Photographs on websites
Does H-R charge for replacement photos? I don't think they do.
You are quite right, though, that they do not allow links to personal property sites... which I personally don't like, but I understand their reasoning.
I believe you may be thinking of French Connections, which does charge for updates to text and pictures. That's just ridiculous, but it's apparently going to change "soon", whatever that means.
You are quite right, though, that they do not allow links to personal property sites... which I personally don't like, but I understand their reasoning.
I believe you may be thinking of French Connections, which does charge for updates to text and pictures. That's just ridiculous, but it's apparently going to change "soon", whatever that means.
Brooke
I've had clients upload the same photos to both owners direct uk and HR and the same pics on OD like twice as good so I assume it must be HR's compression system. I've had a few issues with OD cropping the images to make them 4.3 ratio instead the true 3.2 ratio but they have corrected the problem straight away
Regarding photo galleries, I don't know what looks best to clients but I've just received this mail from someone who has booked for next year:
"FYI, I visit your website almost daily to vicariously wander the grounds and waterfall. It gets me through a long day's teaching".
This is a lady from the States - I'm loking forward to meeting her!
Maybe we should get a state subsidy, for helping the population survive difficult times..... This does bring home the non-commercial, social work aspect of holidays.
"FYI, I visit your website almost daily to vicariously wander the grounds and waterfall. It gets me through a long day's teaching".
This is a lady from the States - I'm loking forward to meeting her!
Maybe we should get a state subsidy, for helping the population survive difficult times..... This does bring home the non-commercial, social work aspect of holidays.
Best,
Alexia.
Alexia.
Be careful, she sounds like a loonyFYI, I visit your website almost daily to vicariously wander the grounds and waterfall. It gets me through a long day's teaching
Can you be certain that it's a 'she' and not some psychopathic mentalist with a penchant for good quality, none of that cheap sh.t, chainsaws?
Web Site Photos
I use 300 x 200 jpg images with 30% compression which brings down memory size to say 12KB which is important to keep download time acceptable. Then I group photos together.paolo wrote:I should add that if you put lots of large pics on a page, don't just shove them all together at the top because they may take a long time to download and lose you your visitor. If you intersperse them in the text they have something to read while the pics download.
Bedrooms + bathroom en-suite, livingroom + dining room. I then use Javascript to do mouseovers
I usual put four photos at the top for quickness but if you have time to spread them out in between text it does look better.
With only 4 positions it would be possible to view up to 12 images
Richard M
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 11:21 am
- Location: Central Brittany, France
- Contact:
Jpeg compression & picture layout
I use Irfanview (http://www.irfanview.com) to resize and resave all my pictures from photoshop elements. I find it produces much sharper and smaller sized images than photoshop does (sometimes as much as 100% smaller).
When I designed the site I spent ages trying to decide the best layout for images as IE does such a terrible job of printing webpages and I hate printing a page with the text cropped off. I therefore went for a ribbon of 172 wide pictures down the right hand side of the page and then at least if IE does crop them off it's only the pictures that get lost and not the text.
Personally I prefer Firefox but IE still pervades too much.
Geoffrey
When I designed the site I spent ages trying to decide the best layout for images as IE does such a terrible job of printing webpages and I hate printing a page with the text cropped off. I therefore went for a ribbon of 172 wide pictures down the right hand side of the page and then at least if IE does crop them off it's only the pictures that get lost and not the text.
Personally I prefer Firefox but IE still pervades too much.
Geoffrey
Les Vallees Gite, central rural Brittany - http://www.giteinbrittany.com
Geoffrey, I don't see much difference between Photoshop and irfanview. Your home page pic is 46kb and most of my (near identical size as your exterior shot) pics come out at around 32 to 40 kb for exterior and a little less on interiors using 50% quality on Photoshop.
Last edited by mvus on Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Alan Knighting
- Posts: 4120
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:26 am
- Location: Monflanquin, Lot-et-Garonne, France
Re: Jpeg compression & picture layout
I don't believe you meant to say that. 100% smaller means it has no size at all, at least that's what it means in the English language.geoffreycoan wrote:(sometimes as much as 100% smaller).
If a web page doesn't print properly it's because the page was not properly designed for printing in the first place. It's not what IE is doing to it.
Alan
That's right Alan.If a web page doesn't print properly it's because the page was not properly designed for printing in the first place. It's not what IE is doing to it.
You can create a separate css file to control how the printing of the page looks, which is worth doing in my view. It impresses people, subtly.
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 11:21 am
- Location: Central Brittany, France
- Contact:
Re: Jpeg compression & picture layout
Mea culpa, I meant 50% smaller. Mind you if I could achieve 100% compression with no loss of visual quality then it'd certainly make my web pages download faster !Alan Knighting wrote:I don't believe you meant to say that.geoffreycoan wrote:(sometimes as much as 100% smaller).
I have to disagree slightly as with just a simple page IE does a pretty awful job of printing it properly even though it displays fine on screen (say by using a 760 wide table so it'll display properly on an 800x600 screen). Even printing the page in landscape usually results in truncation (e.g. of ebay's pages).Alan Knighting wrote: If a web page doesn't print properly it's because the page was not properly designed for printing in the first place. It's not what IE is doing to it.
I much prefer Firefox's facility of scaling the page to fit.
Do agree though that using a print-specific css is a neat trick and is on my list to do once I've moved my site from "tables for layout and CSS for formatting" to "CSS for everything". Currently I'm grappling with the box model problem and browser quirks vs standard mode. Argh !
Les Vallees Gite, central rural Brittany - http://www.giteinbrittany.com
- marcus
- Posts: 624
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 10:37 am
- Location: Lot-Garonne / Dordogne borders
- Contact:
Hi, If I understand correctly, I don't think these problems are signicant for you except in very particular circumstances.
Re the box model problem, I had a quick look at your site and it seems unlikely that 'pixel specific' positioning is crucial since there is a lot of space on the right already (use percentages, columns, em, float, etc) See http://glish.com/css/hacks.asp for more info.
and 'browser quirks' refers to very old browsers that pretty much no one uses any more, doesn't it?
Meanwhile to return to the original post, does anyone have any suggestions of actually how some websites maage to keep the pictures so much clearer? I use Photoshop, Image Size, then Sharpen / Unsharp Mask but the results aren't great. Could it be because my original picture is too big and it struggles to keep the accuracy when reducing the size so much? Does it make a difference if I 'sharpen' before or after reducing the size? Is there a better sequence of commands I should be using?
Cheers
Marcus
Re the box model problem, I had a quick look at your site and it seems unlikely that 'pixel specific' positioning is crucial since there is a lot of space on the right already (use percentages, columns, em, float, etc) See http://glish.com/css/hacks.asp for more info.
and 'browser quirks' refers to very old browsers that pretty much no one uses any more, doesn't it?
Meanwhile to return to the original post, does anyone have any suggestions of actually how some websites maage to keep the pictures so much clearer? I use Photoshop, Image Size, then Sharpen / Unsharp Mask but the results aren't great. Could it be because my original picture is too big and it struggles to keep the accuracy when reducing the size so much? Does it make a difference if I 'sharpen' before or after reducing the size? Is there a better sequence of commands I should be using?
Cheers
Marcus