Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Kodak

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 7, 2006, 3:44 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
dan279's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,896
Default

Like #3...I gotta agree with Dawg, out of focus on the others.....Morag, if you're after detail ( as in craters) try a faster shutter. I know it looks stationary when we're shooting it, but remember the moon is moving and sois the earth. Line up the moon in your brackets, walk away for a few minutes, and it won't even be close.

Dan


dan279 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2006, 5:58 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Morag2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 820
Default

En, I shot them in high quality Jpegs, I only posted them on the internet with low quality.

As for Dawg and Faciabrut, I did in fact have a good focus, but the moon was actually a lot dimmer than my pictures show, so I was using 1/4 to 1/20 shutter speed mostly, the first two got some image blur (not surprising seeing as my focal length with digi-zoom was a 2400mm equivalent!)

En121 wrote:
Quote:
#1 and #2 are not so great,. #3 is real good though!

Also, for photography... NEVER, and I mean never, use low quality jpeg's for your shots. It will not do them justice. Save as 100%! there really is no advantage to low quality jpeg's, other than the size. But, still, you can just upload to photobucket! ;D
Morag2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2006, 6:24 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
En121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 541
Default

I understand that. But, why do you need to make them low quality? When you open them and edit them, if you're going to save as a JPEG, always save as a 100% quality JPEG.
Quote:
En, I shot them in high quality Jpegs, I only posted them on the internet with low quality.

As for Dawg and Faciabrut, I did in fact have a good focus, but the moon was actually a lot dimmer than my pictures show, so I was using 1/4 to 1/20 shutter speed mostly, the first two got some image blur (not surprising seeing as my focal length with digi-zoom was a 2400mm equivalent!)

En121 wrote:
Quote:
#1 and #2 are not so great,. #3 is real good though!

Also, for photography... NEVER, and I mean never, use low quality jpeg's for your shots. It will not do them justice. Save as 100%! there really is no advantage to low quality jpeg's, other than the size. But, still, you can just upload to photobucket! ;D
En121 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2006, 6:31 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
bigdawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Thach Alabama
Posts: 14,981
Default

It moves so much on me between shots that I'm constantly having to re-align the camera just before shooting. LOL



Dawg
bigdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2006, 9:53 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Morag2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 820
Default

Quote:
I understand that. But, why do you need to make them low quality? When you open them and edit them, if you're going to save as a JPEG, always save as a 100% quality JPEG.
I lower the quality so that nobody steals them silly! No way I'm posting perfect quality images on the internet. Besides, saving as 100% quality at that size brings it over the 250KB limit on Steves Digicams. These files are like 30KB, perfect for online use.
Morag2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2006, 9:57 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
bigdawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Thach Alabama
Posts: 14,981
Default

Morag..I resize mine to 800X600 and try to keep the file size at around 230kb. Gives a good photo and as far as someone stealing mine I'd be flattered if they did....Then my lawyer and I would slap a law suit on them to get the money....Just kidding. LOLOL
bigdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2006, 10:12 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
En121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 541
Default

Hehe, my routine is too resize to 800x600, then save as 100% jpeg, and, put them on photobucket. :3
En121 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2006, 12:50 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
bigdawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Thach Alabama
Posts: 14,981
Default

The thing is though that if you don't reduce the KB's a bit then Photobucket will do it for you and they don't use a progressive compression! Or at least that was the way they did it when I first got an account there!

Dawg
bigdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2006, 1:04 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
En121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 541
Default

Well, they're usually under 1mb. Because of the pixel size. Its just fine. Justy remember to go into your photobucket settings and change it 1024kb. :3
En121 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2006, 9:01 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Morag2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 820
Default

Well, thats all irrelevant to me, the point is, I don't want high quality versions of my shots widely available on the internet. I know they arn't great but I want to sell those someday! And I don't want anyone thinking Steves Digicams is a free photo site!:blah:
Morag2 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 5:22 PM.