egafd.com

Feel free to send us some better ones : -)

Here is a test of Cathleen Rose main pic rescaled correctly, i.e. by a factor of 3:4 on one axis. Tell me which version you prefer, and I'll do the other ones.

"Original", 8012 bytes:
[IMG]http://www.egafd.com/actresses/id/16255.jpg[/IMG]
Y-downscaled, 6453 bytes:
[IMG]http://img251.imagevenue.com/loc571/th_ ... _571lo.jpg[/IMG]
X-upscaled, 9303 bytes:
[IMG]http://img194.imagevenue.com/aAfkjfp01f ... 2_83lo.jpg[/IMG]

The third pic didn't load on Firefox......

Yes, there seems to be a problem. Follow the thumbnail link below instead:
[IMG]http://img194.imagevenue.com/loc83/th_87930_16255a_122_83lo.jpg[/IMG]

Thanks.
Option 3 seems too 'flat' to my eye, so Option 2 would seem better.

Ok, here are the y-downscaled versions of the "Soloz 8" pics then.

[IMG]http://img278.imagevenue.com/loc46/th_06370_s069227_123_46lo.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://img249.imagevenue.com/loc239/th_06373_s069228_123_239lo.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://img182.imagevenue.com/loc231/th_06374_s069229_123_231lo.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://img257.imagevenue.com/loc247/th_06374_s069230_123_247lo.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img201.imagevenue.com/loc481/th_06375_s069231_123_481lo.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://img124.imagevenue.com/loc577/th_06380_s069232_123_577lo.jpg[/IMG]

Thanks.
I've played a bit with those and the main issue is your manipulation has
reduced the size of the originals. I prefer images in the 350-380y range for
headshots. Resizing them again necessarily reduces the quality.

I've rescaled the original headshot to 3x:4y and then resized and slightly
cropped:
[IMG]http://img46.imagevenue.com/loc421/th_53099_069227o_123_421lo.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://img252.imagevenue.com/loc251/th_53099_069227_123_251lo.jpg[/IMG]
Any better?

Your new version still looks too tall to me, and indeed, if rotated by 25 degrees I can clearly see a slight deformation:
[IMG]http://img138.imagevenue.com/loc128/th_88217_rot_122_128lo.jpg[/IMG]

Scaling Y by a factor 0.95 then rotating gives something about right here:
[IMG]http://img228.imagevenue.com/loc160/th_88218_rot_0.95_122_160lo.jpg[/IMG]

How does it look like on your side?

Bernie112 wrote:
> Your new version still looks too tall to me, and indeed, if
> rotated by 25 degrees I can clearly see a slight deformation:

I can see the difference but to me it's marginal. And if one doesn't rotate it
then there isn't really a problem : -)
I can't keep endlessly fiddling at the edges with these pics when more urgent
things are piling up.....

I've split the difference, and replaced the caps with a couple of my 3:4's and
a couple of yours.