Anonymous
offlineUnregistered
I did a wallpaper with slitaz logo, and some versions of it:
original
http://ompldr.org/vY3JqNQ/slitaz_bg.jpg
africa ver.
http://ompldr.org/vY3JqNg/slitaz_bg_africa.jpg
b&w ver.
http://ompldr.org/vY3JqNw/slitaz_bg_black&white.jpg
dark ver.
http://ompldr.org/vY3JqOA/slitaz_bg_dark.jpg
shiny ver.
http://ompldr.org/vY3JqOQ/slitaz_bg_shiny.jpg
hope you like 'em.
Trixar_za
offlineKey Master
First off, I like and I'm using the black and white one.
Secondly, why did you save them at 100%? You do know that the human eye can't see the stored information within a jpeg beyond 90%, right? Some people have argued with me that this is for higher quality, but is it really better quality if you're saving files that's 3 times bigger (than a file saved at 90%) for 10% of the information we as humans cannot see? I think not. Which is why I argue that people should save at 90%. It's the best quality we can visually see, with no extra junk and nice small file sizes. Sorry, but this really gets to me :P
michaelbischof
offlineMember
Come on, to think that 100% is better than ,,only" 90% is not always correct, but well: ,,normal". After they started digital photography it will not take long for them to realize the differenze.
With really good pictures you are not correct, though. A good every day measure would be 92%, but with ,,high quality" and ,,floating numbers" set in Gimp.
Trixar_za
offlineKey Master
After 90% you only start losing upper blue shades. Unless you can see in the ultraviolet, going over 90% is kind of a waste if you ask me.
I've actually tested this. I got a group of friends together and showed them two blue and white images (since it's the easiest to see flaws with those two colours) and had them next to each other. My friends couldn't really guess the difference. When I revealed which one was the 100% one and which was the 90% one, they could suddenly see the differences. Only I lied and they thought the one I said was 100% looked better and could prove it...
They did however guess correctly up to about 85%, so what does all that tell you? :P
michaelbischof
offlineMember
Well, my experience with LCD-screens is where I often store maps obtained from Google and try to downsize them that in case I select less than 90% (not high quality, contrasty photos, simple maps) than the appearance detoriates. Pictures of 1200 Pixel size I store at 92%, high quality, floating numbers - but after some experience one would see a difference to the orignal 2,5-3,5 MB big original photo sized on the screen to about 1200 Pixel.
But you are right in one respect: for a wallpaper, a calm background that should not detoriate, not less, not more, 90% or even less is enough. Small storage size, quick loading is important.
In February 2009 when we here had the crisis of Opel I did a photo in a foggy snowy forest with a grey old Opel that fitted to that situation. But this is more than 100 KB so I would have to send that by PM to you.
Anonymous
offlineUnregistered
I changed the original one and the black & white one to 85.
Alberto_gamer
offlineMember
I have a lot of https://depositphotos.com/royalty free images in my stock because I found a cool site where there are a lot of photos and I use them as wallpaper
You must log in to post.
