Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Close-ups

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 20, 2006, 6:30 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
pj1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,914
Default

Hi Ken!

I can understand about the "non-calibrated" matter.. .my laptop screen while quite good (and had a good "wide angle viewing" property, generally looked washed out. When I editted photos on that to look good and then took those photos home (to my higher quality desktop's LCD, which IS calibrated) they would always be too constrasty, over saturated for the (proper) home desktop computer.

Since then my laptop screen died (but the rest still works) so I have a CRT monitor plugged into my laptop, so it's no longer a portable laptop, but it serves me at work and the colours are now more accurate using this external CRT screen!

I think I've noticed you write before that you dislike being limited to using compression to limit the photos to 250kb. I personally don't seem to have much of a problem with it, maybe you pay more attention to these details than me. Of course the full size photos are going to be much better.

But for a 800x600 picture (that's usually around the size I try to post at) I don't find 250kb photos generally too agressively compressed. Also I remember seeing some fantastic larger photos that people posted here (some wildlife / bird photos of NHL come to mind) and Ithink they looked fantastic. Or did they somehow do a link to another webaddress where those photos were? What programme do you use to save / compress "250kb uploadable files"? Would that make a difference? I usually use ACDSee.

I don't know if anyone else has any input on this..? (guys?!)

Anyway, wishing you all the best

Paul

pj1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2006, 6:47 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
pj1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,914
Default

Actually I just had a bit of a play around (at work in my lunch time) on the edits, and I added some contrast, saturation and sharpening (unsharp mask) to the original bumblebee photo Ollie77 took, and post it here. I usually save JPEGs for internet between 80 and 90% compression ratio (using ACDSee). The file (at same dimensions of 784 x 712 pixels) grew from 100kb original size to 135kb.

Your edit is 115kb at only 450x409 pixels. OK you did use a rather agressive technique :-)which I think increased the file size obviousl,ybut what do you think of this post, considering it is 784 x 712 and only just over half the size allowed? (I could have made it 250kb if I tried, obviously then with less jpeg artifacts...) but I don't think this is too bad... do you?

Paul
Attached Images
 
pj1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2006, 1:17 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

My oh my...what a shower of details!!! I love them! Great shots.
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2006, 8:07 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Ollie77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 358
Default

G'day guys,

sorry I haven't been on to post any pics or replies to the thread.

Just want to say thanks for the comments and yeah your crop and touch up job was really nice. Little bee never looked so.....happy before. I should probably fix up some of my shots too before I post. But if I do that then I won't get the real feed back I need.

Just for added fun here is another pic to crop and play with if you wish.

Ollie




Ollie77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2006, 10:43 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

I actually like the way Steve has it setup as opposed todpreview where you must have your pictures hosted some placeelse or you can't post them. I find that very annoying (perhaps because I don't have an onlinegallery onplaces like flikr or dbase). Anyway, with that said, I think 250K is not a bad compromise at all. I personally prefer to post pictures at a size that will not require scrolling for I find that to beannoying as well. Believe it or not, I use Picasa to re-size my pictures. It has a much more limited set of controls as compared to PS but it's quick and efficient. I basically set the pixels to 640 and JPEG compression at 100% or 95% (whatever percentage gets me closer to the 250K size). I find that I obtain better results with lower pixels and less compression than higher pixels and more compression. Also, if I use 800 pixels instead of 640, the picture size increases too much causing scrolling to be inevitable. That's my 2c.
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:27 AM.