Local lake today

[fazz81]

Hi all,

Popped over the lake for lunch today, trying out my new 70-300 lens, got some good results when I finally remembered about setting the correct shutter speed for the focal length. Here's a few I'm most pleased with, and an obligatory car shot of course...

[pic]http://www.swfproductions.net/images/wildlife/web1.jpg[/pic]
[pic]http://www.swfproductions.net/images/wildlife/web2.jpg[/pic]
[pic]http://www.swfproductions.net/images/wildlife/web3.jpg[/pic]
[pic]http://www.swfproductions.net/images/wildlife/web4.jpg[/pic]
[pic]http://www.swfproductions.net/images/wildlife/web5.jpg[/pic]
[pic]http://www.swfproductions.net/images/wildlife/web6.jpg[/pic]

[simpo two]

Number 2 is very nice.

I wondered why my new 1Mbit connection was taking its time. Did you know you're got 2.1Mb of files up there? Practice JPG compression - trust me, you won't see the difference on the net - and you'll get the images to 100Kb.

[_dobbo_]

I think the one of the fisherman is fantastic - you've caught the line perfectly!

[fazz81]

simpo two said:

Number 2 is very nice. I wondered why my new 1Mbit connection was taking its time. Did you know you're got 2.1Mb of files up there? Practice JPG compression - trust me, you won't see the difference on the net - and you'll get the images to 100Kb.

ooops! sorry, I resized them to 750px, but forogt to compress them as usual, whats the best compression I can get without losing quality do you think? i.e. 50%

_dobbo_ said:

I think the one of the fisherman is fantastic - you've caught the line perfectly!

Thanks, I do like the way the line is heading back as he starts to pull the rod forward. spent ages watching, didn't catch anything though!

[simpo two]

fazz81 said:

ooops! sorry, I resized them to 750px, but forogt to compress them as usual, whats the best compression I can get without losing quality do you think? i.e. 50%

It depends what you're starting with and what software you use, eg PS gives you a sliding scale of 1-10. 'Save for Web' is even better.

Whatever you use, IMO the thing to aim for is final file size, as I know from experience that a 100Kb file on the net at 750 pixels wide is fine fo rmost purposes. Technically you lose quality as soon as you make a JPG of any size, but the internet is a great leveller; it's not a double-page spread in Cosmo. Why not do some experiments and see what you can get away with?

Using PS Save for Web to give 100Kb:



>> Edited by simpo two on Thursday 9th June 21:10

[fazz81]

simpo two said:

fazz81 said: ooops! sorry, I resized them to 750px, but forogt to compress them as usual, whats the best compression I can get without losing quality do you think? i.e. 50% It depends what you're starting with and what software you use, eg PS gives you a sliding scale of 1-10. 'Save for Web' is even better. Whatever you use, IMO the thing to aim for is final file size, as I know from experience that a 100Kb file on the net at 750 pixels wide is fine fo rmost purposes. Technically you lose quality as soon as you make a JPG of any size, but the internet is a great leveller; it's not a double-page spread in Cosmo. Why not do some experiments and see what you can get away with? Using PS Save for Web to give 100Kb: >> Edited by simpo two on Thursday 9th June 21:10

I'm using PS, so will give 'save for web' a go next time I post.
Thanks for the advice, but I can see the difference...theres a feather missing!

[CVP]

I really like the fisherman, you've got the timing really well captured.

Also like number 1 with the swans in line astern.

Chris

[_dobbo_]

Looking at these again, they all have a slight tint to them - obviously it was sunny on the day but it's more than that I think - have you applied more contrast in PS?

Whatever it is I like it!

By the way as far as file sizes go - I tend to find that in most pictures a resize to 750 and selecting "10" on the quality slider does the business. Very occasionally you may have to go down to "8" but not that often.

When you select the quality on the slider, it gives you a file size preview so it's easy to see when you've got it right.

[fazz81]

Cheers CVP starting to think the fisherman one is the best, can't help but think it would look good in B&W, but i'm no good at doing that in PS, always looks washed out.

_dobbo_ said:

Looking at these again, they all have a slight tint to them - obviously it was sunny on the day but it's more than that I think - have you applied more contrast in PS? Whatever it is I like it! By the way as far as file sizes go - I tend to find that in most pictures a resize to 750 and selecting "10" on the quality slider does the business. Very occasionally you may have to go down to "8" but not that often. When you select the quality on the slider, it gives you a file size preview so it's easy to see when you've got it right.

Ah....you noticed! they have all been under the mouse at photoshop, crop, slight levels and contrast...

going to have a play around with the compression, try to find were the line is.

Thanks again all

[seasider]

Like them, is that Chigborough?

[fazz81]

Thanks.
Its a lake near Little Leighs in Chemlsford, Essex.
Theres actually two lakes, one used for private fishing and the other is just wildlife.

[seasider]

fazz81 said:

one used for private fishing

Hmmm might have a sniff around...