Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: New mandate needed

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: New mandate needed

 
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-23-2012
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 07:42:15 +0000, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 09:45:13 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980 <(E-Mail Removed)>
: >wrote:
: >: On Mar 19, 5:02*pm, Alan Browne <(E-Mail Removed)>
: >: 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.

Refresh my memory: what reason is that?

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-23-2012
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 22:35:00 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
: On 2012-03-21 19:37:43 -0700, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
:
: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:57:47 +1300, Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)>
: > wrote:
: > : On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:28:06 +0000, Pete A
: > : <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: > :
: > : >On 2012-03-20 16:57:26 +0000, Bruce said:
: > : >
: > : >> Annika1980 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: > : >>
: > : >>> On Mar 19, 5:02*pm, Alan Browne <(E-Mail Removed)>
: > : >>> 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.
: >
: > Bob
:
: I don't understand why you are having such a hard time with resizing.
:
: With Photoshop (CS5 in my case) using the crop tool I make the
: appropriate crop to establish edge ratio.
: Retaining proportionality adjust image size to 1200 pixels along the long edge.
: Then a simple "save as" reducing quality to about "9" you should have a
: file size somewhere between 255-330 MB.
:
: I would imagine you would go through a similar process with most other
: editing software.
:
: For those folks with Macs it is even simpler using Preview and the
: "adjust size" tool.

I don't use Photoshop, but I don't have any trouble cropping or re-sizing an
image. The editor I do use does it just fine. But re-sizing isn't the problem;
it's tuning the size and quality to make maximum use of the rather restrictive
(by today's standards) file size limit. And yes, it's easy to see, even on a
computer screen, the differences between different levels of JPEG compression.
(I feel a bit silly pointing that out to members of this group, but some
people talk as though they don't really believe it.)

Reaching that sweet spot is a time-consuming, iterative process. I know of no
editor that lets you say, "Find me the best combination of size and quality
that comes in as close as possible to 300KB." But my real point is that the SI
is the *only* situation in which I ever have to do that. In all other
circumstances, what's wanted is an image of a certain size and quality
(usually the highest available of the latter), and the the file size will be
what it will be. When you're as busy as I am (or as poor a time manager as I
am, take your pick), the time spent iterating on the file size can have an
impact on your willingness to participate in a given month. Note that I'm not
lobbying to get the size limit changed; I'm just trying to provide an honest
answer to Eric's question.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-23-2012
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:32:17 -0400, Alan Browne
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: On 2012-03-21 22:37 , Robert Coe wrote:
:
: > 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.
:
: Explain.

OK, I just did, as an answer to the Duck's question a little farther up in the
thread.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-23-2012
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:33:04 +0000, Pete A <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
: On 2012-03-22 04:21:45 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
: > ...
: > 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.

Most pictures come out better if you can take them in good weather, but
sometimes you have to play the cards you're dealt. And some bad-weather
photographs turn out remarkably well.

Maybe that's another idea for a mandate: Bad-weather photography.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-23-2012
Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:02:04 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>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.

>
> I understand that. Unfortunately I seem to prefer larger photographs,
> often with lots of detail, and trying to preserve the visual impact in
> an image of small size becomes very difficult. I may have to force my
> brain to appreciate a different syle of image.


Yes, if you're doing stuff that really needs to be a few feet across,
often it doesn't look it's best at 1200 pixels, I do agree .
--
David Dyer-Bennet, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
Pete A
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-23-2012
On 2012-03-23 19:29:49 +0000, Robert Coe said:

> [...]
> I don't use Photoshop, but I don't have any trouble cropping or re-sizing an
> image. The editor I do use does it just fine. But re-sizing isn't the problem;
> it's tuning the size and quality to make maximum use of the rather restrictive
> (by today's standards) file size limit. And yes, it's easy to see, even on a
> computer screen, the differences between different levels of JPEG compression.
> (I feel a bit silly pointing that out to members of this group, but some
> people talk as though they don't really believe it.)


You've made me realize that what I've always referred to as "pixel
peeping" may have been totally incorrect. I define it as: A picture
image displayed on-screen at 100% reproduction ratio and viewed at a
distance from which the viewer can differentiate individual pixels. On
LCD and plasma displays this means that the gaps between the pixels
will be partially (just) visible.

My definition led me to conclude that all images that have a size less
than or equal to the resolution of my monitor are "pixel-peeped" by
default.

Although I can see what I'm currently typing from a much greater
viewing distance, I cannot discern such things as the dot above each
letter "i" (I just assume that dot is present). At this viewing
distance, I'm obviously not "pixel peeping" and would be blissfully
unaware of fine-grained JPEG artifacts.

If the viewer uses a display with either a DPI beyond the limits of
20/20 vision or a large hi-res display (that requires a large viewing
distance) then even with corrective eyeglasses the viewer will probably
not be able to "pixel peep". Therefore, the viewer will be unaware of
fine-grained JPEG artifacts for exactly the same reason as my previous
paragraph illustrated.

What I find interesting is that the iPad 3 (for example) has such a
high DPI that I'll never be able to "pixel peep" it. Well, there's
nothing new about that: I've never been able to discern the individual
pixels/dots in a high-quality print, even when the DPI/PPI of my image
has been much lower than the resolution of the printer. Bravo to the
designers of the awesome image processing software used in good
printers

> Reaching that sweet spot is a time-consuming, iterative process. I know of no
> editor that lets you say, "Find me the best combination of size and quality
> that comes in as close as possible to 300KB." But my real point is that the SI
> is the *only* situation in which I ever have to do that. In all other
> circumstances, what's wanted is an image of a certain size and quality
> (usually the highest available of the latter), and the the file size will be
> what it will be. When you're as busy as I am (or as poor a time manager as I
> am, take your pick), the time spent iterating on the file size can have an
> impact on your willingness to participate in a given month. Note that I'm not
> lobbying to get the size limit changed; I'm just trying to provide an honest
> answer to Eric's question.


Neither do I blame the SI for having a 300 KB limit (which is for a
very good reason).

I feel that digital imaging is currently suffering from a two-pronged
squeeze. Expected and deliverable image quality has rapidly increased
while file-size, download speeds, and display technology is only slowly
increasing, which are all miles short of delivering the available image
quality.

Some may disagree with me, but it seems that we currently have an
intolerable situation in which 1-2 megapixel images (e.g. 1200x800
pixels) are considered to be of low-quality yet our displays are
rendering only this size of image in unrealistic microscopic detail.

Nobody in their right mind would inspect a monument in their local park
with a magnifying glass then complain about surface defects yet we as
photographic artists are forced to undergo that level of scrutiny from
our Internet shared images.

 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-23-2012
Alan Browne <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> On 2012-03-23 15:29 , Robert Coe wrote:
>
>> I don't use Photoshop, but I don't have any trouble cropping or re-sizing an
>> image. The editor I do use does it just fine. But re-sizing isn't the problem;
>> it's tuning the size and quality to make maximum use of the rather restrictive
>> (by today's standards) file size limit. And yes, it's easy to see, even on a
>> computer screen, the differences between different levels of JPEG compression.
>> (I feel a bit silly pointing that out to members of this group, but some
>> people talk as though they don't really believe it.)
>>
>> Reaching that sweet spot is a time-consuming, iterative process. I know of no
>> editor that lets you say, "Find me the best combination of size and quality
>> that comes in as close as possible to 300KB." But my real point is that the SI
>> is the *only* situation in which I ever have to do that.

>
> PBase allocates so much space and charges us for that space. If we
> allow files to be too large, the space will fill up. The only people
> I'm sure have paid the actual PBase fee are:
>
> Bret "Annika" a few times
> Me at least 2 times
> Bowser a few times
> Matt Clara ?
>
> But again, getting the images down to 300 kB is not that big of a deal
> IMO - proven by practice it takes 2 - 3 iterations most of the time
> and more than that rarely. Just save the image and look at the
> directory that is already open on your screen. Not hard at all and
> not time consuming.


I haven't had an image I prepped for web come out over 300kB EVER, I
don't think, unless it was a full-size screen background or something.
So yeah, that's not IMHO an unreasonable or hard-to-meet requirement.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, (E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
Pete A
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-23-2012
On 2012-03-23 19:47:03 +0000, Robert Coe said:

> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:33:04 +0000, Pete A wrote:
> : On 2012-03-22 04:21:45 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
> : > ...
> : > 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.
>
> Most pictures come out better if you can take them in good weather, but
> sometimes you have to play the cards you're dealt. And some bad-weather
> photographs turn out remarkably well.


I totally agree. The scene contrast is sometimes much lower during bad
weather, which makes it possible to dial-in suitable positive exposure
compensation to take maximum advantage of the camera's dynamic range
for the purpose of special-effect post processing. Conversely, midday
sunlight is a photographer's worst enemy.

> Maybe that's another idea for a mandate: Bad-weather photography.


I like that suggestion, but I've learnt from experience that my bizarre
renditions of various bad-weather shots have a very limited appeal. I'm
not complaining, I'm just happy that I've managed to deal with the
truth and can carry on doing what I love doing (as happy as a pig in
****).

 
Reply With Quote
 
Pete A
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-23-2012
On 2012-03-23 20:39:40 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:02:04 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.

>
> I understand that. Unfortunately I seem to prefer larger photographs,
> often with lots of detail, and trying to preserve the visual impact in
> an image of small size becomes very difficult. I may have to force my
> brain to appreciate a different syle of image.


I'm the same: some of my photos simply do not deliver their designed
impact when reproduced on anything less than a huge print. I absolutely
refuse to compromise on any of my images where this aspect is important
to me. I have one image entitled "Every Pixel Counts" and it has blown
the socks off everyone who's viewed the print

Recently, however, I'm having great fun by exploring a processing style
that relies heavily on selective blurring. When/if I perfect it to my
liking, I'm tempted to create an antithesis to the above along the
lines of "Each Pixel Is Meaningless"

 
Reply With Quote
 
Pete A
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-23-2012
On 2012-03-23 21:13:43 +0000, Alan Browne said:

> On 2012-03-22 19:08 , Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:35:13 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.

>
> Fair enough. I've since posted the same photo at 1200x800 and 300 kB.
> (Actually a little larger).
>
>>> 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.

>
> See below.
>
>>>
>>> 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.

>
> I've demonstrated that your photo can easily be edited to 1200x800, 300
> kB and be quite presentable (it should be noted that there is nothing
> particularly great about the image whether at full quality or lesser.
> It is "large" in JPG terms because of the patterns in the image.
>
> If you don't use PS you can use any other editor. The JPG quality
> scales (depending on the particular app) is typically 1 ... 10, 1...12,
> 1...100 all with the same relative meaning/effect.
>
> In the end they all have the same basic result: a smaller file and
> usually (in the upper range) little or no discernible photo degradation.


Not wishing to be argumentative, just reiterating what has been
explained in great technical detail previously on Usenet photography
groups: there are exceedingly few JPEG encoders and decoders that do an
excellent job. Since late Dec. 2011, Nikon Capture NX2 now has JPEG
functionality that is totally unusable for serious photography - this
product by no means stands alone.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: [SI] New mandate needed tony cooper Digital Photography 5 03-21-2012 10:03 PM
Re: [SI] New mandate needed PeterN Digital Photography 2 03-20-2012 01:52 PM
Re: [SI] Mandate reminder/update & new mandate! Robert Spanjaard Digital Photography 9 04-26-2010 10:17 PM
Re: [SI] Mandate reminder/update & new mandate! Robert Coe Digital Photography 13 04-24-2010 05:47 AM
Re: Mandate reminder/update & new mandate! Annika1980 Digital Photography 3 04-17-2010 10:37 PM



Advertisments