Posts Tagged ‘browser’

Polarr is a Smart and Versatile Browser-Based Photo Editor that Learns Your Technique

Polar_1

As cloud-based storage options expand in size and numbers, the battle for browser-based photo editors is equally under way. One of the newest and most impressive to the game is Polarr.┬áIt’s currently available to use as an open beta and features a number of advance tools and resources for making sure you can efficiently edit your images from within the browser.

Read more…

Pics.io Goes Live! Brings Browser-Based, Google Drive-Powered RAW Editing and Photo Organization to All

It was just over a year ago that we told you about Pics.io, a platform that promised to bring the RAW editing and photo organization capabilities of programs like Lightroom to your browser.

Well, after a year spent mostly under wraps and unusable, Pics.io is officially in public beta and ready for the world take it for a spin. Read more…

Free Chrome Extension Allows You to View RAW Images In-Browser

Update: The extension’s creators have emailed us with some corrections, which have been applied throughout the post. See bottom for details.


RAW image files are wonderful in almost every regard. The problem is, viewing them requires software capable of reading the various formats RAW images take, none of which are easily accessible to the masses and all of which are tied to an application. But a new Google Chrome extension by FilePreviews.io is changing all that. Read more…

Instagram Brings Photo Feeds to the Web After Two Years of Being Mobile-Centric

instagramfeed

For the first two years of its young life, photo sharing darling Instagram focused primarily on delivering its service to smartphone users. Although demand would have likely been great, the company’s founders decided to hold off on a browser-based component in order to become one of the pioneers of mobile photo sharing.

After the service was acquired by Facebook in 2012, the decision makers apparently decided that their mobile dominance mission had been accomplished. Later that year, in November, Instagram rolled out web profiles. Now, one of the last major walls has come tumbling down: Instagram today announced that photo feeds are now available through the web.
Read more…

Worldcam Lets You Peek Inside Private Buildings Through Instagram Photos

What if there were an up-to-date live stream of photos from any location on Earth, allowing you to see whatever is happening “right now”? Well, there is: Worldcam is a simple web app that’s designed to do just that. Simple provide it with two pieces of information: city and location. City is pretty straightforward, but location is the cool one; you can type things like businesses, buildings, parks, and more.
Read more…

Instagram Now Accepting Comments and Likes from the Browser

Watch out, Flickr — Instagram is coming for you. The popular photo sharing app has quietly updated its website to include commenting and liking on individual photo pages. Previously the website was “read only”, and any interaction with the social network was limited to its mobile interface. The new website, which also features larger images and a slick blue theme, suggests that the company may soon be breathing down Flickr’s neck by expanding beyond mobile. However, it still noticeably lacks profiles and photo discovery features.

(via The Next Web)

Is Your Browser Color Managed?

Is your browser color managed? If not, the photographs you are looking at are distorted versions of what their creators intended them to be. Is the car above rendered in school bus yellow, or in a jarring purple?
Read more…

Stuck On Earth: A Gorgeous iPad App for Browsing Travel Photos

HDR guru Trey Ratcliff of Stuck in Customs has just released a new iPad app called Stuck On Earth that lets you travel the world through photographs. In addition to being a gorgeous way to view travel photos, the app serves as a high-tech travel guide, allowing users build and plan “trips” (collecting photos into groups).
Read more…

Sports Illustrated as an HTML5 Magazine

Today at Google I/O, Sports Illustrated editor Terry McDonell showcased this demo of the HTML5 version of the magazine. Last December, SI released a mockup video of how their online version would look as an app, but this version is based on the web and can be viewed with laptop and tablet browsers. It looks like a print magazine layout, with fantastic spreads, photos, and fonts, but it also has a lot of unique multimedia features that are incorporated into the design.

In the presentation, McDonell said:

“The idea is really very simple: combine the best of the web with the best of the magazine, like the sports photography, which is deep, deep in Sports Illustrated’s DNA.”

SI’s really giving photography a great plug: the demo issue also has a behind-the-scenes portrait shoot with Shaq, and there’s an expanded photo gallery option for readers to see more shoots than the ones included in the main design. Even the interactive demo ad is photo-related, showing a faux camera brand with interchangeable lenses.

This web design really opens up the doors for visual and multimedia storytelling, and is an exciting way to make an interactive publication accessible (not to mention SEO-friendly) to the entire World Wide Web.

Let us know what you think about SI’s new magazine format in the comments.

Why You Should Never Let Browsers Resize Your Photos

Everyone wants sharp images when they post their photographs online. After all, who wants to look at a blurry photograph? (Unless it’s intentional, of course). What many people don’t realize, however, is that displaying your images incorrectly in HTML can have a big negative impact on image quality.

Here is the main rule of thumb you should always remember: never, ever do image resizing using HTML.

For example, lets say I have the following 620px photograph:

threecolors620

The image is pretty sharp right? Now, lets say I want to display the same image as a 500px wide photo. The wrong way to do this would be to change the width=”620″ attribute in HTML to width=”500″. Here’s what would result if I did the resizing this way through HTML:

threecolors620

That’s the exact same image file. I simply copy-and-pasted the HTML, and changed the width from 620 to 500. This means the browser actually loaded the same 620px image, and then reprocessed it to display a 500px image to the viewer. Notice how the photograph instantly loses much of the sharpness it had when displayed in its actual dimensions.

To further illustrate my point, here is the same photo displayed at 500px. However, instead of telling HTML to shrink the large version, I used Photoshop to resize it down to 500px.

threecolors2

You can hover your mouse over this last image to compare it to the browser-resized version. If you’re using a browser that renders it correctly, try hovering over this link to see how other less-capable browsers render the same image (you might have to wait a couple seconds for the image to load). That’s a pretty big difference, huh?

The lesson to be learned is that you should always display your images in their exact dimensions. Even a single pixel difference can cause the photograph to become noticeably more blurry in most browsers.

Finally, another reason why you shouldn’t leave resizing to your browser is that the original, full-sized image is loaded anyway, regardless of what size you’re displaying the image at. This means that if you have a large, 1 megabyte, 1024×682 photograph that you’re displaying at 500px in width, the whole 1 megabyte image is downloaded by the visitor before the browser resizes it down to 500px.

Some of you might have thought that using larger, higher-resolution photographs and having them resized in HTML produces higher quality images, since there’s more information or detail in the file. It doesn’t. For best image quality and fastest loading time for your visitors, always resize your images to the desired size prior to uploading!

Update: I’ve added a second link under the mouse-hover comparison for those who are using more capable browsers. If you don’t see any difference in hovering over the image, try hovering over the new link to see how other browsers render the image.

Update 2: Just for your info: This doesn’t apply to uploading full-sized images to photo sharing services like Flickr or SmugMug. These services take your large resolution photograph, and reprocess it into multiple images of various sizes. Thus, when you’re viewing the 500px image on Flickr, it’s actually a 500px image that Flickr resized and sharpened using your original large image.