-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
C&C: Basque Country and Zaragoza (Spain)
- Thread starter franct
- Start date
-
- Tags
- sony a7 ii
David Nall
Forum Pro
I enjoy full res images, so suggest you get a faster connection and please stop complaining. The all load for me in a few seconds, and I can then zoom in and see minute details not available at lesser quality.
--
Visit my gallery at https://www.flickr.com/photos/elitefroggyspics/
View of Yosemite Valley, Bridalveil fall 4 frame vertical pano taken from the tunnel parking lot.
Last edited:
It mightn't matter even if one can see it. This is a C&C post. Resolution and compression are tangential to this unless printing at specific sizes is one of the constraints.
Not everyone has the latest and greatest.
poppyjk
Senior Member
Histogram of smaller compressed file which adds haze and reduces contrast, color gradation and detail
Histogram of larger uncompressed file which quantifies the differences which are visible to me even in these two small images
"Not all who wander are lost." —J.R.R. Tolkien
S
sabrina81
Guest
I also enjoy full res images. I did not recommend lowering the resolution, so please stop misstating my position. I wasn't complaining. I was suggesting that the OP use a somewhat lower quality level when uploading images to the forum.
I posted two images above for comparison. Both have exactly the same resolution: 24 megapixels, the native resolution of the OP's camera. They differ only in file size, not resolution.
And by the way, not everyone has faster connections available, so please don't lecture me about my Internet connection.
Reilly Diefenbach
Forum Pro
Let me repeat. I'm not interested in anyone else's jpgs, only my own. I am well satisfied that the 80% rendering is not up to the best I can make, and it is not any kind of close call, as shown in the screen cap I posted. When you get a landscape-worthy high res camera and a 4K monitor, you may change your mind. I'll expect a full apology at that time :^)
You are wrong. See below.
Whatever.
Yes, it most certainly does, as it must. You are unable or unwilling to see it, but it is a plain old mechanical fact.
Yes, they most certainly are exported at 100% quality from Lightroom. Not even close to 90%, let alone 80.
I'm sorry you have a slow internet connection, but don't expect the rest of us to cater to your needs at the expense of best possible image quality. We want to see the details at full contrast and at the lowest noise level!
Reilly Diefenbach
Forum Pro
I thanked the OP for providing full size jpgs, which allows us to gauge the presentation of detail and overall clarity and contrast untrammeled by compression artifacts. That is a legitimate factor in any C&C in this forum.
Printing has nothing to do with it.
Reilly Diefenbach
Forum Pro
Which several of us are recommending he doesn't. This is the landscape forum, and many of us take pride in presenting our masterpieces in their full size, full quality glory!
They apparently differ in quality as well.
This makes no sense. You expect everyone critically to examine less than optimal pictures simply because your connection is slow? That qualifies for a big Fred Willard "I don't think so!"
S
sabrina81
Guest
And yet you earlier praised the quality of DPR sample images:
But DPR saves those images at about the same quality level that I recommended to the OP. Either that quality comes up to your exacting standards, or it does not. You can't have it both ways.
poppyjk
Senior Member
Then accept the consequences of a slow internet connection and stop lecturing others about file size. If an extra 30-45 seconds to download a photo ruins your whole day, then you have other problems.
Reilly Diefenbach
Forum Pro
Because they are in fact full size, full quality jpgs. I would accept nothing less when it comes to a critical evaluation of a particular camera's image quality.
No, they do not.
You will at some point have to come to grips with the fact that DPR sample jpgs are full quality as exported from Lightroom. Not 90%, certainly not 80%. Full quality.
David Nall
Forum Pro
This one is the best of these IMHO, but I do like all of them. Well done...
On this one I think you could improve it slightly by increasing saturation and sharpness on the foreground area some, reduce the white area in the sky and water, darken the distant mountain, work on reducing halos there as well, and lighten the large dark mountain some.
I also dimmed your watermark as I find it to be a little distracting.
Stairway to San Juan de Gaztelugatxe
--
Visit my gallery at https://www.flickr.com/photos/elitefroggyspics/
View of Yosemite Valley, Bridalveil fall 4 frame vertical pano taken from the tunnel parking lot.
Last edited:
S
sabrina81
Guest
Here is a review of a Sony camera with the same resolution as the OP's camera: 6000 x 4000 (24 megapixels).
Here is one of the sample images in that review. Image size: 6000 x 4000. File size: 6.18 MB.
Here is another sample image from that review. Image size: 6000 x 4000. File size: 7.1 MB.
Here is a third sample image from that review. Image size: 6000 x 4000. File size: 7.8 MB.
Could you please explain how they saved these images at a 100% quality level and also kept the file size below 8 MB?
For comparison, here are the OP's first three images in this thread, which we know were saved at the highest quality level:
Image 1 . Image size: 6000 x 4000. File size: 17.2 MB.
Image 2 . Image size: 6000 x 4000. File size: 27.4 MB
Image 3 . Image size: 6000 x 4000. File size: 19.9 MB
Last edited:
poppyjk
Senior Member
@lilBuddha -- I agree in spirit with your points, and I think the OP's photos are great, especially the descending stairway.
I was only reacting in a pedantic way to Sabrina's pedantic post that instigated this tangent. I hope the OP does not take any offense, and I appreciate that he posted in uncompressed full resolution.
I can't think of a reason that I should be prevented from enjoying my two year old 'latest and greatest' just because not everyone has it. In technology there is a relentless escalating zero point. Since this photography hobby is a great distraction from my disabilities, I intend to enjoy it the best I can. I hope you and others never have to deal with a situation like mine.
I do not agree that is where the problem started, but this is my lost post on this tangent because we are distracting from the OP.
Funny, because my first reaction to your reprocess was not a completely positive one. However, after looking at it a little larger, I think the idea has some merit. Though I would also punch up the image were it my own, I would do it more selectively. But we are really moving into preference over a more objective analysis in this. Nothing wrong with that, but IMO the differences should be noted.This one is the best of these IMHO, but I do like all of them. Well done...
On this one I think you could improve it slightly by increasing saturation and sharpness on the foreground area some, reduce the white area in the sky and water, darken the distant mountain, work on reducing halos there as well, and lighten the large dark mountain some.
I also dimmed your watermark as I find it to be a little distracting.
Stairway to San Juan de Gaztelugatxe
Reilly Diefenbach
Forum Pro
You can scour the galleries to try and prove your point, but the good stuff all has raws that can be downloaded and exported. Which will show saved at full quality, not a stingy 2 or 3 MBs.
Nikon D500. Notice the size of the file, 9MB, just as shown in the full quality DPR sample gallery :
D500 Save As
If we were to follow your recommendation and save as ACR quality 8, we would wind up with a paltry 1.7 MP. No thanks!
Quality 8 in ACR
Nikon D500. Notice the size of the file, 9MB, just as shown in the full quality DPR sample gallery :
D500 Save As
If we were to follow your recommendation and save as ACR quality 8, we would wind up with a paltry 1.7 MP. No thanks!
Quality 8 in ACR
Last edited:
S
sabrina81
Guest
You keep moving the goalposts. We're not talking about raw files, because they aren't saved at any quality level. That's why they're called "raw." When you spoke of DPR sample images, you were talking about jpgs, not raw files. The sample jpgs shown with camera reviews are not saved at 100% quality level as you claimed.
Straw man. The DPR sample images I linked to are 6.18 to 7.8 MB, not "a stingy 2 or 3 MBs." Why don't you address my question instead of being evasive?
Last edited:
Reilly Diefenbach
Forum Pro
Why is this so difficult for you to understand? The raws are there to download and convert and save as full size jpgs. Sheesh!
Loading…
www.dpreview.com
Most of them to my certain knowledge are full quality, because if they were 80 percent quality, they would be 2-3MB. They are not. You can yammer away all you want, but that's the reality.
I don't have the time or inclination to mess about with pictures with which you wish to force feed me. Take five minutes to download the RAWS, then export/save as 80 percent quality. Maybe then the light will dawn.
You are the one who is attempting to dumb down our jpgs, and it's going over like a lead balloon.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum