 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / March 2007Just 64 colours in a photo - amazing!
So how low can you go? The human eye is easily fooled... Like a few people I know! http://www.annika1980.com/D-Macs/rub-a-dub-dub.htm Douglas > So how low can you go? > The human eye is easily fooled... Like a few people I know! It's simply trading resolution for colour depth, and using dithering to make up the difference. In the case of the photo you posted, it unfortunately has neither (i'm not trying to have a go at you, the low resolution is obviously because it has been formatted to fit a computer monitor), and so there is clear graininess around the people (the ocean looks fine though). You could take a full colour photo, and convert it to higher resolution but with only 1 bit per colour per pixel, and if printed at high enough resolution it would look no different to the full colour photo. In fact this is exactly what colour inkjet printers do - they print a very high resolution image, but with just 1 bit per colour per dot. Because of the high resolution the eye blends the little dots together to give the impression of millions of colours. Same technique has been used in printing for years too, so that greyscale and colour images can be printed from presses that are capable of 1 bit colour/grey depth. > http://www.annika1980.com/D-Macs/rub-a-dub-dub.htm > > Douglas >> So how low can you go? >> The human eye is easily fooled... Like a few people I know! [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> >> Douglas The issue Graham is not what you can achieve with 1 bit colour output but what I choose to do to display my photos in such a way as I wish. You, just like me, should be permitted to exercise whatever means we choose to produce a viewable image which is very hard to reproduce (steal) commercially. If you can absolutely guarantee me some Chinese or Korean poster printer won't steal my 800 pixel images and then try to sell them back to me on 2 feet wide canvas, I'll post them full res. Otherwise, it's me who will decide on the quality and /or sharpness of images I post on the Internet. Don't take offense. I'm not jumping on you, just clearing my position on the matter. Douglas > If you can absolutely guarantee me some Chinese or > Korean poster printer won't steal my 800 pixel images and then try to > sell them back to me on 2 feet wide canvas, I'll post them full res. Yeah, like there's a chance in the world of that happening! There's like 4 Billion Chinese and guess what, D-Mac? They all think your pics suck, too! They got better pics in a Shanghai prison. > The issue Graham is not what you can achieve with 1 bit colour output but > what I choose to do to display my photos in such a way as I wish. I guess I misunderstood what you were saying in your post - I thought you were just trying to demonstrate how an image with only 2 bits/colour can still appear ok. > You, just like me, should be permitted to exercise whatever means we > choose to produce a viewable image which is very hard to reproduce > (steal) commercially. If you can absolutely guarantee me some Chinese or > Korean poster printer won't steal my 800 pixel images and then try to > sell them back to me on 2 feet wide canvas, I'll post them full res. Realistically, I don't think it's that much of an issue. 800x600 images produce _barely_ acceptible 6x4's, let alone poster prints. If you're that concerned, then just put a watermark on them. There are many professional photographers who don't feel the need to ruin their photos for internet display. After all, a website is a showcase. No-one would fill their printed portfolio book with deliberate poor quality work in case someone photographed a page out of it. The internet is exactly the same - an image that looks acceptable on screen with 600-800 pixels on the long side will not be of good enough quality for someone to steal it. > Otherwise, it's me who will decide on the quality and /or sharpness of > images I post on the Internet. Don't take offense. I'm not jumping on > you, just clearing my position on the matter. I didn't take offense, and I agree that you have every right to format images how you want, but please don't take offense at me when I say that I think it would be more sensible to post examples of your _best_ work on your website, since it is a form of advertising. I really do think that you are getting worried about nothing. An image with 600-800 pixels is not of sufficient resolution to be printed to a decent size, so I really don't think it will impact your sales negatively. On the contrary, if you display some of your best work, and display it in a manner that allows the quality to be seen, then you might get extra business from the internet. > Douglas : > The issue Graham is not what you can achieve with 1 bit colour output but : > what I choose to do to display my photos in such a way as I wish. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] : manner that allows the quality to be seen, then you might get extra : business from the internet. What would call decent size Graham? Last year a Wedding Photographer I make canvas portraits for, gave me a disc of his images with the tale he'd accidentally deleted the print files and only had the 800 wide CD files when the couple ordered some prints. Bit of a horror story actually. I enlarged them by interpolation and printed them 8x12 at 180 dpi on a Minolta digital print station. Surprisingly good results too. I think I'm going to continue with the flash program I made the last portfolio with. Not much I can do about the thumbs being square but it does (unlike Gallery's compression) maintain some image quality although it's a little slow for people still on dial up. Business from the Internet is directly related to search engine placement which requires constant effort to keep in the top 20. Last year I spent plenty of time doing this. My site was up in the top 6 search returns. The enquiry rate? Zero! There may be room to improve it but it's not what you'd call a shocker, is it? I am about to take your advice and actually put my best work up. Small pictures but none the less enough to view. We can test your theory then, eh? Thanks for the banter, Douglas > An image with 600-800 pixels > is not of sufficient resolution to be printed to a decent size, so I > really don't think it will impact your sales negatively. I don't know about that, Graham. That is usually true, but you gotta remember that the folks who buy D- Mac's stuff aren't too interested in print quality. > So how low can you go? > The human eye is easily fooled... Like a few people I know! > > http://www.annika1980.com/D-Macs/rub-a-dub-dub.htm I guess the boys on the boat were right. You do have a small dinghy. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.