I got a Kodak Easy Share CX4230 for Christmas, and all the pictures I take with it take up the entire monitor, making it hard to send to friends. I’m wondering if there’s a way to make the pictures smaller (so that they don’t take up the entire monitor) either in the camera’s options, or with some software.
You can use Irfanview free from http://irfanview.com/ or just about an image editing software to resize the image. There is probably something in the software that came with the camera that will do it.
It seems like the camera would have resolution settings somewhere on it. I’m not up on digital camera tech, but every one I’ve used I’ve been able to change resolution from (for example) 320x240 to 640x480 in the menu.
If for some reason the camera was without this feature, you could resize your pictures in Photoshop or any other photo editing software.
I much prefer using software to resize pictures as opposed to changing camera settings - you never know when you’ll take a picture that is so good you want to print it. If you use lower camera settings, you’re SOL.
I take all my digital photos at the best resolution and size my camera is capable of, and then use software - and work only on a COPY of the original picture - not the original image itself. Once you mess with and resave in the .jpg format, you will never get that information back.
Also, pay attention to the actual file size when emailing - not just the size on the monitor. I feel that under 80 kb is OK for people on dial up (depending on patience levels, of course), even if the pixel size is smaller the file size can be huge. .jpgs are my choice for emailing, they can be sufficiently compressed to retain quality and still be small enough to send by email.
My camera came with Adobe PhotoDeluxe, and it has a “Save to email” function that allows you to not only change the dimensions of the image, but also set the JPG compression so that it is smaller, data-wise.
If you use XP, and want to email pictures, Microsoft Photo editor (inherent with XP) automatically will scale your images for you. I will take a 1MB jpg and make a 38K pic out of it with the same resolution, just resized. You just right-click on the image when it’s open in MPE and select ‘send to’ and ‘mail recipient’ the wizard does the rest. Very slick.
If you have the camera memory for it, take the pictures in the highest res you can (in my case, 1600x1200) and resize to a smaller image in software. You seem to get better detail that way.
I don’t think XP automatically has MS Photo editor, I think that comes with MS Office. I have XP (but not MS Office or Word) and I don’t have MS Photo editor.
For a free program to resize and compress photos, I would also recommend Irfanview.
Mine does. If I go to email an image, XP asks if I want to re-size it. I have no extras installed.
If you have a digital camera, you should also have a quality graphics program as well.
Good advice to take your pictures at the highest resolution possible. You do not get a second chance to make a better quality copy from a lousy original.
Many digital cameras save their raw images as jpg’s. Jpg’s are lossy images. That means if you manipulate a jpg to create additional jpg copies, each manipulation from the original save will suffer in quality.
Once you take your digital images and transfer them to your computer’s hard drive, mark them as read only. (Ideally, you should take those original raw images and burn them to CDs.)
Now use your quality graphics program to create a master copy in the graphics program native file format. It is from this master you make copies to manipulate - color, brightness, cropping, whatever. If you screw up, make a working copy of the master copy and start again. (The master original is never used, except to make another master copy from the original raw image.)
The key with creating a master copy in your graphic program’s native format is you maintain original image quality. So if your original image was created as a .jpg, your loss factor is minimal in creating the master copy. Manipulations made from the master copy will not suffer any quality loss.
For example. Say your original raw image is a jpg. Using Photoshop you create a copy of it (the master copy), saving it as a native Photoshop image. When you want to create an image – say for the web – you use that master copy to make a working copy and manipulate that working copy to your heart’s content. When you finally have the image the way you want it, save it as a final working copy. It is this copy you create your jpg images.
Why the final working copy? Because someone is bound to to almost like the final image. You can go back, make your tweak and save that copy as a jpg.
The miracles of computers!
What software do you use for e-mail? My XP doesn’t have MS Photo Editor, and my e-mail software doesn’t ask questions when I add attachments to messages.
I strongly agree with those who say to take the photo in maximum resolution and quality, and re-size later on.
I also strongly recommend Irfanview.
One nit-pick: JPG is almost always set to be lossy, but there is a “lossless” JPG. Typically, it does not compress nearly as well as GIF, but it is there.
There are five main filetypes used in imaging… not counting .PSD, .PSP, and the like.
TIFFs are huge, uncompressed files, generally used for raw image data. It used to be used a lot with scanners and cameras, but then came e-mail and they fell back into the hands of commercial printers and desktop publishers.
BMP, well, lets not go there. It is uncompressed and unrealistic.
JPG is a lossy compression algorithm. Most programs you can use a slider to determine how lossy. It does a fair job, but almost always degrades the quality of the image (blurry text, loss of detail, etc). The advantage is the smaller size - but with a truly lossless JPG, the size loss isn’t that great. This is the standard image format used on the Internet (in the end. They usually have a “master copy” PSD or PNG).
GIF is a pretty horrible format for photography. It doesn’t use nearly as many colors (256 vs. 16 million) as the other formats, so when you compress to it, it’ll find the nearest match. You end up with a lot of grainy images with off colors.
PNG is a newer, open format. It is basically lossless, but doesn’t compress as well as JPG (An example, an image on my desktop with lots of colors was 3.8 mb as BMP, 1.2 mb as PNG, and 0.34 mb as low-loss JPG… but the JPG bled the text).
There are much more complicated natures to all of these (transparencies, alpha layers, animated formats, etc) that aren’t relevant.
I really prefer to use PNG to store all of my pictures, then resize and JPG them to e-mail them to people. If they want a better quality copy, I’ll send them the full size PNG.
I’d also suggest to get familiar with either Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop. Personally, I prefer Paint Shop Pro (it is just a simpler program), and it has some very easy to use photo editing filters to adjust color depth, saturation, etc.
Standard Outlook Express, from the XP install.
If I have a image on the screen, and just right click->send to-> email it has something like an wizard that does it automatically.