Yeah. JPEG isn't really the image format just the acronym of the group that promulgated the file format (based on the discrete cosine transform... stuff I did a lot of work with in the early '80s). I'd love to dig into the lossless JPEG format and see how that works. As for my camera, it already has a lossless format: Raw. (Now I wonder: when will new cameras will be ditching Raw for lossless JPEG?)

1 members found this post helpful.

Well, they are modest. I am in a music forum and, once in a while, I want to show some user part of a music score to illustrate some point. That is, the use is minimum. I've found nted to be a very good program according to my needs. And it does not occupy many system resources. It can export in seven different formats, including Lilypond and PNG of course. Then I uploaded the output to photobucket which was free of charge. But now that site has become paid and I'm looking for a replacement. In short, all that matters is the fidelity (resolution) of the image (reading music requires good resolution on the part of the electronic score). Thanks for your kindness.

Converting line drawings to JPEGs ought to be a crime. I see it being done all the time, though. FB doesn't actually do it when users upload images but there are a lot of examples easily found on that site where some GIF or PNG image was subjected to a conversion to JPEG. Many online news sites do it as well with small charts they embed in articles. You can't enlarge the page to read the tiny text in the chart without the charts turning into blurry blobs.

Shutterfly is a site designed for photographic image storage, photo album generation, etc. Uploading line drawings to it was likely not even on the web site designer radar.

Alright. By the way it is GIMP 2.10.20. But how does the rectangle select tool icon look like? What I used, in a previous version, was something that looked like a cutter. With this tool it is that I selected the area. It had the effect of drawing a rectangle.

Hmm... sites that are geared toward photographic image storage are probably not going to cut it. JPEG does what the vast, vast, majority of their users need.

Does the music forum not support uploading files of arbitrary formats? One would think that being able to post scores would be a core feature.

Perhaps saving the nted output as PostScript and converting it to a PDF for upload? That's what I've done with Lilypond. Unless your goal is to have the score displayed within the body of a forum post. In that case, PDF won't do the trick.

If you go to imslp.org and download some of the scores they have, you'll notice in many of them the stave lines are clumsily drawn if you enlarge the page a bit, a thing I don't understand. Well, it is now evident to me that shutterfly.com won't do. Could you suggest some photo file sharing site that supports PNG?

This may help.

OK, the icon has changed slightly from the docs.. but man, just hover your mouse over the tools and it tells you what each one is!

XnView might be easier to use to do conversions using the "export" command.

FWIW Imgur.com is a free image sharing site that support many formats including both .png and .jpg. Oddly, LQN attachments mention .png as a choice but refuse them and allow mainly .jpg and iirc .gif, or perhaps it was only links to .gifs. Anyway such restrictions are designed to limit bandwidth requirements. One advantage to Imgur is the easy ability to use provided links for a variety of message board types so you can effect size as well as format and resolution. lossy or lossless.

1 members found this post helpful.

I tried imgur.com and it worked fine. However, in the post, the image is not directly seen. All there is in the post is a link and the user must click it in order for him/her to see the image. Instead with photobucket.com the picture was shown in the post as soon as the user opened the page. Any way to make it work in photobucket style?

If the site accepts pdfs, you can produce a postscript file with pmw and then convert it with ps2pdf. That's what I do when sharing music with friends.

I see. But what I want to upload is just a few bars. It may be I have a piece of music in my head but I cannot remember its name. So, I just post some bars hoping somebody who reads music will tell me. Or perhaps I want to illustrate some point (music) and upload a page from some score downloaded from imslp.org. As you can see then, they are all very small files, I mean what I show in the forum page is only a tiny picture.

And, most of all, as I said above, it is all about the forum user opens the page and he is instantly seeing my picture. Not even a link but the picture itself.

I get that. Sounds like what you need is an image (<img>) tag instead of an anchor (<a>). Sadly, "<img>" tags cannot specify remote locations.

If the images are small, it it really onerous to have the forum reader click on a link to display what seems to be a small, quickly-loaded image? Screen dumps attached to posts on LQ are done that way. Personally, I don't find that annoying. (Well, unless the image doesn't help clarify the user's problem.) I'd rather include a clickable link to a high quality image than embed one of poor quality.

If other forum users are embedding images in their posts, have you inquired how they're doing that? Some sites require that you upload the image to their site before you can use it in a post. (This prevents forum posts from breaking in the future should the remote image disappear. I'm sure you seen cases of this in your web wanderings.)

I suspect the submissions to "imslp.org" that you've seen that had less-than-ideal image quality were clumsily done scans---not properly aligned on the scanner bed, too low resolution, scanning a xerox of a xerox, etc.

(BTW: Thanks for the mention of that site. I'll be passing that along to my daughter who's working toward her Master's in Vocal Performance and is always on the lookout for new sources of sheet music.)

Cheers...

The Choral Public Domain Library might be of interest to her.

However for posting a few bars, it might be easiest to self-host. Static pages are low-maintenance secure. Many ISPs allow incoming connections on ports 80 and 443 and SBCs like a Raspberry Pi are quite inexpensive yet highly functional. Or one can go whole hog and get a VPS and rent a domain name. If there are other reasons to self host then this might be the drop which fills the bucket.

It does accept png, it's just that the file size is limited. So if you don't use png compression, your file may be too heavy.
I know some of my screenshots are 5MB png uncompressed, so that's obviously not going to work for web.