"Let there be light ... " (pic)

EJN said:

Wonder of wonders ! It actually wasn't raining today , so a quick
dash out to grab a few shots to add to my present paltry
collection. Parked on a farm-yard used by a nearby Inn and was
right in front of a glassless window opening looking into a
store-shed..confronted by this ... No explanation..it just took my
eye ..and yet another punishing test I thought ???!!
1/125th , f5, ISO 400 - just cropped and downsized for a finish
...this camera just never yet ceases to amaze me !! Believe it or
not , it looked just like this ..



--
EJN

Click to expand...

SteveO7 said:

EJN said:

Wonder of wonders ! It actually wasn't raining today , so a quick
dash out to grab a few shots to add to my present paltry
collection. Parked on a farm-yard used by a nearby Inn and was
right in front of a glassless window opening looking into a
store-shed..confronted by this ... No explanation..it just took my
eye ..and yet another punishing test I thought ???!!
1/125th , f5, ISO 400 - just cropped and downsized for a finish
...this camera just never yet ceases to amaze me !! Believe it or
not , it looked just like this ..

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

SteveO7 said:

SteveO7 said:

--
EJN

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Parham said:

EJN, I for one truly appreciate the fact that you post your
pictures on this forum, plus the fact that they're mostly good
pictures. I would just appreciate if you could either resize them
or "save for web" so that the whole 2MB or so of the photo didn't
have to load everytime I opened one of your posts. This will make
the picture-viewing a more pleasant experience for me and all
others with a slow connection via modem.

Thanks, and nice pic!

Click to expand...

EJN said:

Parham said:

EJN, I for one truly appreciate the fact that you post your
pictures on this forum, plus the fact that they're mostly good
pictures. I would just appreciate if you could either resize them
or "save for web" so that the whole 2MB or so of the photo didn't
have to load everytime I opened one of your posts. This will make
the picture-viewing a more pleasant experience for me and all
others with a slow connection via modem.

Thanks, and nice pic!

Click to expand...

P. -
Well, you well know that I've said it before...there's just too
much talk and too few pics on here. SO much about the *ist and even
I would love to see others efforts ..if only to see some comparison
and if I'm getting anywhere. I should add that I sympathise with
you ..believe it or not but I have a modem dial-up too !! .. so
I know what you mean , but I have a "thing" about this. Whilst
appreciating the big pic problem I feel really seriously that a
small pic does NOTHING to show any sort of reflection of the result
of that one. Personally I run a mile from a lot of these photo
sites that put up TINY pics (as I see them) Crikey , if you start
with the size of a dSLR pic, it's not much use to look at it as a
6x4. I DON'T believe in keeping HUGE pics - my 'Edits' folder is
based generally on around 1000 pix biggest dimension, added to
occasionally (on one I like) by the size of a Cherry frame or
similar...I wouldn't put THOSE on here..any I do I usually downsize
a bit more , but a small one I still baulk at. To be honest, maybe
right now I'm so pleased with this thing that I just want to see a
good size !!! but I do appreciate your comments ... and YES...I
wish more folk would post here. There surelyare enough now with the
*ist ...so where are the pics ???

Eric

Click to expand...

Parham said:

I'm not talking about posting "tiny" pictures, just pics with less
volume, but of the same size in terms of dimension. I'm not sure
what software you are using, but if you are using PS Elements or
just any PS, there should be a "save for web" option which reduces
the volume of your pictures without reducing the dimensions. Rest
assured, I don't like small-size pictures either.

On the other hand, I'm surprised that you are reducing to around
1000 pixels, because when I open your posts the time your pictures
take to download make them seem like they're close to full-size
(full-volume if you prefer).

As for putting my money where my mouth is as far as posting
pictures (see, I caught your drift!), here's the latest one I
posted on my PBase galleries. Not much of a pic, but my style. It's
one I took a few days ago of some of the people I work with.

Cheers.

Click to expand...

EJN said:

Parham said:

I'm not talking about posting "tiny" pictures, just pics with less
volume, but of the same size in terms of dimension. I'm not sure
what software you are using, but if you are using PS Elements or
just any PS, there should be a "save for web" option which reduces
the volume of your pictures without reducing the dimensions. Rest
assured, I don't like small-size pictures either.

On the other hand, I'm surprised that you are reducing to around
1000 pixels, because when I open your posts the time your pictures
take to download make them seem like they're close to full-size
(full-volume if you prefer).

As for putting my money where my mouth is as far as posting
pictures (see, I caught your drift!), here's the latest one I
posted on my PBase galleries. Not much of a pic, but my style. It's
one I took a few days ago of some of the people I work with.

Cheers.

Click to expand...

Yes, know what you mean ...maybe ought to look into that. I use PS
nearly all the time. Got several progs on but this always seems to
do all I want so why bother with more. Never thought much of the
sizing as I do it in PS and it just comes out that way..OK for
general use as naturally I keep the originals, but virtually ALL my
downsizes are "give-or-take" ...500K and a bit on average, which is
maybe why I don't think them 'big' !!
So you're a B&W are you ... tell you what though...these dSLRs
really are different in DOF aren't they. Look at that of yours..the
'right' eyes surely seem to be the focus point yet only a modest
amount 'behind' (the other person) is 'out' . Still trying to get
used to this ...very useful much of the time but after about 5 or 6
years with prosumers it IS different. Keep 'em
coming...somebody's got to get the ball rolling.

Click to expand...

Member said:

E

Click to expand...

EJN said:

Parham said:

EJN, I for one truly appreciate the fact that you post your
pictures on this forum, plus the fact that they're mostly good
pictures. I would just appreciate if you could either resize them
or "save for web" so that the whole 2MB or so of the photo didn't
have to load everytime I opened one of your posts. This will make
the picture-viewing a more pleasant experience for me and all
others with a slow connection via modem.

Thanks, and nice pic!

Click to expand...

P. -
Well, you well know that I've said it before...there's just too
much talk and too few pics on here. SO much about the *ist and even
I would love to see others efforts ..if only to see some comparison
and if I'm getting anywhere. I should add that I sympathise with
you ..believe it or not but I have a modem dial-up too !! .. so
I know what you mean , but I have a "thing" about this. Whilst
appreciating the big pic problem I feel really seriously that a
small pic does NOTHING to show any sort of reflection of the result
of that one. Personally I run a mile from a lot of these photo
sites that put up TINY pics (as I see them) Crikey , if you start
with the size of a dSLR pic, it's not much use to look at it as a
6x4. I DON'T believe in keeping HUGE pics - my 'Edits' folder is
based generally on around 1000 pix biggest dimension, added to
occasionally (on one I like) by the size of a Cherry frame or
similar...I wouldn't put THOSE on here..any I do I usually downsize
a bit more , but a small one I still baulk at. To be honest, maybe
right now I'm so pleased with this thing that I just want to see a
good size !!! but I do appreciate your comments ... and YES...I
wish more folk would post here. There surelyare enough now with the
*ist ...so where are the pics ???

Eric

Click to expand...

EJN said:

...this camera just never yet ceases to amaze me !! Believe it or
not , it looked just like this ..

Click to expand...

EJN said:

There surelyare enough now with the
*ist ...so where are the pics ???

Eric

Click to expand...

Parham said:

On the other hand, I'm surprised that you are reducing to around
1000 pixels, because when I open your posts the time your pictures
take to download make them seem like they're close to full-size
(full-volume if you prefer).

As for putting my money where my mouth is as far as posting
pictures (see, I caught your drift!), here's the latest one I
posted on my PBase galleries. Not much of a pic, but my style. It's
one I took a few days ago of some of the people I work with.

Cheers.

EJN said:

Parham said:

EJN, I for one truly appreciate the fact that you post your
pictures on this forum, plus the fact that they're mostly good
pictures. I would just appreciate if you could either resize them
or "save for web" so that the whole 2MB or so of the photo didn't
have to load everytime I opened one of your posts. This will make
the picture-viewing a more pleasant experience for me and all
others with a slow connection via modem.

Thanks, and nice pic!

Click to expand...

P. -
Well, you well know that I've said it before...there's just too
much talk and too few pics on here. SO much about the *ist and even
I would love to see others efforts ..if only to see some comparison
and if I'm getting anywhere. I should add that I sympathise with
you ..believe it or not but I have a modem dial-up too !! .. so
I know what you mean , but I have a "thing" about this. Whilst
appreciating the big pic problem I feel really seriously that a
small pic does NOTHING to show any sort of reflection of the result
of that one. Personally I run a mile from a lot of these photo
sites that put up TINY pics (as I see them) Crikey , if you start
with the size of a dSLR pic, it's not much use to look at it as a
6x4. I DON'T believe in keeping HUGE pics - my 'Edits' folder is
based generally on around 1000 pix biggest dimension, added to
occasionally (on one I like) by the size of a Cherry frame or
similar...I wouldn't put THOSE on here..any I do I usually downsize
a bit more , but a small one I still baulk at. To be honest, maybe
right now I'm so pleased with this thing that I just want to see a
good size !!! but I do appreciate your comments ... and YES...I
wish more folk would post here. There surelyare enough now with the
*ist ...so where are the pics ???

Eric

Click to expand...

--
Listen
Tin soldiers
Playing our tune

http://www.pbase.com/parham

Click to expand...

BigMouth said:

Parham said:

On the other hand, I'm surprised that you are reducing to around
1000 pixels, because when I open your posts the time your pictures
take to download make them seem like they're close to full-size
(full-volume if you prefer).

As for putting my money where my mouth is as far as posting
pictures (see, I caught your drift!), here's the latest one I
posted on my PBase galleries. Not much of a pic, but my style. It's
one I took a few days ago of some of the people I work with.

Cheers.

EJN said:

Parham said:

EJN, I for one truly appreciate the fact that you post your
pictures on this forum, plus the fact that they're mostly good
pictures. I would just appreciate if you could either resize them
or "save for web" so that the whole 2MB or so of the photo didn't
have to load everytime I opened one of your posts. This will make
the picture-viewing a more pleasant experience for me and all
others with a slow connection via modem.

Thanks, and nice pic!

Click to expand...

P. -
Well, you well know that I've said it before...there's just too
much talk and too few pics on here. SO much about the *ist and even
I would love to see others efforts ..if only to see some comparison
and if I'm getting anywhere. I should add that I sympathise with
you ..believe it or not but I have a modem dial-up too !! .. so
I know what you mean , but I have a "thing" about this. Whilst
appreciating the big pic problem I feel really seriously that a
small pic does NOTHING to show any sort of reflection of the result
of that one. Personally I run a mile from a lot of these photo
sites that put up TINY pics (as I see them) Crikey , if you start
with the size of a dSLR pic, it's not much use to look at it as a
6x4. I DON'T believe in keeping HUGE pics - my 'Edits' folder is
based generally on around 1000 pix biggest dimension, added to
occasionally (on one I like) by the size of a Cherry frame or
similar...I wouldn't put THOSE on here..any I do I usually downsize
a bit more , but a small one I still baulk at. To be honest, maybe
right now I'm so pleased with this thing that I just want to see a
good size !!! but I do appreciate your comments ... and YES...I
wish more folk would post here. There surelyare enough now with the
*ist ...so where are the pics ???

Eric

Click to expand...

--
Listen
Tin soldiers
Playing our tune

http://www.pbase.com/parham

Click to expand...

--
Bad boys bad boys
Watcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do
when they come for you

Click to expand...

SteveO7 said:

OK, while we're on the subject of down sizing photos to post I have
a burning question. What program does the best job at dowsizing?
For the sake of those without the budget, let's exclude the
high-dollar Photoshops.

I have used the free IRFANVIEW and Qimage. I also have PaintShop
Pro, PS Elements, and others that I can't remember right now.

What would be the preferable size, 640x480, 800x600, 1024x758 all
at 100%?

--Steve

Click to expand...

BigMouth said:

EJN said:

...this camera just never yet ceases to amaze me !! Believe it or
not , it looked just like this ..

Click to expand...

With the strange Halo and that soft? Other Cameras got heavy
bashing for this kind of halo around blowouts...

Click to expand...

EJN said:

SteveO7 said:

OK, while we're on the subject of down sizing photos to post I have
a burning question. What program does the best job at dowsizing?
For the sake of those without the budget, let's exclude the
high-dollar Photoshops.

I have used the free IRFANVIEW and Qimage. I also have PaintShop
Pro, PS Elements, and others that I can't remember right now.

What would be the preferable size, 640x480, 800x600, 1024x758 all
at 100%?

--Steve

Click to expand...

Steve -
Well - you put the question up ....so here we go . I've got as
many (and lots more) progs as you seem to have, although I rarely
use much other than PS (it's actually ver6 on this 'worker' I use
most although I've got PS7 and CS on other laptops .. but I think
I'm a bit blase on this for maybe a couple of reasons. First, as
I've already said, I do NOT like downsizing , especially to show a
pic, as it's obvious that it can be no 'show' as such if it's
little more than a holiday postcard. Also, I've got very
disgruntled that many sites (dpreview do seem a good exception to
this I think) make a right hash very often in reproducing a pic ,
so I'm sure many are nothing like as good as they really start. The
result is that I use very few to show a pic. But since you ask...if
you do want to show a SMALLER pic yet one that still retains a
great deal of the original quality , I've just this minute done a
'test' on this and would you believe (you ought to!) Genuine
Fractals makes a super job of producing an 800x533 pic from one of
my this W/E originals ...in fact the smaller one I've just done
this way, really does look BETTER on screen than the ORIGINAL as
the latter shows with the usual natural reduction via PS ! (as a %
of the original when it opens) Never done this before and was
quite honestly a bit taken aback but at the risk of taking up
bandwidth again I feel I MUST show you - see what you think. Of
course you'll have to use a bit of judgment but this is totally
untouched, just the original saved in GF as an .stn file then
re-opened and in the process reduced to 800x533 and then re-saved
as a jpg...at 511K size !!!



Otherwise, odd as it may seem, 'Easy Thumbnails' is a favourite
program as it IS intended to make 'thumbnails' (which of course can
be any size ..more of a downsizer in fact) AND auto retains EXIF
AND you can if you wish make minor 'edits' ...a +1 Sharpen can
sometimes give an excellent downsizer .. try it ..it's free

EJN

Click to expand...

EJN said:

BigMouth said:

EJN said:

...this camera just never yet ceases to amaze me !! Believe it or
not , it looked just like this ..

Click to expand...

With the strange Halo and that soft? Other Cameras got heavy
bashing for this kind of halo around blowouts...

Click to expand...

I'm no scientist but if you pointed any glass lens directly at a
lit bulb in an otherwise totally near black environmrent I'd think
you are bound to get a halo - aren't you ??

Click to expand...

EJN said:

SteveO7 said:

OK, while we're on the subject of down sizing photos to post I have
a burning question. What program does the best job at dowsizing?
For the sake of those without the budget, let's exclude the
high-dollar Photoshops.

I have used the free IRFANVIEW and Qimage. I also have PaintShop
Pro, PS Elements, and others that I can't remember right now.

What would be the preferable size, 640x480, 800x600, 1024x758 all
at 100%?

--Steve

Click to expand...

Steve -
Well - you put the question up ....so here we go . I've got as
many (and lots more) progs as you seem to have, although I rarely
use much other than PS (it's actually ver6 on this 'worker' I use
most although I've got PS7 and CS on other laptops .. but I think
I'm a bit blase on this for maybe a couple of reasons. First, as
I've already said, I do NOT like downsizing , especially to show a
pic, as it's obvious that it can be no 'show' as such if it's
little more than a holiday postcard. Also, I've got very
disgruntled that many sites (dpreview do seem a good exception to
this I think) make a right hash very often in reproducing a pic ,
so I'm sure many are nothing like as good as they really start. The
result is that I use very few to show a pic. But since you ask...if
you do want to show a SMALLER pic yet one that still retains a
great deal of the original quality , I've just this minute done a
'test' on this and would you believe (you ought to!) Genuine
Fractals makes a super job of producing an 800x533 pic from one of
my this W/E originals ...in fact the smaller one I've just done
this way, really does look BETTER on screen than the ORIGINAL as
the latter shows with the usual natural reduction via PS ! (as a %
of the original when it opens) Never done this before and was
quite honestly a bit taken aback but at the risk of taking up
bandwidth again I feel I MUST show you - see what you think. Of
course you'll have to use a bit of judgment but this is totally
untouched, just the original saved in GF as an .stn file then
re-opened and in the process reduced to 800x533 and then re-saved
as a jpg...at 511K size !!!



Otherwise, odd as it may seem, 'Easy Thumbnails' is a favourite
program as it IS intended to make 'thumbnails' (which of course can
be any size ..more of a downsizer in fact) AND auto retains EXIF
AND you can if you wish make minor 'edits' ...a +1 Sharpen can
sometimes give an excellent downsizer .. try it ..it's free

EJN

Click to expand...

BigMouth said:

EJN said:

BigMouth said:

EJN said:

...this camera just never yet ceases to amaze me !! Believe it or
not , it looked just like this ..

Click to expand...

With the strange Halo and that soft? Other Cameras got heavy
bashing for this kind of halo around blowouts...

Click to expand...

I'm no scientist but if you pointed any glass lens directly at a
lit bulb in an otherwise totally near black environmrent I'd think
you are bound to get a halo - aren't you ??

Click to expand...

Sorry for the confusion, I am not talking about the halo around it
that gives it the shiny look but the
black border on the inside border of the bulb that looks like a
sharpening halo.

--
Bad boys bad boys
Watcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do
when they come for you

Click to expand...