Wayne:

If I want to deal with more than a couple of images at a time, I use ImageMagick. It's a command-line tool so it's a little clunky but is very powerful and free.


Tom

Wayne, I'm nowhere near a camera expert but I've had good luck in getting decent looking pictures for internet use. A cheap point and shoot camera will work fine. Anyone can spend $200-250 (or less) and get a camera that will take great looking pics for the internet. Your camera will likely be fine I would however recommend a tripod. I prefer to take a fairly high resolution picture and resize it for internet use. Try one of higher quality settings and reduce the resolution (size) and quality of the pic until it's at or below the 125k limit. Good light make a difference also.

When it come to a program to easily resize photo there really only choice in my opinion and that's IRfan View.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGNpiUUMjtk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ffestoolownersgroup.com%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D6215.0&feature=player_embedded

my suggestions:

forget the low setting and the .tiff format
use the middle setting for most stuff
use the higher setting if you may want to print your picture

same with the resolution (use the 1024 x 786 most of the time and the 1600 x 1200 if you plan on printing it)

try picasa from Google - basic image manipulation tools, an easy export tool and and organizer all in one

always use .jpegs for pictures, .gifs are more for web graphics

Carl

Wayne I very rarely use the flash, in fact, so little you can say I never use it. The more light you can get the better without causing harsh shadows. I like a blend of natural and artificial light. Take a close look at tripod in person, you'd be amazed at the difference in quality at the same price point. Look at spending $25-$50. Be sure to read your camera's manual it can be a big help when deciding what setting to use. In the beginning the auto setting is your best bet until you get to better understand your camera. Take a lot of pictures that way you have a lot of pictures to chose from, one of them are bound to be a good one.  The reasoning behind my thoughts on taking higher quality pictures even you intend to use them on the internet is because you can always resize to reduce the file size but you'll never be able to make a lower resolution picture a high resolution picture.

I can't emphasize enough the importance of a good photo editing program, you aren't ready of a professional level program, you need something easy to learn and use (and free). I really believe that program is irfan view. I can resize a photo in less than ten seconds that's how easy it is to use. Check out the video I posted above and give it a try.   

I completely agree with the tripod recomendation. It's tough to hold still enough to get high-resolution or close-up pictures without it. It should also be locked down be fore taking the pix.


Tom

Johnbro,

Thanks for your suggestions as everyone here is always helpful.  I guess my initial question wasn't really that clear.  I pretty much understand lighting and using a tripod to reduce camera shake and other nuances of taking the picture.  I did photgrapghy as a hobby back when film was the only option.  Back in the day, I shot everything in kodachrome 25 usually.  I did color prints in my home darkroom and had a nice array of Nikon lenses and bodies.  Most of what I learned was through a stack of photography books and hanging out at the camera shops.  My Photography learning kinda stopped a while before the digital/computer age.

I guess my questions were more digital and computer questions.  I wanted to know the best combination of resolution and quality camera settings that would reduce in size to fit on the forum.  IE low quality initial picture requires less reduction but there is  less to work with or highest quality might degrade if reduced to far. I don't know, maybe those settings aren't universal between cameras.

On my camera, there are 4 resolution settings and 3 quality settings.   My question was more of asking if anyone worked out the best combination and simplest way to reduce the photos so the end result was a large high quality picture under 125 kb.  I was just being lazy and didn't want to do a ton of test pictures in a multitude of settings combinations and downloads to the forum.  I figured maybe someone had already done the work since I see some really clear pictures here.  In addition to that, I go to three forums and they all have different size requirements and software with different reduction requirements.

I was hoping someone had and answer like:  I use this resolution setting with this quality setting and reduce by this percentage and they are high quality and fit in the forum.  I ended up doing some test pictures  based on all the recommendations and came up with some acceptable pictures that will fit in all three forums I go too.  My camera is, I'm sure, outdated from what I see on the shelves these days.  It's a nice compact pentax with zoom features but its only 2 megapixels.  So hopefully  I'm getting the best I can with my equipment and they will be acceptable and helpful on the forum.  When I get the money to upgrade to a better camera... well... you know what I'm gonna do... buy some more tools... lol

   digital cameras are like all other electronics. They are expensive when new release and then drop drastically when they become "outdated." I shoot about 100 pics a day when doing the website so I don't like to tinker around with the camera. I bought this camera when new for hundreds and now notice it is available "recertified" for $70 or so. I have bought two of the lower priced and they are like new as far as I am concerned. So I have three cause I tend to drop them. (but they still work fine.)



here is a link to where I get them... http://www.ecost.com/Detail.aspx?edp=44377686&navid=155441519

Wayne, I've never tried using the shrinkpictures site to resize pics, are you not getting the results you want using this site?

I use the one of three photo editing programs to resize my pictures. I have Photoshop elements (a watered down version of Photoshop), Gimp and irfanview (both Gimp and irfanview are free). I'd strongly recommend you download and use irfanview to resize your pictures if you aren't happy with the website you linked.

The only reason to buy another camera is so you can get better pictures with a little less work on your part. Newer point and shoot camera's auto setting is greatly improved over that of cameras a few years old. I bet you can get acceptable pics with the camera you have now.

Well I did use the highes setings just under tiff.  Tiff files wouldn't reduce with the site I put up previously.  The ones I just added for the dust deputy I didn't resize at all.  I downloaded them to picaso where they are resized automatically for there site.  Then I put them in the forum under the insert image with the image location.  Color balance is a little off.  I used no flash and tried several light settings.  I have CFL's in my shop.  On the Florescent setting it warmed it too much so this pic is under the incandescent setting...  still off but a little better than the florescent setting.  I could have used the flash and the colors wourd be a better.  Maybe I'll try that on my next project.  I may also try to upload a tiff file through picaso and see what that does as well.  I'd rather use a setting that works than to have to edit each picture later to correct for color.



Here is a picture with CFL's on the incandescent setting.





here is one taken last week with a flash

One of the features that I like about Photoshop elements is it's feature to remove an overall color cast in a picture.  It is interesting how different cameras impose a yellow or blue coloration.  It also has a function called publish to the web that allows you to reduce quality, size, etc to shrink the size of files while previewing the results.


Peter

Ah, I understand the problem now. Thank for clarifying.

As said, the "good better best" levels vary from camera to camera. If I know I'm shooting for a web upload, I use the smallest file size. That varies between my point & shoot and my SLR, but either way I upload the pics I like to an album on photobucket (www.photobucket.com) and let it resize the pic to 640 x 480, then link to that picture in my post. I don't want to have to load the pics into PS or a similar tool and resize, although PS will do a batch resize pretty quickly and easily (I used that functionality commonly when our company does websites for client to make both a thumbnail and a fixed sized larger version of the same image).

WRT color or white balance, some newer cameras have pretty good auto white balance features, some don't. It can be tricky to fix it after the picture is taken, so if your camera has a custom WB feature it might be worthwhile to go through the process of setting it for your CFLs in the shop. My SLR has one, my P&S does not.

I think it is the other way around... flourescents are usually colder (blue) and incandescents are warmer. (Daylight is 6400 kelvin; incandescents in  3200 range. Flourescents can be "cool white" and closer to daylight but lack the 3200 range.)

When you use flash, that is always 6400 or so and easier to mix with the flourescents. Any incandescent will be very warm in the picture. If you are shooting 6 ft and closer and using flash, leave the camera at their WB setting.

The quality of the lense is VASTLY more important than the megapixel count these days.  For example, wife and I bought a camera (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=14256) as a joint birthday present last year.  It's a great camera, with a TON of megapixels, and features. 

Now, we have a dog that is almost all black (she's my avatar pic), and we have nearly black tile in our kitchen.  In low light, taking a picture of her on the tile was effectively pointless.  I bought her a couple of "cheap" lenses for her birthday this year, and the difference in picture quality and clarity is astounding.  So much so that she took the "black dog on black tile" test pic, and upon reviewing told me that the floor was dirty, I needed to sweep it - along the lines of "see the sand grains in the picture?"...

Thanks John,

I haven't posted any ne wpics for a while so now I have to remember how I did it when it worked.  I think if I do a few it will comeback to me.  And so far I haven't been doing any alterations to the pics other than size to fit the forum.  I need to learn the best way to add pointer and circles and such on the photo to point out a specific area that is being discussed or pointed out.  I have whatever comes with windows xp pro and I have adobe photo shop that I could install if needed too.

Wayne,

When we next visit, I can show you how to do a few basic things using IrfanView.  Bring you PC!!

Dave R.