«

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2012032123475864440-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> Following the work flow I described above quality is more than OK for the
> display viewing required for the SI.

For you, but perhaps not for him by the sound of what he posted.


> For example here is a 7.8 MB 2520 x 3720 image:
> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Bugatti-3979.jpg >
> and the same image reduced to 298 KB 867 x 1280:
> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechut...tti-3979w2.jpg >


Your point being that the 298kB file is just as good for comparing image
quality, or just as good if you only want to see a small screen image amd
don't care about image quality?
Is that what the SI is about?

Trevor.

Robert Coe <> wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 09:45:13 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980 <>
>wrote:
>: On Mar 19, 5:02*pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
>: wrote:
>: > ideas? *Please post here for the committee to consider.
>: >
>: > --
>: > The Committee.
>:
>: "The End"
>
>I don't recall you being that sarcastic when you were a regular contributor.
>If your point is that we can't continue without you, get over it. In many
>respects you may be the best photographer in the group; but no one is
>indispensable, not even you.


The SI has a long history of "losing" its best contributors, many of
whom quote the same reason why they felt they could not continue.

On 2012-03-22 04:21:45 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 22:37:43 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:57:47 +1300, Eric Stevens <>
>> wrote:
>> : On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:28:06 +0000, Pete A
>> : <> wrote:
>> :
>> : >On 2012-03-20 16:57:26 +0000, Bruce said:
>> : >
>> : >> Annika1980 <> wrote:
>> : >>
>> : >>> On Mar 19, 5:02*pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
>> : >>> wrote:
>> : >>>> ideas? *Please post here for the committee to consider.
>> : >>>>
>> : >>>> --
>> : >>>> The Committee.
>> : >>>
>> : >>> "The End"
>> : >>
>> : >>
>> : >> That already happened.
>> : >>
>> : >> The problem is that the participants haven't realised it yet.
>> : >
>> : >My realization has been growing. After spending some time attempting to
>> : >write comments on the current SI, I've deleted them. I have nothing
>> : >even marginally useful to contribute in the way of either feedback or
>> : >photos.
>> : >
>> : >The three suggestions I thought of for new mandates have already been
>> : >done and I noticed while checking that there were many more
>> : >contributors in the past than there are now.
>> :
>> : Perhaps we should conduct a survey "What is preventing or discouraging
>> : you from contributing to the SI?"
>>
>> In my case it's mostly the 24-hour day. I'm a strong advocate for a 28-hour
>> day (and an eight-day week), but I understand that it's unlikely to happen in
>> my lifetime.
>>
>> That said, what I've found most frustrating when I have participated is the
>> time it takes to get my pictures down to the maximum accepted size while
>> maintaining a level of quality sufficient to make the effort worthwhile.
>>
> This time I wasn't going to be first to make this last point, but I
> have said it previously. The maximum image size (what is it, 1200 x
> 800?) is fine by me but depending on the subject, this can lead to
> JPEGs ranging from 200kB to around 2MB. If you don't believe me, try
> it. I have a continual battle with file size and image quality and
> frequently many trials are required to get images (just) down to size.

I reduce sharpening and often apply selective noise reduction to obtain
a good looking 300 KB file. It's surprising how much the file size is
increased by even low levels of noise, especially noise in the expanse
of the sky.

It's obvious from the comments on the SI images that there are some who
don't bother to look at the "original", they view only the default
"large" image. Therefore there's little point in submitting a 1200x800
of reduced quality, just send an 800x600 at 300 KB.

> Another thing which bugs me is the use of archival photographs. A
> number of times the rules have said 'no archival images' and then
> blatantly archival images have been accepted. I'm happy with archival
> images and would prefer to be able to use them but, if they are not
> allowed, they should be not allowed from anyone.

I'm guilty of posting old images because I'm so rarely fit enough to
take pictures.

> My other problem is the weather. For the last two years its been
> lousy. Almost never have I been able to get out on the few good
> shooting days we have had. I don't expect anyone can fix this for me.

My "better" days hardly ever coincide with suitable weather. When they
do, it's usually a case of having to do a bit of gardening or get the
laundry hanging on the line.

Eric Stevens <> writes:

> This time I wasn't going to be first to make this last point, but I
> have said it previously. The maximum image size (what is it, 1200 x
> 800?) is fine by me but depending on the subject, this can lead to
> JPEGs ranging from 200kB to around 2MB. If you don't believe me, try
> it. I have a continual battle with file size and image quality and
> frequently many trials are required to get images (just) down to size.

That's...weird. Or absurd. Something like that. I very rarely have
jpegs 600x800 come out as big as 200k in the worst cases. 1200x800,
twice the area, would therefore come out to MAYBE 400k in the worst
cases. This is at Photoshop jpeg quality levels of 6-8. I can of
course get much bigger images at 10 or 12 -- but those are absurd levels
for on-screen viewing, those are for printing from.

> Another thing which bugs me is the use of archival photographs. A
> number of times the rules have said 'no archival images' and then
> blatantly archival images have been accepted. I'm happy with archival
> images and would prefer to be able to use them but, if they are not
> allowed, they should be not allowed from anyone.

I haven't followed the history -- but actually following the rules as
announced is pretty much always important to me.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Eric Stevens <> writes:

>
> Here are two I have plucked from my (dirty word) archives.
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC02101-FACE.jpg is 135 kB and
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC02102.JPG is 2.27 MB. If you have
> a preference for taking the second category of phototographs you are
> faced with an enormous struggle to get within the size limits.

Am I missing something? The first one is 787x790 pixels, the second one
is 2560x1712 pixels. HUGE difference in pixel dimensions has a lot more
to do with the difference in file sizes than subject matter.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On 3/22/2012 3:42 AM, Bruce wrote:
> Robert Coe<> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 09:45:13 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980<>
>> wrote:
>> : On Mar 19, 5:02 pm, Alan Browne<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
>> : wrote:
>> :> ideas? Please post here for the committee to consider.
>> :>
>> :> --
>> :> The Committee.
>> :
>> : "The End"
>>
>> I don't recall you being that sarcastic when you were a regular contributor.
>> If your point is that we can't continue without you, get over it. In many
>> respects you may be the best photographer in the group; but no one is
>> indispensable, not even you.
>
>
> The SI has a long history of "losing" its best contributors, many of
> whom quote the same reason why they felt they could not continue.
>
We can't deal with Brucies criticism.

--
Peter

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2012032200215984492-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2012-03-21 23:56:55 -0700, "Trevor" <> said:
>>> Following the work flow I described above quality is more than OK for
>>> the
>>> display viewing required for the SI.
>>
>> For you, but perhaps not for him by the sound of what he posted.
>>
>>
>>> For example here is a 7.8 MB 2520 x 3720 image:
>>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Bugatti-3979.jpg >
>>> and the same image reduced to 298 KB 867 x 1280:
>>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechut...tti-3979w2.jpg >
>>
>>
>> Your point being that the 298kB file is just as good for comparing image
>> quality, or just as good if you only want to see a small screen image amd
>> don't care about image quality?
>> Is that what the SI is about?
>>
>
> The loss of image quality when viewed on a computer display is negligible,

Only if you start with negligable image quality.


>and the sizing recommendations for the SI allows for some uniformity of
>size and file size reduction for pbase for all submissions.

It simply allows people without GB download allowances and the highest
broadband speeds to view them and make judgements on basics like
composition, subject treatment, artistic concept etc, but NOT image quality.


> The SI is about the challenge of capturing an image to meet a particular
> mandate.
> In many cases it draws some of us out of our comfort zones. The landscape
> shooter pushed to take portraits, or macros. The camera used is
> irrelevant, use a compact, super-zoom, or DSLR. Hell use a view camera.
> Having a good quality image is nice, but participation, subject meeting
> the mandate and composition are more relevant.
> The SI is not a competition. All skill levels are welcome to submit
> images, learn from mistakes and be inspired by the better submissions. It
> then becomes a learning experience for many who choose to play.
> Obviously if it were a pixel peeping competition larger files would be
> required. The SI was intended to be entertaining and fun.

I agree that's the aim, but I wasn't the one who made the comment about it's
worth. Obviously there are far more people here than participate in the SI.
My take is that I let my clients judge my work, I don't need any body else
to do it for me

Trevor.

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2012032219365742612-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...

> There is no judging involved. It is not a competition, I thought that was
> clear. There might be some comments expressing opinions, certainly not
> judging.

I thought in the context I used the word "judging" as in commenting on, I
realise there are no prizes.


> However there are those here who do not participate, or share their images
> in any way at all as they talk and bluster a better game than their talent
> or product might reveal in the light of day.

Perhaps, or just can't be bothered. Not that one persons comments prove
anything either way. I'm often amazed at what crap some pro's produce (IMO)
and the amazing work of some amateurs. (IMO) Obviously others have different
opinions, just as some of the work I see favourably commented on here is not
to my taste. And likewise I doubt my work is to everyone's taste.
Fortunately I don't find that an issue I need to care about.


> Those who participate have a mix of skill and experience, some like Tony
> Cooper and me are old fart photo hobbyists with little claim or desire to
> be pros. Others have been, or are pros, but most just have no issues or
> hangups with sharing within the bounds of the challenge of a particular
> mandate.

As it should be if they choose to participate, more power to them.


> You professional work is not going to rise or fall on the opinion of
> anybody commenting on SI submissions. Besides it is challenging and can be
> both entertaining and fun.

I think that's up to the individuals to decide for themselves.

> ...but all this talk seems to be moot as you are obviously in the same
> anti-SI school as Tony "Bruce" Polson, and we are not likely to see any
> examples of your fine work anytime soon.

I thought it was clear I am NOT anti SI at all. I hope all those who choose
to participate get the satisfaction they seek.

Trevor.

Eric Stevens <> writes:

> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:35:13 -0400, Alan Browne
> <> wrote:
>
>>On 2012-03-22 00:21 , Eric Stevens wrote:
>>
>>> This time I wasn't going to be first to make this last point, but I
>>> have said it previously. The maximum image size (what is it, 1200 x
>>> 800?) is fine by me but depending on the subject, this can lead to
>>> JPEGs ranging from 200kB to around 2MB. If you don't believe me, try
>>> it. I have a continual battle with file size and image quality and
>>
>>I don't believe 2 MB.
>
> I've since posted an example.

Which I looked at, and it's not 1200x800, it's much bigger. And the
small example is much smaller. Your problem, based on those examples,
is not the compression.

>> Even with a high amount of detail in the image I
>>rarely see anything above 500 kB or so. Reducing the quality level to 8
>>or 7 (PS CS5 scale) is usually enough. I have submitted some at quality
>>level 6 with little or no discernible quality loss.
>
> I'm sorry that's meaningless to non-CS users like me.

I could quote the Bibble Pro jpeg level instead, would that help?

More generally -- I'm being specific about exactly what I do with which
software. Other people with that software (so not you in that
particular case) can try what I said, and either find they get similar
results, or not; either result is enlightening.

If you would be more specific, the same thing could happen -- we could
figure out if other people got the same results you report, or different
results.

>>Display it smaller as well as at a lower quality level. 1200x800 is
>>arbitrary. And quite large compared to how most photos are shown on the
>>web.
>
> But are the photographs intended only to be adequate on the web?
> Perhaps that's my problem? I'm trying to give an impression of what it
> might be like in a print.

For nearly all photos (not for SI specifically, but preparing my photos
for web display in general) I try for the point where extra size doesn't
bring extra goodness.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Eric Stevens <> writes:

> (Just for fun, I have tried printing 1 black pixel. The printer prints
> it but I can't even find it).

Put a wide red ring around it, more than 100 dots away say (grossly
more space than I believe the driver ever has things affect other
things); then you can find the center of the ring by eye pretty well.
Use a magnifying glass .

(Jumping back to the previous discussion -- I may have misunderstood one
thing; are you tring to produce files that *print* well for SI
submission? That's a big difference from files that look good on the
web, and could explain things. But what's most needed for printing is
more pixels, not lower compression levels.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info