Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / March 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Just a day at the office for Aussies

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Douglas - 14 Mar 2007 11:58 GMT
http://www.annika1980.com/D-Macs/dayatoffice.htm

20D, 24 -70 F2.8, EX DG Sigma lens. There's a rocky outcrop just where these
guys pick up the wave. Almost like being in the water! Uncropped picture.

Douglas
Poxy - 14 Mar 2007 23:25 GMT
> http://www.annika1980.com/D-Macs/dayatoffice.htm
>
> 20D, 24 -70 F2.8, EX DG Sigma lens. There's a rocky outcrop just where these
> guys pick up the wave. Almost like being in the water! Uncropped picture.

Uncropped huh? That's a hell of a wide sensor your camera has - or was the
extra picture on the right and left produced by your interpolation
algorithm?
Annika1980 - 14 Mar 2007 23:35 GMT
> Uncropped picture.
>
> Uncropped huh? That's a hell of a wide sensor your camera has - or was the
> extra picture on the right and left produced by your interpolation
> algorithm?

Well you can't take everything D-Mac says as Gospel, dontcha know.
Douglas - 14 Mar 2007 23:50 GMT
: > http://www.annika1980.com/D-Macs/dayatoffice.htm
: >
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
: extra picture on the right and left produced by your interpolation
: algorithm?

Nice observation Poxy...
I know it's fine to say this after the event but I meant FULL FRAME WIDTH. I
cropped the top to make a 1600mm wide canvas panorama for a guy and just
downsized the print file when I probably should have (To suite you) used the
original file to make the computer image. You get this, around here, you
know?

Clearly it didn't fool you for a second, you cagey bugger. You knew after
careful measurement and precise computation there was something amiss,
didn't you? Great stuff Poxy.

I'm pretty new at this cropping thing. Coming from the old school of
composing in the camera for maximum enlargement capabilities from film, I'm
still bogged in tradition in that area. But you get that too when and old
fart marries a beautiful tart and lives with her in total bliss for as long
as I have! Sort of helps make the world full of kooks out there a bit fuzzy
if you know what I mean?

Douglas
Poxy - 15 Mar 2007 00:18 GMT
> : > http://www.annika1980.com/D-Macs/dayatoffice.htm
> : >
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> careful measurement and precise computation there was something amiss,
> didn't you? Great stuff Poxy.

Hey, you're the one who stipulated that it was "uncropped" in your posting -
I'm not sure why you thought it worth mentioning, but the aspect ratio of
the picture you posted was obviously wider than normal. I thought for a
moment you might have used an anamorphic lens.

Nice pic, but it seems to have suffered some rather severe posterisation -
you might want to check your conversion settings.
Douglas - 15 Mar 2007 00:40 GMT
: > : > http://www.annika1980.com/D-Macs/dayatoffice.htm
: > : >
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
: Nice pic, but it seems to have suffered some rather severe posterisation -
: you might want to check your conversion settings.

The "severe posterisation" is actually what happens when you save it as an 8
bit, 64 or 128 colour, PNG file or if it's a JPEG (Can't remember off hand)
it's had the same treatment and been converted back to a JPEG.
Lionel - 15 Mar 2007 03:27 GMT
>"Poxy" <pox@poxymail.com> wrote in message
>: Nice pic, but it seems to have suffered some rather severe posterisation -
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>bit, 64 or 128 colour, PNG file or if it's a JPEG (Can't remember off hand)
>it's had the same treatment and been converted back to a JPEG.

Why on earth would you trash your images that way, when it's totally
unnecessarily? I don't recall whether you normally shoot raw or JPEG,
but either way, you should always generate your different-sized copies
directly from your highest quality original.

Signature

  W  "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them."
. | ,. w ,      
 \|/  \|/              Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Douglas - 15 Mar 2007 04:35 GMT
: >"Poxy" <pox@poxymail.com> wrote in message
: >: Nice pic, but it seems to have suffered some rather severe posterisation -
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
: but either way, you should always generate your different-sized copies
: directly from your highest quality original.

While you were away... The sun went down, came up and went down again.
Me tinks ya lost tha plot borther.
Rob - 15 Mar 2007 01:50 GMT
> : > http://www.annika1980.com/D-Macs/dayatoffice.htm
> : >
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> original file to make the computer image. You get this, around here, you
> know?

Lies followed by crap

> Clearly it didn't fool you for a second, you cagey bugger. You knew after
> careful measurement and precise computation there was something amiss,
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Douglas
 
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.