Digital Photography Forums Presented by SiteWelder

Hit Tail Program

kmcphotog — 2008-06-27T17:43:27-08:00

I just signed up for a free trial of Hit Tail, but dont know if it can be used with SiteWelder...does anyone know?

It says the following:
Please put the following code in your template somewhere between the body tags. It should appear on every page of your website so that it can track all search engine hits. Once it's there, you will begin to see the data immediately!

Check out My Site

Bill J — 2008-07-11T13:36:28-08:00

Any constructive ideas on how to improve my site are appreciated.
Thanks,
Bill Jagde

http://www.billjagdephotography.com

Watching traffic numbers

ricktakagi — 2008-07-13T23:50:28-08:00

Does anyone know what categories to watch when seeing what traffic is coming to your site? I read the statement regarding what each items means but still don't know what the most accurate indicator is.

Rick

http://www.ricktakagiphotography.com

Nikon D3

skimage — 2008-04-08T09:16:40-08:00

curious to know if anyone has used this camera and what your results where.
sk

New site "Brian Jorg Outdoors"

Brian Jorg Outdoors — 2008-03-18T11:55:43-08:00

Hello all, I just wanted to announce I have my first site up at http://www.brianjorg.com . Check it out if you get a chance, Thanks, Brian

My website from the great Northwest!

ricktakagi — 2008-02-07T15:45:48-08:00

Thanks for checking it out. I'm always open to hearing comments on how to improve it.

Rick

http://www.ricktakagiphotography.com

The image slot that won't update

Dennis — 2008-01-31T11:17:09-08:00

I see no other place to put this but here. Here's an example of the problem I'm having:

I have a gallery and I put 6 photos in it. I write a caption for photo no. 1 and copy and paste the info from there to the to the other caption slots. All thats left to do is hit update. Viola! One problem. Slot 5 refuses to update. Copy and paste again. Hit update and the slot refreshes blank. I finally had to insert a new photo in slot 7, put the info in, update, and then delete slot 5. The new photo kept the info this time. Now, a new problem. Photos 4, 5, and 6 are now out of order. I label the sort box with the new order. Update...and nothing. This has been happening a lot with the sort order.

Can ANYONE shed some light on what the problem might be?

Image Location

Dennis — 2008-01-31T11:12:42-08:00

I have just been informed that my hard drive location shows up in my PayPal info. Basically when a customer clicks on the "buy" button, the PayPal window comes up and for some reason shows the exact path to the location of the uploaded photo on my hard drive. Like this:

Z:\Photos\2007\Jane Doe\Shoot 1\PDW_1234.jpg

I'm not too happy about this. Most of the Models that I work with have stage names, as a lot of them do. I work with models under the age of 18 and their parents prefer this most of the time. I have always made it a habit to NOT reveal their names to anyone.

I don't want this info to be made public. Is there a way I can force it not to show up? I looked and didn't see any way to hide it.

Anyone else see this?

Dennis Wright photography

Dennis — 2008-01-31T11:17:52-08:00

I'm working on it.

http://www.photodw.com

Image size setting

Curtis — 2007-11-21T17:28:14-08:00

We have a very large, image-intensive website. On it, we display about 4200 high-quality images of classic British sports cars. All of them are in jpg format. About ninety percent of the images are displayed 600 pixels wide by 450 pixels tall, which has proven to be a nice size for viewing.

Pretty much every image we display has been cropped and tweaked a little here or there in Photoshop. We especially frequently use the "unsharp mask" filter, and we always "save for web".

HERE'S THE QUESTION:

When we use "Image Size" to set the image dimensions to 600 x 450, does it matter at all what "resolution" is set to?

As long as the images are only being viewed on screen, I can't think why it should matter! We're in the habit of saving at a resolution of 300 pixels/inch. Would there be any benefit to changing that setting?

I appreciate your insight!

---

fyi: the website is http://www.britishv8.org/

Check out my site

Mason — 2008-02-25T13:59:56-08:00

I am a programmer most of the time. The rest of the time I am a wanna-be photographer.

http://www.masonmiller.com/

Mason

From the SiteWelder Site

Mason — 2007-10-26T11:33:57-08:00

Open your original scanned image in Photoshop. If the original image has an embedded profile, convert the profile into an "sRGB IEC6 1966-2.1" Profile." (Image/Mode/Convert to Profile). To avoid your images changing color when they show up on the web, this so-called "web profile" must be used.

Assuming you are working from a fairly large original scan, pull down the Image Size command (Image/ Image Size). Change the document size resolution to 72 pixels/inch. Under the pixel dimensions, adjust the width and height to your desired output.

Most images look good on most monitors at 450-700 pixels wide for horizontal images and 350-500 pixels high for vertical images. We suggest 600 pixels maximum width and 450 pixels maximum height to insure an appropriate image for viewing on most monitors. If you think your viewers will be using larger monitors (19" or above), try 900 pixels maximum width and 600 pixels maximum height. You should also adjust your maximum upload height/width on the Site Preferences page of SiteWelder.

When you initially resize your image, it will appear smaller ... use the keyboard command command (Apple symbol) - + on a Mac or control - + on a PC to increase the image size to 100% on your monitor. Remember, the resolution on monitors is only 72 pixels per inch. That is all you need to display the image correctly on other computers. Since there are 72 pixels to the inch, a 6-inch wide image would be 432 pixels wide (6 x 72).

After you resize an image to a smaller image resolution, you usually need to re-sharpen the image to make it look more like the original image. Use the "Unsharp Mask" tool (Filter/Sharpen/Unsharp Mask...). We suggest trying a 70-100 percent amount, using a radius of 0.5 pixels and a threshold of 5 levels. Try different amounts until you come up with the amount you want. Make sure the "Preview" is checked on the dialogue box.

After you resize and re-sharpen your image, save your image as a .JPG file. If you want to retain the meta data stored inside your Photoshop file, use the "Save As ..." command (File/Save As ...). Try saving your file at about 6 or 7 quality. Don't save your files at the highest setting (12) - it will make your file size much larger than necessary for web display, and the lower quality setting should look very good for most images.

If you don't need to save the meta data with your file, we suggest using the "Save for Web" option in Photoshop. (File/Save For Web) When the dialogue box comes up, click on the "2-up" option in the top left tab. This will allow you to see your original file on the left and your destination file on the right. On the top right, make sure the "JPEG" is selected in the pulldown options under settings. You can leave the "Optimized" option unchecked. In the quality option, we usually save images at around 50 quality. This usually gives a good combination of reduced image size and good quality. If your image doesn't look good enough at 50, try higher numbers like 60 or 70. Saving at 100 quality level will give you the best possible quality, but will leave you with a large file.

IMPORTANT: To display your images properly in any Flash movies you might use on your site, do not save your images as progressive JPGs. Progressive JPGs do not show up properly in Flash movies (including the Flash movie option on your home page).

Save as .JPG files and be sure to append the .JPG extension to your file names. Your files names need to conform to web-based standards for file naming, and you need the .JPG extension for your file to be displayed properly on the web. Do not save a profile with your images for the web.

I was on my way to work today when I saw this....

Mason — 2007-10-26T11:13:37-08:00

Never a boring drive to work. No Photoshop here......

Modified by Mason at 1:05 PM 10/26/2007

D300 or D200

Mason — 2008-06-23T17:27:08-08:00

I am already heavily invested in Nikon glass, so please don't taunt me with Canon recommendations, but have an old D70 and am ready to get some more resolution for larger prints. Has anyone out there been using both the D200 and D300? Any thoughts on the $200 price difference? My gut tells me once I get to $1500 bucks I may as well drop the other $200 and get the 12 megapixel.

Thanks for any advice.

Mason
http://www.masonmiller.com/
P.S. I am a programmer by profession and a photographer wanna-be away from the office.

Unsharp Mask

Curtis — 2007-10-24T19:14:15-08:00

Need I say more? It's the bomb.

---

Boy, you made setting this up look easy.

I'm not too keen on this message board's registration page though (too many personal questions, like birth date), and there's some white on white text on THIS PAGE OF THE MESSAGE BOARD that needs ot be fixed.

The black border is nice and dramatic...

Somehow I keep wondering... why does this page look so much like VW Vortex? Can't they fix that so it doesn't?

Now I'm going to try pasting in a stolen photo...