NOT SHOT WITH A D20!

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by uw wayne, Jan 29, 2006.

  1. uw wayne

    uw wayne Guest

    uw wayne, Jan 29, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. uw wayne

    Annika1980 Guest

    Obviously!
     
    Annika1980, Jan 30, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. uw wayne

    Scott W Guest

    I could be a very nice photo but it is way over compressed.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jan 30, 2006
    #3
  4. uw wayne

    JimKramer Guest

    But you have to admit that it was amusing to pick that image and
    complain about not enough flash power...
     
    JimKramer, Jan 30, 2006
    #4
  5. Yes, digital cameras have the magic "underwater landscape" programme
    mode which of course avoids that...
     
    Chris Loffredo, Jan 30, 2006
    #5
  6. uw wayne

    Scott W Guest

    Come on Chris it has nothing to do with the camera and everything to do
    with how the photo was saved after it was edited. When the photo was
    saved it was save at far to low a quality setting. If it was highly
    desirable to keep the file size as small as it is then reducing the
    size of the image before saving would have made a lot of sense. Keep
    in mind that this is an image with around 35MP but only uses 1.4MB.
    That is a compression ratio of 75:1 which goes well past what jpg can
    do with out big problems, problems that are clearly visible in the
    image.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jan 30, 2006
    #6
  7. Come on Scott, I am not arguing about the technical details; are you
    *sure* that you would have made the very same comment (or any comment at
    all) if the shot had been taken with a digital...
     
    Chris Loffredo, Jan 30, 2006
    #7
  8. uw wayne

    Scott W Guest

    If I think this is a problem with the image I will say so, like this
    http://groups.google.com/group/rec....k=st&q=biphoto&rnum=99&hl=en#2f610fbb886abe9b

    Where I said "I downloaded on image Nature_A. I don't know what is
    wrong but it
    looks pretty bad, full of noise, black specks.
    There are also a lot of places where the detail seems to be just gone."

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jan 30, 2006
    #8
  9. uw wayne

    uw wayne Guest

    But the original Tiff is ot
     
    uw wayne, Jan 31, 2006
    #9
  10. uw wayne

    uw wayne Guest

    I could not get two 400 watt strobes like I waned. Too much curret to
    hold onto the gear.
     
    uw wayne, Jan 31, 2006
    #10
  11. uw wayne

    uw wayne Guest

    Any idea where I can buy that one? Setting apertures, shutter speeds,
    manually focusing and then having to do a mental calulation on the
    flash output is getting to be too much. It would help too if the marine
    life forms would model and not move so damn fast..
     
    uw wayne, Jan 31, 2006
    #11
  12. uw wayne

    uw wayne Guest

    Yeah, the stobe was fired all out at f5.6
     
    uw wayne, Jan 31, 2006
    #12
  13. uw wayne

    Scott W Guest

    I am sure this is true, I was speaking to how you posted the photo,
    which have far too much compression.

    Here is another example that could be a very good photo but is
    compressed way to much
    http://www.pbase.com/uw_wayne/image/53110458/large

    When photos are compressed to this degree the sky starts to band and we
    see squares everywhere. It would be much better to resize a bit
    smaller and use a high quality setting.
    With just some small changes you online photos could look a whole lot
    better.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jan 31, 2006
    #13
  14. uw wayne

    uw wayne Guest

    Thanks
     
    uw wayne, Jan 31, 2006
    #14
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.