugly, but simply unfinished. But I have the desire to foty site as possible were decent. Not a masterpiece, but decent as far as possible, given the quality of the originals and the number of images to be processed.So now all I edit photos before publishing them on the site, although some (5 percent or so) I just change the size and impose copyright, because in general agree with the author's version.

Summary №1: preliminary Most editing photos need to be more or less decent.

In all of this there are authors who A) ship images, from a technical (and sometimes artistic) point of view, the level is higher than the average for the hospital and b) do not want outside interference in their work.I can quite understand this, and so was born the idea to make an opportunity for people to load pictures that I will not change, and will soon approve for publication or disapprove. At the same time will increase and speed the publication of new photos, as the authors themselves can engage prostanovkoy copyright and sizes according to the requirements of the site.But!In the case except for very small prevyuh there are two sizes of photos (I repeat, does not matter what their limitations pixels, the main thing - they are still two versions), the system does not work, because an option when people ship, say, 1024 and a program online machine compresses up to 320 passes,because A) PHP shakes ratio size / quality noticeably worse normal bend and B) only normal copyright, which can be considered universal - with the same translucent and translucent shadow. When I looked at the possibility of putting this through PHP, I have not found.Perhaps, since anything has changed, and now it is quite a put down. It is also possible that PHP is now able to properly reap in Zhpeg. If you know of such improvements - reportedly will look at concrete examples.

Summary №2: Authors have the right to download their pictures have not been edited further (cropping, color, etc.), But not yet fully defined as the opportunity to close up, taking into account the size of the two photons.

With regards to copyrights as such (author of the image plus the address of the site) - this topic is not discussed, because these conditions have been affixed to the authors at the very beginning and, accordingly, the mountains loaded on truck loaded with this condition (it does not matter author insisted on it or not), and the address of the site is necessary becausefoty disperse in commercial quantities from other sites (even though it will be clear where taken), including and copies (in this case easier to prove the source).

Summary №3: Copyright is necessary, and not when the author wants the picture, and always in the same format.

And yes, Boris, at the moment I cast out before the publication of photos in 3 program, including manual editing of the Photoshop.

Vitali, no torment no comment - it was good, and they are always welcome, especially specifics. Poor - otsustvtie this feedback.About icons / preview is no problem - you are on this site as soon as they see their boot images, for example. The problem is that large foty are not in the same size, and two (cm. Above).With regards to the photos identified to genus or other superspecies taxon - yes, you're right, it will be necessary to make this option more visible, but now kind of have to indicate or in a footnote or clarification to the definition of (different fields), while the photo ship as undetermined. Iethe problem itself is not too: you do not know - in Georgia is not certain without commentary, you know - in particular (with autosubstitution species) know is inaccurate - indicates supraspecific taxa in one of the fields.As for the editing of information - it is now there for unpublished images, be sure and published (except for the species, because after the publication of this issue should not be the direct responsibility of the author's picture).

Phew. Like all otkommentil.Who has any thoughts - Wellcome, Boris, refines about PHP, maybe I really behind the times.

With regards to the photos identified to genus or family only. Vitaly had in mind that it would be much better if such images once loaded, respectively, in the genus or family.Better in the first place so that the specialist (or consider themselves :)) on a certain group is not a bunch of shovels prevyushek (Solyanka) of undefined GENERAL ph, and opened to a page and saw a kind of pictures in which the insect is not identified to species but related by the author or moderators to this genus.Similarly - family. IMHO greatly simplify and speed up the identification. Well, not everyone has the time (and desire) to review several hundred different undetermined images and a dozen in a separate way is much easier to see.

Yes! And when downloading to a certain genus or family should be, respectively, the authors have the opportunity, using the same auto-fit, just download the form to the genus or family!

I do not agree. If the type is not defined, the undefined, and how the expected kind of comment or family. Since there is not any Authorities issue a guarantee that they are defined correctly.

Alexander! Why it is held on the same Plantarium? Naturally, there are no guarantees, but that there are competent members of the site who view uploaded and ruled an error, and without the participation of the Admin!

As an example, now is the admin Photo Coleophoridae, defined by the author as Incurvariidae. Now there are three categories: defined, the definition is doubtful and not certain. Then it is necessary to enter: some to the family and to a certain kind. It is necessary to it? Or look at the tails of all families in search of underdetermined :).

Alexander! Categories of unidentified species to be three. Uncertain at all (in a pile as it is now), to certain family (see when viewing the family) and to a certain genus (visible when viewing the genus).In the list next to the number of families available in the database / directory of species are the number of indeterminate photos assigned to each family. Similarly - when viewing a list of genera. I, nevertheless, think that this somehow allows to structure the growing mountain of uncertain ph and facilitate the definition.Maybe we should do, and so that the pressing 'undefined "the user can see a list of families and genera, which are vague and photos go to uncertainty in a particular family / genus.

Large scale is not always (depending on the topic) is better. The editors of course have to use, but not very often. Scaling distorts the details. But natural objects and should look as befits that are often difficult. According to specialists komentam truth is, only the best results are not visible. Not so simple.

Yuri! Explain this: "Scaling distorts the details. But natural objects and should look as befits that are often difficult. " What do you mean by zooming in this case? When pruning, how it can distort the details?

By scaling I mean an increase in the editor. From a certain moment the picture begins to "float " (not only lost small parts). However, if in Photoshop to give an increase of 10%, increasing the border without losing quality somewhat relegated.Therefore, when shooting small natural objects, to make it look as it should make better use of the ring nozzle. Eugene! You yourself know all this .....

Yuri, and no one offered to increase the picture shop, where is all this? It was a big load on truck and reduce their size if necessary.

Yuri! The increase in FSH little ph (scaling in your understanding) I even did not occur! This exactly, no one suggested :)

Peter! I asked about the fate of the above pictures uploaded by the authors earlier to "revolution " with the size. If the author has shipped large (well, at least 800 or 600) - they have survived? Ie a great option would be online only for pictures after the revolution, or ...? If so, then the ability to edit your images for the authors is extremely necessary.At least the possibility of replacing old for new (although it is certainly not for everyone perhaps because there are already thousands).

Eugene, there are great options for many previously uploaded photos. Gradually, they will lay out how to lay out all signal that remained there, to be able to reload.