 |
 | 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 / Photo Technique / Nature Photography / August 2004Snails :)
Hey, I was in my kitchen a minute ago and I saw a snail on the wall across the garden :) So I ran out and took these two photos :) http://dragon-spawn.co.uk/DSGallery/thumbnails.php?album=18 What do you think? Paulz Well you certainly have a good macro lens, very sharp indeed. > Hey, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Paulz >Well you certainly have a good macro lens, very sharp indeed. How can you tell, from those small pictures? If you display a 3072-pixel wide image at 533 pixels wide, it's kind of hard not to look sharp, with any lens that is at its optimum focus.  Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< The images are 1600x1200 ;) Just click on them and they enlarge :) They were taken with a credit card sized Pentax Option S 3Mb Pixels in Macro mode :) >>Well you certainly have a good macro lens, very sharp indeed. > > How can you tell, from those small pictures? > > If you display a 3072-pixel wide image at 533 pixels wide, it's kind of > hard not to look sharp, with any lens that is at its optimum focus. >The images are 1600x1200 ;) > >Just click on them and they enlarge :) Thanks. I was looking for a gadget, and didn't see one. I'm not quick to click because it's an easy way to get hijacked or get pop-ups. >They were taken with a credit card sized Pentax Option S 3Mb Pixels in >Macro mode :) Then, they are already having some of their native image hidden by resizing. Not that I'm complaining; I generally display 6MP images at 0.43MP, but I don't really expect anyone to praise the optics, unless they see the native pixel resolution. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< Hehehehe, you will never find pop-ups on any of my websites, I detest them greatly :) Native Pixel Resolution? >>The images are 1600x1200 ;) >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I don't really expect anyone to praise the optics, unless they see the > native pixel resolution. >Native Pixel Resolution? Same number of pixels as the sensor has. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< Ok, So on a 3 Mega Pixel photo, My native Pixel Res is 1600x1200? >>Native Pixel Resolution? > > Same number of pixels as the sensor has. >Ok, So on a 3 Mega Pixel photo, My native Pixel Res is 1600x1200? No, 1600*1200 is about 2MP. 1.92MP, to be exact. 3MP is more like 2000*1500. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< Ah, My camera can do 640x480, 1024x768, 1600x1200 and 2048x1536 But 2048x1536 is so big and the images are like 3Mb each! :) I tend to take 1600x1200 images :) Good quality and a reasonable size :) >>Ok, So on a 3 Mega Pixel photo, My native Pixel Res is 1600x1200? > > No, 1600*1200 is about 2MP. 1.92MP, to be exact. 3MP is more like > 2000*1500. > Ah, My camera can do 640x480, 1024x768, 1600x1200 and 2048x1536 > > But 2048x1536 is so big and the images are like 3Mb each! :) > > I tend to take 1600x1200 images :) Good quality and a reasonable size :) If size is an issue it is generally agreed that it is better to increase the JPEG compression rather than decrease the resolution. My 3 meg camera can output 2048x1536 at file sizes as low as a few hundred Kb if necessary. Dooey. I can reduce the quality I guess, would that be better? >>Ah, My camera can do 640x480, 1024x768, 1600x1200 and 2048x1536 >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Dooey. Yes. My 3MP camera makes files well under 1 MB each. My new 6MP camera makes 3MB jpegs. > I can reduce the quality I guess, would that be better? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> Dooey. > I can reduce the quality I guess, would that be better? Yes. You can then always drop the resolution later for normal web/email use but keep it high for photos and exhibition via the web. -- Dooey >Ah, My camera can do 640x480, 1024x768, 1600x1200 and 2048x1536 > >But 2048x1536 is so big and the images are like 3Mb each! :) > >I tend to take 1600x1200 images :) Good quality and a reasonable size :) You get more quality per pixel, generally, when images are shrunk, but the overall quality of the image as a whole diminishes. For example, if you print them both full page, the 3MP image will look a lot better than the 2MP image. I'd shoot at 3MP, and display the web images at 1024*768 or 512*384. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< I had a pop up, just the one, something about female dating galleries, it was on your opening page. > Hehehehe, you will never find pop-ups on any of my websites, I detest > them greatly :) [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I don't really expect anyone to praise the optics, unless they see the > > native pixel resolution. > I had a pop up, just the one, something about female dating galleries, it > was on your opening page. I didn't get one. Thats not my Website B A T M A N wrote: > I had a pop up, just the one, something about female dating galleries, it > was on your opening page. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >>>I don't really expect anyone to praise the optics, unless they see the >>>native pixel resolution. If you clicked on the pic you got it full size.....lol The clarity was there to see. > >Well you certainly have a good macro lens, very sharp indeed. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< Never noticed the cross posting, sorry posters. > If you clicked on the pic you got it full size.....lol The clarity was there > to see. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> > > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >If you clicked on the pic you got it full size.....lol The clarity was there >to see. Actually, it was a little soft, even downsampled to 1600*1200. Just a little. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< Its about 2Mb in size so before I upload photos, I reduce the Jpg quality by 20% as I have run out of web hosting space already :) Its now 300k :) >>If you clicked on the pic you got it full size.....lol The clarity was there >>to see. > > Actually, it was a little soft, even downsampled to 1600*1200. Just a > little. The picture(s) would look "a lot better" if you had used a little piece of white cardboard ... to reflect some light into the "shadows." > Hey, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Paulz Hmm, I never thought of that, thanks :) > The picture(s) would look "a lot better" if you had used a little piece of white cardboard > .... to reflect some light into the "shadows." [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >>Paulz |
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
|
©2008 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.