Motor Expo pictures

[pikey]

Quite happy with a few of these...







.. and a bunch more here http://www.pikeynet.com/07/06/13/index.html

[Andy M]

Whatever you used to resize them has really reduced their quality IMO - straight lines have become jagged edges.

Aside from that, nice pic's

[pikey]

Andy M said:

Whatever you used to resize them has really reduced their quality IMO - straight lines have become jagged edges.

Aware of that, but it's a trade off. I have about 40,000 pictures on there so making them 'web efficient' is the name of the game (for what I do with my site)

The original pic would have been 10mb on 'superfine', but I use a batch process to resize them to 1024x768 (or the other way round) and whip 40% of the quality away. The originals do look much better of course.

[2jamesl]

In my opinion there is way too much is it called banding? Where the curves are too clearly visible from the lens and it is an effect which personally i do not like. Although it works both ways cos it looks great on the carrera S picture but not on the others.

Hope i don't sound too pedantic, if thats the right word.

[furtive]

I popped over to take some photos yesterday morning:







Loads more here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/furtives/sets/7215760...

[imperialism2024]

2jamesl said:

In my opinion there is way too much is it called banding? Where the curves are too clearly visible from the lens and it is an effect which personally i do not like. Although it works both ways cos it looks great on the carrera S picture but not on the others.

On the other hand, I like the effect... But just my $.02 I just can't truly enjoy the pictures with the detail lost in resizing, but at least I can get an idea of what they would look like with that detail.

And what gallery program is that? I quite like it... it's basically the format I would like to use for my site, since that's basically what I'm trying to do with Frontpage but it's far too time-consuming that way...

[Famous Graham]

pikey said:

Andy M said:

Whatever you used to resize them has really reduced their quality IMO - straight lines have become jagged edges.

Aware of that, but it's a trade off. I have about 40,000 pictures on there so making them 'web efficient' is the name of the game (for what I do with my site)

The original pic would have been 10mb on 'superfine', but I use a batch process to resize them to 1024x768 (or the other way round) and whip 40% of the quality away. The originals do look much better of course.

Nah, there's something else going awry there. You should be able to get a jpg down to 100k without that kind of jaggy things going on.

[Marc W]

Damn I knew there was something on that I'd forgotten! Top photos though

Edited by Marc W on Sunday 17th June 20:15

[pikey]

Famous Graham said:

Nah, there's something else going awry there. You should be able to get a jpg down to 100k without that kind of jaggy things going on.

I'll have a play - not experimented before

[pikey]

imperialism2024 said:

And what gallery program is that? I quite like it... it's basically the format I would like to use for my site, since that's basically what I'm trying to do with Frontpage but it's far too time-consuming that way...

http://jalbum.net/

It does the resizing, stamping, slide show, arranging... actually pretty much anything you might want to do in a batch.

There are different "skins" available for different looks too.

[nick_bbb]

pikey said:

It does the resizing...

I think we have found the problem

[pikey]

nick_bbb said:

pikey said:

It does the resizing...

I think we have found the problem

Obviously that's the problem - it's not as if it comes off the camera like that

(well, I bloody well hope not anyway )

[nick_bbb]