I don't print many pictures but tend to share images with friends and family (and occasionally here) online. Flickr has the distinct advantage of being free but is far from perfect. Does anyone want to share their views on better free photo hosting sites or the best cheap one?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
BushmanOrig and 12MP and the Oly statement
- Thread starter Martin Frost
- Start date
What if you do both? Flickr allows it.
I don't care if my images are optimized for viewing or not. People like them, and they show it by their clicks, be they resized or not.
How insincere your arguments are is easily shown by the fact the original full resolution image can still be downloaded from the Flickr site and therefore printed at will without any loss of information.
It is a way of being civil to other people, allowing them choices, which I suppose doesn't fit easily into inquisiitorial frames of mind. Perhaps you and your friend should learn some manners.
Am.
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
Rich Simpson UK
Senior Member
Hi Martin,
In that case, I'll post the images & crops from yesterday, showing comparisons between E520 & E30.
Once again, these were at ISO 200, f4, 35mm FL using the ZD 12-60, processed in Capture One 4, NF OFF, no sharpening applied.
Original E30 image:
Original E520 image:
E30 Crop 1:
E520 Crop 1:
E30 Crop 2:
E520 Crop 2:
Cheers,
Rich Simpson
In that case, I'll post the images & crops from yesterday, showing comparisons between E520 & E30.
Once again, these were at ISO 200, f4, 35mm FL using the ZD 12-60, processed in Capture One 4, NF OFF, no sharpening applied.
Original E30 image:
Original E520 image:
E30 Crop 1:
E520 Crop 1:
E30 Crop 2:
E520 Crop 2:
--
Cheers,
Rich Simpson
If it has been sharpened for the web it will lose quality when printed even if it is the full size image. For print sharpening you need to decide what size you want to print at. Resize the original file that came out of the camera after it has been retouched but no output image sharpening has yet been added. Resize the image for that size and set the correct DPI. You then output image sharpen but not at 100% view but 50% otherwise you will lose quality again. Different print size option? Go for the same process again.
Who said it 'has been sharpened for the web'? I never sharpen for the web, and I asssume that the full sized image is backed up in Flickr just as it is.
But it you have proof of the contrary just show it. I'll write to Flickr and will tell them that I cannot trust them as a backup system, because you said so, and that I must discontinue my membership.
)
Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
But it you have proof of the contrary just show it. I'll write to Flickr and will tell them that I cannot trust them as a backup system, because you said so, and that I must discontinue my membership.
)Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
So you don't bother to image output image sharpen for Flickr? Do you bother to resize for Flickr as I get the impression you don't? Do you backup full size lossy Jpeg or lossless Tiff files to Flikr? Do you upload sRGB files to Flickr for viewing on the site? If so the original file you upload is it sRGB or Adobe RGB?
But it you have proof of the contrary just show it. I'll write to
Flickr and will tell them that I cannot trust them as a backup
system, because you said so, and that I must discontinue my
membership.
Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
It's in the way that you use it.
Personally, I use flickr to show photos to people of similar interests who I have met on flickr, to other online folks as well as to family and friends. I don't post to many groups nor am I a comment whore.
I know there are people who try to get as many comments as possible for whatever reason but, when I go there, I see a lot of people, and interact with a lot of people, who are just plain old enthusiastic about taking photos, sharing photos and trying to learn to take better photos.
Flickr, how I use it, is a social and casual atmosphere mostly devoid of agendas, malcontents and gear heads which probably explains why I post a lot of photos on flickr but none on DPReview.
--
Stu
E510, TZ4
.
Personally, I use flickr to show photos to people of similar interests who I have met on flickr, to other online folks as well as to family and friends. I don't post to many groups nor am I a comment whore.
I know there are people who try to get as many comments as possible for whatever reason but, when I go there, I see a lot of people, and interact with a lot of people, who are just plain old enthusiastic about taking photos, sharing photos and trying to learn to take better photos.
Flickr, how I use it, is a social and casual atmosphere mostly devoid of agendas, malcontents and gear heads which probably explains why I post a lot of photos on flickr but none on DPReview.
--
Stu
E510, TZ4
.
Ross
Veteran Member
Hi Am,
Did you ever consider that if your images were optimized for viewing that people would like them more?
I have noticed, from various threads, that when you feel backed into a corner in a discussion, you tend to strike out. Relax, lower your ISO, we are having fun and learning. Be careful about using terms like slander, inquisitional, manners, insincere, because you might be showing people more about you than you want them to see.
--
Bob
Steve Rushing
Leading Member
Leo
Veteran Member
Rich,
What are setting on both? - including ISO, contrast, Noise Filter and Noise Reduction?
Thanks,
Leo
What are setting on both? - including ISO, contrast, Noise Filter and Noise Reduction?
Thanks,
Leo
Perhaps you didn't read the whole thread, but I was the first to be accused of presenting my images in an 'insincere' context like Flickr. A gratuitous, nasty comment which began the flame.
Now, at a loss for arguments, someone accuses me of not knowing the proper way of publishing web images.
After all I am not accusing him of printing on toilet paper, do I?
So the discussion is now apparently not about the superior medium, but about the superior photographer.
Really, I don't want to hijack the thread further, so I must bow out, but I really didn't expect such an unwarranted reaction.
Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
What Boris is trying to explain is that if you resized an image for the same size you see it on Flikr and then image sharpen it it would be sharper. In an idea world where you say have a website that shows a thumbnail of an image, a larger image to view, an image to view in a slide show and another version to download the first 3 should be resized for the size they will be seen at and then image sharpened. The one for download which might be printed should not be sharpened and should be available as an Adobe RGB file. This would allow people to change the colour profile if they need to depending what they are printing it on to, plus they can resize and sharpen to their needs. Now I doubt Flikr allows all this but that is one of the limitations of using sites like this. Your images will never be seen at their best on the internet unless the site offers many features or you build your own site.
As for printing there are many types of paper offering many different results. There are many ways to print onto that paper. Now a photographer with experience is going to get very good results. If you get a chance go to a good gallery that is display lots of photos. You will see hopefully many different types of paper surfaces and even different types of glass used for the frames. Some glass uses the same T* coating Zeiss lenses do. When you see a well printed and displayed photo you will see what we are trying to explain and how a print can be much better than an image displayed on a computer monitor.
Also I looked at your images on Flikr including looking at them in the slideshows. It does appear when Flikr resizes them for the slideshows they are being softened. Some more so than others. Having built slideshows myself for websites this is something I am well aware of and the difference it makes if you can resize and sharpen the images yourself can be huge. Even a simple thing like one photo being horizontal and another vertical can make a difference of how sharp they appear.
viorel
Leading Member
Rich,
the e30 crop looks very good to me. I can't see noise at an issue at that level and sharpness is okay.
thanks
--
Viorel
the e30 crop looks very good to me. I can't see noise at an issue at that level and sharpness is okay.
thanks
--
Viorel
Rich Simpson UK
Senior Member
Rich Simpson UK
Senior Member
Hi Viorel,
This is what struck me - the differences seem very plain to me - altogether an improved level of IQ ....
If you look at the shadow of the white chairs stacked in the lower crop, the E520 is showing more noise as well. Same thing when I peer into the shadows at high magnifation on the screen ...
I haven't printed from the E30 yet - but I'm sure this all means a smoother image with improved DR and depth.
Cheers,
Rich Simpson
This is what struck me - the differences seem very plain to me - altogether an improved level of IQ ....
If you look at the shadow of the white chairs stacked in the lower crop, the E520 is showing more noise as well. Same thing when I peer into the shadows at high magnifation on the screen ...
I haven't printed from the E30 yet - but I'm sure this all means a smoother image with improved DR and depth.
--
Cheers,
Rich Simpson
rovingtim
Veteran Member
That's not just 2 million more pixels talking ... looks like they've retuned their entire image pipeline.
Is it possible for you to post some 1600's to compare ... without noise reduction or sharpening?
--
Seeing is believing.
Is it possible for you to post some 1600's to compare ... without noise reduction or sharpening?
--
Seeing is believing.
R
Raist3d
Guest
I mean if screen is what matters, you don't need to go beyond 1600x1200- and I am talking about a best case here. Typically what? 1024x768 or even 800x600? So many cameras all of a sudden become ultra good looking like 16-bit Hasselblad digital medium format backs...
I mean seriously. If you are going to deliver electronically only a lot of this discussion of pixel peeping is SOOOOOO far off towards the meaningless and absurd it's not even funny.
Unless you do cropping to the nth degree.
PS: None of my now up and running clients are asking for images for a monitor. They are asking for prints. And just in case, printers in general have more DR than monitors. The reasonably photographic good ones.
--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'
I mean seriously. If you are going to deliver electronically only a lot of this discussion of pixel peeping is SOOOOOO far off towards the meaningless and absurd it's not even funny.
Unless you do cropping to the nth degree.
PS: None of my now up and running clients are asking for images for a monitor. They are asking for prints. And just in case, printers in general have more DR than monitors. The reasonably photographic good ones.
--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'
R
Raist3d
Guest
One of the things I noticed from e-420 to E-3 is that once you hit ISO 800, the "grain" quality is sort of coarse on the e-420 (which I believe has the same processing of the e-520). The E-30 I am not sure does as good as the E-3 at that ISO, but the finer grain + no banding and color preservation (as wrotniak found out even vs the E_3 ) will make it pull ahead.
My observations, from JPEG, but the JPEG engine is affected by what the RAW is doing (except e-420 to E-3 which I compared RAWS also).
--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'
My observations, from JPEG, but the JPEG engine is affected by what the RAW is doing (except e-420 to E-3 which I compared RAWS also).
--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum