Real Life Photography/Photo Editing II - NO IMAGES >100kb

[vilas 477]

my suggestion about black animals (cats, dogs)

better use point light exposure than whole

system will then light more center (dark animal details)

otherwise will be hard to see details of dark colour animal (even if background will be too bright)

dark on bright and bright on dark - always cause you have something not visible

can you put this black cat on red sofa ? or dark blue ? (also would be nice color game, black and red, black and blue) and you will see that camera will better spot exposure (light it more)

puting it to white/gray will cause animal not enough bright to see where are details

or like I said above - use RAW format, work on it in RAW editor (or your camera shot JPG only?)

in RAW many things can be fixed :)

Focus is a little soft, but I know how hard it can be to get good pictures of cats, let alone kittens.

depends also of equipment, fast focus ultrasonic lens never miss

Edited December 9, 2010 by vilas

[-)rStrangelove 0]

Shot this from my balcony.

-3°C, felt like -8°C with winds *brrrrrr* :P

http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p101/DrStr4ngeluv/wallp/DSC_0009.jpg

Download in bigger size: click

[Derbysieger 11]

i hope those who have RAW format, do in RAW and than work on it :)

also good thing is level lines on screen (or focusing screen) to keep level

+1

100kb is too much work for me so I use thumbnails. The pics are all 16-23MB when they're in RAW format. In .jpg it's up to 15MB but most are about 7-10MB...

Cats are soooo nice :)

Random pigeon:

Salt-mine:

[vilas 477]

+1

100kb is too much work for me so I use thumbnails. The pics are all 16-23MB when they're in RAW format. In .jpg it's up to 15MB but most are about 7-10MB...

but you edit RAW and when effect is good than export to any size of JPG

making and editing RAW is basic thing that allows fix wrong white balance, change shadows/lights etc.

in RAW many things can be fixed oposite to JPG (when you can lose quality reworking picture)

RAW is for changin it (white balance, colours balance, exposition, shadows/darks/lights)

i think that most of photographers should be familiar with RAW format before they do JPG final or miniature

example:

before:

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/8910/img1395q.jpg

after:

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_DYyiMzuzgtY/TLdLUpqXGbI/AAAAAAAAAT4/tHExyA7CWsE/s640/IMG_1395.jpg

it is few steps easy job when file is in RAW

in RAW it is easy to correct perspective (when you not have TS-A lens) etc.

RAW is only format i use

Edited December 13, 2010 by vilas

[Derbysieger 11]

Ok I think you missunderstood me. I always edit photos in RAW format. Then I convert them with highest quality wich results in rather large files. I changed a few pics to 100kb but then I thought damn it. It results in a huge loss of quality and I can save time by just posting thumbnails...

We have the same camera btw ;) I got the camera and some of his old lenses from my uncle for a bargain so it's not too bad. Still, I sometimes wich I had better lenses. Christmas is coming so who knows :bigsmile:

She's the queen of the house :D

[vilas 477]

than maybe try set sharpness to max when you make miniature ?

i see that noise raises when sharpness is set to max, but for miniature all noise should disappear on 1000 pixels

or another advice maybe export and than set sharpness on miniature as JPG ?

or maybe you use wrong conversion method options of JPG so it losses quality ?

i always put sharpness mid-level if it is large size image (printing A3) because of noise level (on high ISO of course)

but for miniature don't afraid to max sharpness

do you use DPP or Lightroom or other RAW soft ?

as for internet i think that it is possible to get good picture 1000 pixels and 250 kbytes size

and lenses are important - i know, very important, shame they cost so high (those sharp and fast focusing)

[Derbysieger 11]

I use DPP.

Here I have a pic with <100kb but it's cropped and the RAW file isn't that large.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Crop it some more. If you feel you need the space in front of the bird (which compositionally is a good thing), choose to clone away the blurred branches. The current crop is really unfortunate as it crops along the middle of the branch, stealing focus from the subject. I can't make it function as a frame either.

Posting images in full size isn't really needed, and those kinds of resolutions doesn't serve a purpose unless you're going for some high quality print. 1024-1280 (tends to fit in a browser) should really be the maximum size people have to download, with a high quality jpg output going at 300-500kb per image.

As for sharpening, the image should be moderately pre-sharpened just to counter the softening caused by the sensor filter itself. Then you apply any color tricks and whatever you want to apply. Finally you apply heavier sharpening to the output image (not the source image) depending on where you want it to go. You sharpen differently for print resolutions than you do for web resolutions.

@])rStrangelove:

Don't take this the wrong way, but sometimes it helps getting your ass outside :p Seems you had some pretty nice lighting going on here that you wasted your opportunity with by hiding inside :) Sorry, but a nice potential destroyed by being covered by branches deserves a comment.

[Daniel 0]

[Derbysieger 11]

@CarlGustaffa:

thx for the tips :)

Some from this afternoon:

[GoOB 0]

Both shots taken with a Rolleiflex SL66 and Planar 80mm HFT lens @ f/4 the film: Kodak Portra 400 VC. BRUTAL compression on the last one though, brutal...

The 100kb limit is indeed a bit archaic... Who is on 56k these days?

[Derbysieger 11]

We've never had so much snow in december.

We had always snow in the last three Winters but never in december (only for one or two days maybe):

Funny clown on a german Weihnachtsmarkt (Christmas Market):

EF 50mm f1.8 II @ f1.8

I must say I'm very happy with the quality of high ISO shots on my camera.

When I was in a salt-mine on december 9th I used ISO 2000-3200 and still got acceptable quality.

Example (ISO 2000):

Edited December 21, 2010 by Derbysieger

[vilas 477]

if i had money for full frame EOS... man, ISO 6400 is clear there

[Derbysieger 11]

Stop, stop, stop! :D

FIRST I want the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 II L USM, the EF 100mm f/2.8 L Makro IS USM and maybe a tele L-lens. When I'm the proud owner of these I will consider a full frame body^^ But they're all so expensive that this will take a long time (except I win the lottery or something)...

Seriously, full frame is great but really too expensive for a poor student like me. When there are no expensive outgoings in the next month and my grandma is as generous as every second year I'll consider the EF 100mm f/2.8 L Makro IS USM in january or february.

It'll be be my first L-lens xD

And btw we have white christmas for the first time in my life. YEAH!! I always wanted white christmas. Climate is going nuts this winter and I'm happy :218:

Edited December 29, 2010 by Derbysieger

[Macadam Cow 1]

The 100kb limit is indeed a bit archaic... Who is on 56k these days?

me :rolleyes:

Beautiful pics btw, the first one is trully beautiful and you too Derbysieger

[Derbysieger 11]

thx.

I'm sorry for you. Is DSL not available or what is the Problem? I mean DSL is really cheap these days.

Merry Christmas @all

Photoshooting in snow:

Here you can really see the compression caused by the 100kb limit. @200kb it looks so much better...

[vilas 477]

:) do you have this photo but from perspective of mouse ? :D

[Derbysieger 11]

You wish :D

That was so much fun xD 2,5hrs shooting. I think she was frozen in the end^^

[vilas 477]

probably she needed to be wormed up :D :D :D can i join ? :D :D

[Derbysieger 11]

too late :P

Machinegunmode (6 pics per second) was really useful in that Situation^^

[Macadam Cow 1]

thx.

I'm sorry for you. Is DSL not available or what is the Problem? I mean DSL is really cheap these days.

Problem is I live in an old building in a touristic area of the country. I'm using the "public" network of my building. I'm not really having a 56Ko bandwidth but it often looks like I'm. Sometimes the speed is not even in Kilo-octet but in octet :eek:

And sometimes it's ok, last few days I had between 100Ko/s and 500 Ko/s, which is enough for a comfortable internet browsing.

It depends how many tourits are in my building, that's why I hate holidays, I work more and can't access internet, damn you lazy tourists, can't you live a single day without facebook ???

:p

A few pics :

My dog

Brussels under the snow

again

Edited January 11, 2011 by Macadam Cow

[Derbysieger 11]

Ah ok. that sucks indeed^^

When I'm on holidays internet is the last thing I need btw... The only thing I have always with me is a portable harddrive for my photos^^

Some from Black Forest, Germany where I went skiing

Near Hinterzarten:

Feldberg:

Evening on Feldberg

-12°C in the morning:

All (except the last one) taken with the 50mm f/1.8 II.

[Daddl 10]

Nice! Loved it up there when I was still studying in Freiburg - those pics bring back memories! :D

[Richey79 10]

She's the queen of the house :D

She looks a bit like my cat, Atticus. Perhaps she has some Turkish Angora in her?

Taken with Panny GF1 and the 20mm prime that comes with it. I can't shoot over ISO800 with the m2/3 sensor, but I have steady hands (once I've had a couple of drinks, anyway). I can live without full-frame digi, as long as someone somewhere is still making film that will go in my M6. I wouldn't use digital at all if RAW files didn't exist. Without being able to capture the larger amount of exposure information they offer, digital just doesn't offer enough exposure latitude to be usable - frankly, the jpegs the camera automatically produces are more exposure-fussy than slide-film ever was. I would never export to Jpeg, if I had the option. I once tried to produce an image of some perfectly straight-lines in Jpeg format and was horrified at how much the compression algorithm corrupts your image. I always use Nikon's Raw presharpener to give a little more 'oomph' to my shots, although it's rare for me to set it higher than 25%.

Duchess is a Turkish Angora, too.

Sadly, however amorous Atticus is feeling, the family jewels were taken from him some time ago :butbut:.

Speaking of animals moving too fast to have their picture taken:

I had to take this at ISO800 on Canon 400D with Sigma wideangle, even though it was a bright sunny day. It's of Millie, a border-terrier puppy, who had boundless energy. She was trying to attack the camera strap in this shot. Best to go for 'machinegun mode' or automatic, if your camera has it, for this type of shot.

example:

before:

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/8910/img1395q.jpg

after:

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_DYyiMzuzgtY/TLdLUpqXGbI/AAAAAAAAAT4/tHExyA7CWsE/s640/IMG_1395.jpg

Have you been visiting Krakow again, Vilas? - Don't tell me you're lucky enough to live there?

Edited January 16, 2011 by Richey79

[Derbysieger 11]

I have no Idea about the cat. It's my cousin's.

How fast is the lens you used? I mean 1/2000s - 1/3200s should be more than enough to capture fast moving objects. I never used ISO higher than 320 in bright sunshine.

Ice formations, Ravenna Ravine, Black Forest, Germany:

Taking a foto at 1/13s, kneeling on ice doesn't result in sharp pictures I fear (also Ravenna Ravine):

Two days later all ice was gone at the Todtnau Waterfalls 1/6s handheld, arms rested on a rock:

Something from december 2010. Icequeen lying in the snow^^ :

Edited January 16, 2011 by Derbysieger