Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Photo Critiques

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 9, 2010, 8:43 AM   #11
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378

Originally Posted by UKGrifta View Post
...(By the way the compression of this photo from 4000 x 3000 has made the picture look far less sharp than the original, sorry about that!)
Note that the image dimensions I see in the posts suggest that you exceeded the maximum allowed file sizes for some of the images being posted. For example, the first image is 799x599 instead of a more commonly used 800x600.

If you exceed the file sizes allowed by the forums software (currently around 250KB), the forums will automatically attempt to downsize the images further and recompress them using a *much* lower JPEG quality. That process usually results in significantly softer images. Note that the EXIF data is also stripped out at the same time.

See my note in this post about it:


IOW, make sure your JPEG quality is set so that you're not exceeding the file sizes allowed here to prevent that from happening. Usually around 80% JPEG quality is fine for an image size of around 800x600 pixels. You should see a quality slider in the software you use for downsizing, usually either a percentage quality or a 1 to 10 or 12 type of slider (with higher numbers representing less compression, resulting in larger file sizes).
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2010, 3:25 AM   #12
Senior Member
MartinSykes's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 854

I quite liked the wider view tbh. I guess it depends on what you want but I like to see a bit of the environment the animal is in to give it some context. That gives you a feel for the animal itself and not just the fine detail of the feathers for example. Different approaches for different purposes.
MartinSykes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2010, 1:05 PM   #13
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990

A good rule of thumb for wildlife pictures is to leave more space in the direction that the animal is facing. In that sense the gull shot is better than those of the pigions, although it too is cropped "wrong."

Gary, in my opinion oversharpened all these images, and yet his point is valid, a touch of unsharp mask is probably called for. Since the pigions are not quite in focus to begin with, probably wouldn't do much good, but it would work with the Gull. And as others have pointed out, bad idea to cut off the legs, expecially in this case since he's "banded" and that would be clearer if the legs were shown.


PS -Edited in

The Gull shot has a three dimensional quality which is quite stunning. Good job!

Last edited by Chato; Feb 13, 2010 at 10:21 PM. Reason: typo
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote

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 8:14 PM.