OT- Ryan Sook artwork!

[Neil Hill]

To any Ryan Sook fans, I have a Zatanna #3 pg19 piece that I'm looking to part with. I'm currently taking offers, but want to post it here first before sending it to the wasteland that is eBay. :D

Please contact me at: nhill_2001@yahoo.com if you're interested. In the mean time, hopefully this scan comes through and looks acceptable:

[Jakob Westman]

If I'm seeing the correct file,
that page deserves a new scan.

/ Jakob

[Neil Hill]

If I'm seeing the correct file,
that page deserves a new scan.

/ Jakob

I'll be the first to admit that I suck at getting the file size at the appropriate KB so that the resolution is good, but so that it can also be posted. I welcome any advice in this arena. In the mean time, if interested in a higher quality scan, I'll certainly send it via email.

Thanks!

[Jakob Westman]

There are two common picture formats for the web. Jpeg and Gif. Jpegs are generally best suited for photographic images or pictures with many values while gifs are best suited for images with flat (and few) colors. Black and white lineart will almost always look better as a gif instead of a jpeg (even though most people save 'em as jpegs).

For gifs you can change the byte-size by changing the pixel width and height and by limiting the color palette. The fewer colors the smaller images.

With jpegs you can chose how hard you want to compress it. In some cases in a scale from 1-12 and in some cases in a percentage scale from 1-100. The better quality the bigger files. The harder compression, the smaller files. If you're using the percentage values you generally get a good looking image with a compression set from 60% and upward.

The image you had posted earlier looked like a jpeg with super-hard compression. Probably around 10-20%.

Hope that helped some.
Similar questions were asked in the desktop wallpaper thread where very hard compressed jpegs were posted. Images that would have looked better as gifs or as jpegs with lower compression.

/ Jakob

[Neil Hill]

There are two common picture formats for the web. Jpeg and Gif. Jpegs are generally best suited for photographic images or pictures with many values while gifs are best suited for images with flat (and few) colors. Black and white lineart will almost always look better as a gif instead of a jpeg (even though most people save 'em as jpegs).

For gifs you can change the byte-size by changing the pixel width and height and by limiting the color palette. The fewer colors the smaller images.

With jpegs you can chose how hard you want to compress it. In some cases in a scale from 1-12 and in some cases in a percentage scale from 1-100. The better quality the bigger files. The harder compression, the smaller files. If you're using the percentage values you generally get a good looking image with a compression set from 60% and upward.

The image you had posted earlier looked like a jpeg with super-hard compression. Probably around 10-20%.

Hope that helped some.
Similar questions were asked in the desktop wallpaper thread where very hard compressed jpegs were posted. Images that would have looked better as gifs or as jpegs with lower compression.

/ Jakob

Thanks Jakob for teaching this semi-young dog a few new tricks, sir! :p

[Neil Hill]

Just out of curiousity, when using the manage attachments option when posting pictures in replies, how do you get the picture/s to appear rather than only show up as a link? I've been having a devil of a time trying to figure that out.

Thanks!

[Maija]

Stygian-- CBR forum attachments can only show up as a link (sometimes if the file is really small I've noticed that a thumbnail will be displayed, but Jonah and Matt seem to be fooling around with the settings so sometimes you see them and sometimes you don't).

When you can see an image in someone's post they have uploaded the image to a server somewhere and then inlined that image (IMG tag vs just a text link). There are some servers that offer free image hosting, mostly for auctions, such as imageshack, that you can use. http://www.imageshack.us/ They're not ideal (for example your image will disappear if it gets downloaded too often and the bandwidth is exceeded and they have file size restrictions too), but they're good for just posting stuff to show off temporarily. You may have some server space that came with your internet service account but be wary in case they might charge you for exceeding bandwidth usage (not that images posted on the Hellboy forum see a lot of traffic, but in a popular thread they might).

Using a link saves bandwidth. An inline image is downloaded passively-- every time some one loads the thread. A link needs to be actively clicked on to download the image. If you're hosting your own image and want to save bandwidth, use a text link.

[DannyBoy7783]

You would be better off just uploading it to www.flick.com and linking to the image. You can put up much larger photos than the forum here allows.

[Neil Hill]

Wow! Thanks for the advice folks. All of this is helping to answer questions I've had about posting images over the years. Usually I avoid the practice (obviously out of fear I'll somehow screw it up), but the more I do it the more comfortable I'll be with the process.

Thanks again! :D

[Neil Hill]

In case anyone's interested, I just entered this Sook page on eBay here:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6593928647&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&rd=1