Miscellany Toronto Photographs: Then and Now

[bloor]

Cannot view some saved jpg files

I wanted to ask you Mustapha why some of the

present day photos you are taking are showing

up squished in the Windows Explorer and other

Microsoft apps?

Is it because you are setting the compression too high?

Fro example, the posted image for NW corner of Yonge and Birch.

 

[Mustapha]

I wanted to ask you Mustapha why some of the

present day photos you are taking are showing

up squished in the Windows Explorer and other

Microsoft apps?

Is it because you are setting the compression too high?

Fro example, the posted image for NW corner of Yonge and Birch.

Hi bloor,

I had a look at this thread through 2 PCs here at home - via Internet Explorer versions 6.0.2800 and 8.0.7600. I don't see anything like what you describe, sorry. For me, my present day pictures actually go beyond the edges of my monitor.

I use Firefox as my default browser without issues.

I'm not sure about "compression" - I use Photobucket and I've never seen such an option (not saying it doesn't exist) - I'm not a power user or anything like that. I'm also a paying "Pro" level Photobucket customer - it's good for unlimited bandwidth.

The Yonge and Birch pictures are a couple of years old; I couldn't find them using Search. Is there anything more recent that is squished? Can you give me the thread page number? I could contact Photobucket with their "image code".



And finally, is anyone else here having this issue?











December 13 addition.


Then. " Looking north on Scott st to Front st east. June 1959."

Now. November 2010. To the left is the Sony Centre, with what looks like a temporary box enclosing the L Tower condo construction that is in progress. In the middle distance of both pictures the King Edward hotel is clearly seen.

 

[Mustapha]

Lefty-pinko grocery destination or not, the Fiesta Farms premises is one heck of a streetscape-deadener...

Was it a factory before the present grocery? Agree with you and will add that it isn't an inviting presentation to go inside. Very Knob Hill Farm-ish.

 

[donoreo]

"And finally, is anyone else here having this issue?" QUOTE Mustapha.

No prblem here; Internet explorer 8 - Windows 7 Ultimate.

Regards,
J T

I have not had any problems. I have used Chrome on Windows, Linux and Mac and the rendering of photos is consistent and fine.

 

[Mustapha]

Thanks JT and donoreo.









December 14 addition.



Then. "Queen st at Pape ave looking E. Apr. 5, 1934".

Now. November 2010.

The left/north side is all relatively new construction. A couple of houses on the south side have managed to survive. I imagine that even in 1934 these were already old houses.

Many houses along this stretch of Queen were commercialized early in the 20th century by having stores tacked on in front or just having the ground floor used as commercial space.

Still, there are residential houses mixed in with stores along Queen all the way out to its termination at Victoria Park avenue, which makes for a visually interesting streetscape.

I wonder what it's like to live in a home or apartment with a TTC streetcar coming along every 10 minutes. It must make for interesting background noise within the home.

I imagine that it becomes part of the daily noise of city life; perhaps to some who hear it even comfortingly familiar.

 

[NIL OMNI]

M: I live at Queen@Church (obviously more frequent streetcars downtown than out in the East End) and hear the streetcars going in both directions every few minutes all day (and night) long. It's a very comforting sound (noise) and you can always gauge which time of day it is when the frequency picks up at rush hour. Yet one gets so used to it that one isn't bothered or even awakened by it.

 

[Edward Skira]

^ King and Church for me.

 

[bloor]

Perfect example with the photos shown here.

Both images display fine in my browser. But when I do right-click and Save Picture As,

(you may want to try this) then look at the same image in Windows Explorer,

it is fairly consistent that:

1) The before/then image displays fine.

2) Only an indecipherable squished 2010 image is displayed, like it was run over

by a steamroller.

What's more the squished image won't display correctly in Windows Photo Gallery

either. Other image applications seem to treat it as if the flat image is the correct

image.

Your camera may be storing the image as a too recent jpeg format perhaps.

(The squishing happens often with recent images posted by others as well)

There is a long workaround however. I thought that some other member might

know what the problem is, or a simpler solution.

 

[bloor]

I think I see the problem Mustapha:

Your camera is storing the image using different pixel resolution
(i.e. number of pixels per inch) for the x and y (horizontal and vertical) axii.

For instance, for the 2010 image at Pape and Queen the horizontal res
is 72 dpi and the vertical is 300 dpi. For the older 1934 image it is 72 dpi
on both axii.

Newer apps like Microsoft Office Picture Manager notice the different
resolutions, and thus display the image correctly

Older apps like Windows Explorer, MS Paint and Windows Photo Gallery
(or the image app that comes with your scanner) just assume both axii
are the same, and so they don't.

It is very frustrating that they don't !

The workaround is to save a screen shot, then load it into paint, then
crop around the picture. Very tedious, compared to right click and save.

 

[CharlotteR]

In addition, it displays properly in Photoshop CS4.

 

[Mustapha]

bloor wrote:

"But when I do right-click and Save Picture As, [my emphasis] (you may want to try this) then look at the same image in Windows Explorer,

it is fairly consistent that:

1) The before/then image displays fine.

2) Only an indecipherable squished 2010 image is displayed, like it was run over by a steamroller."



Hey bloor,

I was able to recreate this when using my own Windows Photo Viewer [only]. My camera that produced the most "squishy" pictures was my Nikon D60. My old Fuji F31 camera also produced at least one squishy picture - they may be others - which is a puzzle to me.

However, some of the D60 pictures were fine.

I have been using the D60 on and off for most of the pictures in this thread for at least 14 months and there are still about 25 in the queue. I use various settings on this camera [auto, Aperture or Program] and the resulting file has different properties. I can't figure out which setting is responsible.

Since this is a difficulty only when you (or others - perhaps they have been silent) save pictures - may I suggest you can use the message feature here at UT to give me a shout and I will post a link to my Photobucket album. I can also email the picture to you if you wish.

Sometime around the middle of January 2011 my D60 pictures will exhaust [I gave the camera to a family member recently] and this issue will be hopefully behind us, alas not technically solved.

 

[Goldie]

I have no problem with your images, Mustapha.
Perhaps the problem is within Bloor's hardware/software.

 

[donoreo]

I get the same problem ONLY with Windows Photo Gallery. Paint opens it fine. Quicktime photo viewer does as well. Anything I open it with works fine, except WPG. I will try this at home when I can try it on my Mac and Linux desktops. It looks like WPG is the problem, not your pictures.

 

[spider]

Another tester chimes in.
Saved the modern shot to Windows desktop and,
opened in Corel Photopaint X4, image is squished and described as 1500 mm wide at 72 dpi and 58 mm high at 300 dpi.
opened in Photoshop CS3, image is squished, can't find a description that makes sense to me but I am a rookie on the Adobe Apps.
opened in Magix Extreme, image is squished, exif info agrees with Corel Photopaint.

 

[bloor]

bloor wrote:
Sometime around the middle of January 2011 my D60 pictures will exhaust
[I gave the camera to a family member recently] and this issue will be hopefully
behind us, alas not technically solved.

Probably any camera will have the same limitation unless you specifically override
the automatic settings.

When the camera sees much more pixel variation in the vertical direction than horizontal
(normal when shooting up a road for instance) left on its own, it will optimize memory by
making the density of pixels greater in the vertical.

This does not create very 'portable' images, as opposed to using uniform pixel density,
but does conserve the amount of memory for that image, a main advantage when
uploading over the internet.

My camera has only 72 dpi maximum, but does use uniform pixel density when I set for
maximal resolution. I suspect this will be true for most digital cameras.

However, once the image has been captured using non-uniform pixel density, then sending
the photos or linking to Photobucket will not change it. Characteristics of jpg images
such as pixel density, are transferred along with the pixels themselves.

Hence all browsers will display the image correctly. One way around then is screen capture,
then editing.

However one easier way may be to save the image as a bmp file (uniform pixel density is
required by this file format I believe). Once saved, then it should be a small task to to convert
to a uniform jpg file with the image editor of your choice.

That is much easier than cropping a screen save. So an annoying problem yes, but with at least
one easy workaround.

I am looking forward to more then and now images of yours, as I find them endlessly fascinating.
Also nostalgic, and a bit wistful too sometimes.

So keep up the great work!