Sip Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Also, higher resolution and/or larger format scans/pictures would be appreciated. I have tried to zoom some of them and the resolution was inadequate! That is important for potential buyers! Any bigger and you could just as well just print them out on 8x10 and not buy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Also, higher resolution and/or larger format scans/pictures would be appreciated. style_images/master/snapback.png I don't know if this is a good idea, true it may interest potential buyers, but as well those that would reproduce them(photolithography etc.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted January 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Siamanto,thanks for your inputs.You are right about the fonts and I will polish later when I'll publish new works along with new gallery format which Sip suggested. The reason I reduced the resolution is for fast downloading.I hate slow downloading sites and often I clicked out before it opens so I did not want my site to suffer the same fate. About the index page what part and what should I name for greater traffic. About the prices most decent Art sites never display prices since it feels like a furniture store if I did and that's why I mention it in the statement page.If someone is interested then it would be a snap to contact me however I opened for that suggestion. Regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 to avoid the printing you can put a large watermark diagonally that would avoid the printing but give better detail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Rubo jan, the first click can open the image you have and the second click can be the higher resolution one with the watermark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 not a good sample but this is what I mean. http://www.smugmug.com/img/help/watermark.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted January 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Rubo jan, the first click can open the image you have and the second click can be the higher resolution one with the watermark. style_images/master/snapback.png I agree specially the drawings can be higher res. however if anyone is iterested in a perticular piece I can easily send them a better picture privetely. This is more of a jumping board, a learning stage Site if you will and upon my new works I will change everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted January 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Azat seriously how big jpg file can be and still be fast loading.My pictures are mostly 20-30K ,is 60-90k ok?Would that not slow it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosJan Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Armat JAn Shnorhavorum em !!! it's a good Start !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maral Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Any bigger and you could just as well just print them out on 8x10 and not buy. style_images/master/snapback.png yeah thanx for spoiling it for me!That was my plan (kidding Armat) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siamanto Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 (edited) Any bigger and you could just as well just print them out on 8x10 and not buy. style_images/master/snapback.png No potential buyer would consider even a real size print as a substitute to the original! It's not the same "visual???" experience! It's like looking at a photo instead of touching skin! I don't know if this is a good idea, true it may interest potential buyers, but as well those that would reproduce them(photolithography etc.) style_images/master/snapback.png If that is such a lucrative business, why wouldn't someone invest into buying the original for an even higher quality reproduction! I always said that a creative mind can only be generous; while others are about to copy him/her, he/she is already ahead! to avoid the printing you can put a large watermark diagonally that would avoid the printing but give better detail. style_images/master/snapback.png Thanks! That's a relatively common practice! Good engineering! Rubo jan, the first click can open the image you have and the second click can be the higher resolution one with the watermark. style_images/master/snapback.png That works for me! Good engineering! The reason I reduced the resolution is for fast downloading.I hate slow downloading sites and often I clicked out before it opens so I did not want my site to suffer the same fate. style_images/master/snapback.png Most - if not all - potential buyers would have a broadband connection. Furthermore, if your upload bandwidth will not be sufficient for higher resolution images, that means that you're getting enough hits and hopefully buyers...and may be able to afford a faster line! Personally, I would not buy unless I see a high resolution image and may/would not bother contacting the artist! About the index page what part and what should I name for greater traffic. style_images/master/snapback.png Start with this: http://searchenginewatch.com/webmasters/ About the prices most decent Art sites never display prices since it feels like a furniture store if I did and that's why I mention it in the statement page. If someone is interested then it would be a snap to contact me however I opened for that suggestion. Regards style_images/master/snapback.png Not really! Check this: http://www.russianartgallery.com/index.php...&artists_id=120 http://www.postershop.com/Jansem-Jean-k.html Personally, I may/would not contact the artist if the price is not made public. I know that it is not easy to put a price tag, but it may be perceived as more "honest!" Edited January 10, 2005 by Siamanto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siamanto Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Azat seriously how big jpg file can be and still be fast loading.My pictures are mostly 20-30K ,is 60-90k ok?Would that not slow it? style_images/master/snapback.png Ruben, 60-90K may be perceived as "amateurish!" For me, resolution is a MUST! I don't care if the site is poor, as long as I can look carefully at the details and the colors are true! Picture quality is everything! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vava Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Ruben, 60-90K may be perceived as "amateurish!" For me, resolution is a MUST! I don't care if the site is poor, as long as I can look carefully at the details and the colors are true! Picture quality is everything! style_images/master/snapback.png I disagree entirely. Firstly - the site must be simple and easy to use - this includes images that load rapidly. Azat's suggestion of three levels of resolution isn't a bad idea, but means more work for you. You can optimize thumbnails to load pretty fast without sacrificing too much quality. The med-size images can average around 90K. Then you can put high-res images (watermarked, of course) for folks like siamanto. Keep in mind that when you're creating jpgs, there are slight colour shifts and digital artifacts that may appear. My suggestion is to really play with tools like image-ready (it's built into photoshop) to find the right optimization level. Also it's a good idea to look at the images on different monitors once in a while (each display varies - the key is to make sure that yours isn't way off) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siamanto Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 (edited) I disagree entirely. Firstly - the site must be simple and easy to use - this includes images that load rapidly. Azat's suggestion of three levels of resolution isn't a bad idea, but means more work for you. You can optimize thumbnails to load pretty fast without sacrificing too much quality. The med-size images can average around 90K. Then you can put high-res images (watermarked, of course) for folks like siamanto. style_images/master/snapback.png Vava, I hope that all those who disagreed "entirely!" with ME, agreed with WHAT I SAY! In fact, if you read carefully, you'll realize that I have concurred with Azat. As long as the higher quality pictures are readily available, it does not matter how they are made available! Edited January 10, 2005 by Siamanto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted January 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 My feeling is that my works are meant to be viewed by most people and if I built a site which is targeted to broad bands users then what's the point of sharing.My intention is not only selling. Vava I will try med level opt.in image ready and see if the site loads ok.I will display the prices and change the resolution. thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vava Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Um - I may not have been clear. I don't mind having two resolutions/sizes like you do now (a thumb, and a larger pic). I think the images look great as they are! But for those people like Siamanto who say 'image quality above all else' (which incidently is what the crux of my disagreement) perhaps adding a further high-resolution picture would be the appropriate option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siamanto Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Ruben, The following is below 90K http://www.russianartgallery.com/index.php...e&image_id=1267 Compare it to http://www.armatner.com/Drawing%20Gallery/...Morning-sun.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted January 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Ruben, The following is below 90K http://www.russianartgallery.com/index.php...e&image_id=1267 Compare it to http://www.armatner.com/Drawing%20Gallery/...Morning-sun.htm style_images/master/snapback.png They both have 72 res.checked on photoshop.The russian gallery one is larger but res. is the same.I will consider larger pictures... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Love the site Armat, and absolutely love the statement with the background. Also a black and white school photo is a very nice touch. Can you PM me the price for "Time Out" painting? I would hope that you'd be willing to keep it available for slightly longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 (edited) Armat, with JPG, there is a "compression" setting that will significantly impact file size. Just the resultion and image dimension is not what determines final file size with formats that use lossy compression (like JPEG). You can experiment with Image Ready which comes with Photoshop. Open a jpg image in there, and you can switch between the original and optimized view using the tabs above the image. In the optimized view, play with different quality settings in the "Optimize" dialog window. They have pre set settings like "Low", "Medium", and "High" or you can pick your own quality value between 0 and 100. The image size with and without optimization is displayed in the status area right below each image. There are many more things you can do there and also view several different versions (with various quality levels) at the same time to decide on the best one. I use that program a LOT more than photoshop! Edit: And don't be surprised if you play with the quality and don't notice almost any visually noticable differences in the image while the file size can change very drastically! Edited January 10, 2005 by Seapahn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted January 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Armat, with JPG, there is a "compression" setting that will significantly impact file size. Just the resultion and image dimension is not what determines final file size with formats that use lossy compression (like JPEG). You can experiment with Image Ready which comes with Photoshop. Open a jpg image in there, and you can switch between the original and optimized view using the tabs above the image. In the optimized view, play with different quality settings in the "Optimize" dialog window. They have pre set settings like "Low", "Medium", and "High" or you can pick your own quality value between 0 and 100. The image size with and without optimization is displayed in the status area right below each image. There are many more things you can do there and also view several different versions (with various quality levels) at the same time to decide on the best one. I use that program a LOT more than photoshop! Edit: And don't be surprised if you play with the quality and don't notice almost any visually noticable differences in the image while the file size can change very drastically! style_images/master/snapback.png Sip I did all that.I have been using photoshop for some time.I could of used larger picture sizes which photogallery gives you an option small,med,or large and I chose med.In retrospect I should of chosen large. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vava Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 One more things - in general on the web, use 72 dpi for your images. Screen resolutions can't support much more than that anyway. Visually you won't be able to see the difference between and image that's 72 dpi and the same that's 150 dpi in your web browser. But the ifile size will be much greater in the second. (The resolution will of course make a BIG difference once you're printing... good night... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 I was never really satisfied with the small, med, large options photoshop would give in the gallery maker. Once you are happy with a certain size and quality in Image Ready, you can make a droplet which then you can use to automatically process a bunch of files. It's a bit complicated to explain so if you are interested, just look up droplet in the Image Ready (or photoshop) help to get you started. So I would use the album generator to make all the html files, but then I would use my own droplet with my own JPG settings to generate all the JPG files for the thumbnails and the main images. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 It's funny guys, when Rubo showed me his web site, I said to him ask guys (Sip, Vava Sasun Harut,) at the forum and open up up a bottle of wine........now he is lost I bet my pridictions came all thru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Dear Lika we are a bunch of jokers here and sometimes it turned out in visual form Here it is.Notice the male in the cellos hole...and the shadow... style_images/master/snapback.png Armat, I hope you remember that I practiacally posed for that masterpiece I mean business .... And I also remember that the lamp was right above me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.