My jpg's stink

[cookieman kpointthree]

OK, I admit to being a hacker in the old sense of the word. (Untrained, unmethodical, clueless in general). But how come my files that look pretty acceptable (to me at least) as psd files look so hmmmm....what is a non-profane way of describing it...."manure-ey" when saved as a jpg. I have experimented with higher quality settings, tried working around the whole "save for web" optimizer, used higher dpi res., still....manure.

The best I can come up with is to lighten the bejeezus out of the image and set the saturation levels to the moon. There has to be a more sophisticated approach. (please say there is and what it is.)

Please follow this link on an empty stomach. Any other pro-to-hacker sage advice is appreciated, please be gentle!

I put the jpg here and the psd is in that directory as well with a psd extension, howver, when I try to navigate to it, I get a broken quicktime icon. Any other method to post it is appreciated. Can I just zip it and you can retrieve that-away?

Anyhow, i put the full sized jpg here as well with no background or drop shadow.

<http://www.mscookie.com/images/sungardhbd0703.jpg>

Actual image as it appears on our homepage:
<http://www.mscookie.com/images/sungardhbd0703265.jpg>

Being a hacker has many drawbacks...

I also put it up as a bmp just to see how it looked in that format and there is virtually no diff. between bmp and jpg.

<http://www.mscookie.com/images/sungardhbd0703265.jpg>

Thanks
Gregg
[email]subscriptions@mscookie.com[/email]

[Ol' Whozit]

"Being a hacker has many drawbacks... "

Yeah, dude, like having no one with any sense of intelligence, who PAID honest, hard earned dollars (took me 4 months to save up for PS6...) for software being willing to share any information with a hacker...sorry, but if you're so damn smart to crack and steal registered software apps, you should be smart enough to go find help out there in the Web.

Thanks, though. Tickles the dickens out of me knowing I have the solution to your problem!

Thieving hacker/cracker scum. Nice to see you're not as talented as YOU think you are...

"old school" definition my behind. Hackers aren't clueless, never have been. Hackers are just that. Those who "hack" apps to access them without following proper procedure or payment. Where the heck YOU came up with the definition of "untrained" and "clueless" is beyond comprehension. One of the key traits of hackers is the word "proficient"...Your definition is so rare as to be almost non-existant.

PS: part of the reason your .jpeg looks so crappy is the arrangement itself is crappy. The colors of the ribbon and the cellophane clash horribly with the balloon, and the whole thing is so cluttered looking, NO amount of PS adjustments will help it.

PPS: Have a nice day.

[r_harvey]

hacker n. [originally, someone who makes furniture with an axe] 1. A person
who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch
their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only
the minimum necessary. 2. One who programs enthusiastically (even obsessively)
or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming.
3. A person capable of appreciating hack value. 4. A person who is good
at programming quickly. 5. An expert at a particular program, or one who
frequently does work using it or on it; as in `a Unix hacker'. (Definitions
1 through 5 are correlated, and people who fit them congregate.) 6. An
expert or enthusiast of any kind. One might be an astronomy hacker, for
example. 7. One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming
or circumventing limitations. 8. [deprecated] A malicious meddler who
tries to discover sensitive information by poking around. Hence `password
hacker', `network hacker'. The correct term for this sense is cracker.




The Jargon Dictionary <http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/h.html#hacker>

[cookieman kpointthree]

I didn't steal anything you ding dong, for crying out loud, try reading my post.

Ugghhh.... I am surrounded by fools.

....Yeah like i could hack a freaking computer program, I am impressed when ever I successfully install one...

My god...

[cookieman kpointthree]

thanks for not reading my post. I didn't steal anything, brainiac.

later

[dennis johnson]

I don't see anything in particular wrong with the JPG, c-man, although the selection used to clean up the background could have been cleaner. The saturation is a shade high, but for the subject matter, it looks ok to me.

Can you be more specific as to what you were aiming for?
What is the link to the PSD file?

[cookieman kpointthree]

It's the same file with a psd extension. (instead of jpg or bmp) But when I try to navigate o it i get a broken quick time icon.

Yes, I see my background sloppiness in evidence but it was probably the seventh image in a row that I was clipping out of the backing so left a few areas unclean. In the 200 pixel jpg, it's not noticeable enough (don't let that get around or you know who will have me banned from these message groups.)

:-)

I appreciate your sincere response.

Gregg

[testpilot]

Ol'Whozit, you totally misunderstood what he was saying.He was making fun of himself. He was only trying to explain how much of a novice is.
Webster's Random House Dictionary has several definitions for hacker.
For example: a person who engages in an activity without talent or skill.

Welcome to the forum Gregg.

Way to go Dennis.

Mike

[r_harvey]

For me, hacker meant nothing--it's generally misused like that. I felt sorry for the way it had been read by the first poster. I'm interested in JPEGs, and would have enjoyed following a good exchange. The problem, however, was that it was presented as an essay, instead of as a question, making it difficult to find a starting point.

It's interesting to experiment with JPEG quality, to see what amount of sacrifice we will accept for file size. For Web use, I'd generally favor file size over quality--unless I'm showing product details. In many cases, a 16-color GIF will be smaller and sharper.

The original poster has duplicated this thread, with a longer, defamatory, introductory story.

[cookieman kpointthree]

I don't think I was defamatory at all, actually I am still unnerved by the way people in the age of email/internet correspondence, when presented with taking a comment or a subject any number of ways will almost always take it in the most negative way and respond in a very hateful and malicious way.

It made me sad for the concept of communication more than anything. I defamed no one. My original comments in the first post were very self deprecating. I am surprised that people who actually lived before the "jargon dictionary" replaced webster's have absolutely no idea what somenone over the age of 30 might refer to asa a "hacker".

The guy went on at great length to expound about what a hacker is in his mind, to the point of proving to anyone that his "hacker" and my "hacker" had nothing in common, and then having ranted for that long did not even take the time to say maybe I meant something else prior to posting his message, which was extremely defamatory and utterly lacking in humor (worse yet).

I am sorry for having to go back and forth so long over something off topic but it was very offensive and aimed directly at me.

Gregg

[Ol' Whozit]

"The guy went on at great length to expound about what a hacker is in his mind, to the point of proving to anyone that his "hacker" and my "hacker" had nothing in common"

Try ANY dictionary definition, foo. You will then see how RARE and OBTUSE 'your' definition of "hacker" is.

Defamitory? I doubt it. What universe you exist in (Life is for those that KNOW how to use it) has long proven your definition to be obtuse and obfuscating.

Get over yourself, and learn how to ask for help without sounding like a pathetic wanna be.

Check with your local health care provider to deal with your "sadness" over Forum posts that sadden you.

The Lounge HAS no topic, on or off.

[Thee_DarkOverLord]

Get over yourself,




Stones, greenhouses and throwing stuff comes to mind.

[Frank]

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 17:10:00 -0700, "Ol' Whozit" <whozit@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>"Being a hacker has many drawbacks... "
>
>Yeah, dude, like having no one with any sense of intelligence, who PAID honest, hard earned dollars (took me 4 months to save up for PS6...) for software being willing to share any information with a hacker...sorry, but if you're so damn smart to crack and steal registered software apps, you should be smart enough to go find help out there in the Web.
>
>Thanks, though. Tickles the dickens out of me knowing I have the solution to your problem!
>
>Thieving hacker/cracker scum. Nice to see you're not as talented as YOU think you are...
>
>"old school" definition my behind. Hackers aren't clueless, never have been. Hackers are just that. Those who "hack" apps to access them without following proper procedure or payment. Where the heck YOU came up with the definition of "untrained" and "clueless" is beyond comprehension. One of the key traits of hackers is the word "proficient"...Your definition is so rare as to be almost non-existant.
>
>PS: part of the reason your .jpeg looks so crappy is the arrangement itself is crappy. The colors of the ribbon and the cellophane clash horribly with the balloon, and the whole thing is so cluttered looking, NO amount of PS adjustments will help it.
>
>PPS: Have a nice day.

And you! And reread his post Dipstick!

[Rollie]

Ol'Whozit, you have some serious mental problems.

[Cheesefood]

Whozit's on a killing spree. Someone put troll-juice in his coffee. While an Ol'Whozit is generally harmless in the wild, it's best to avoid eye-contact and pretend you don't notice it when it's in a bad mood.

[Carl B. Johnson]

> Whozit's on a killing spree.

I generally appreciate and enjoy Whozit's rants, but that was totally
uncalled for. Whozit needs to meet and learn what REAL hacker's are..
not thieves or script iddies but people that will hack away at a problem
until they find a solution... muchin the way that I have hacked at PHP
and Perl (both FREE and not able to be stolen) until I figured out how
scripts work and modified them for my sites. Just how I have hacked at
(my legally purchased versions of) Photoshop until I learned how to make
the program do what I want and achieve the desired results. And I have
wandered in, as most hackers have when they started, totally clueless.

Being a true hacker is a worthy goal.

[Kelli Aylesworth]

This might not help, but I was having a problem similar to that a while back, but I wasn't noticing the color problem until I printed. Then I'd compare and could see a difference.

Check your color settings. I can't remember what mine are and I can't open PhotoShop right now to check, but Bludvl on here posted what I use a couple of weeks ago. He helped me out with it and I haven't had any color problems since. Try searching that name (Hope I spelled it right!) and see if you can find it.

[dave milbut]

Being a true hacker is a worthy goal.




Right said carl.

Check your color settings




I was going to suggest that. Cookieman, I'd say rerun adobe gamma from your control panel. What you're experiencing may be related to the color setting in photoshop being way brighter than in any other (non-color managed) app on your system, including the web browser. Get that closer to your not cm'd apps and you should get better results from ps.

Start from scratch (in adobe gamma), use the wizard, and save the profile as a new name - don't overwrite one of the preset settings.

dave

[YrbkMgr]

Apparently this is a double post with a different Subject line, as I answered this yesterday.

YrbkMgr "OK, Here we go again saving jpg's" 7/8/03 10:50pm </cgi-bin/webx?14@@.1de9d721/2>