A couple of first attempts with my new toy
Discussion
you should resize them for the web - they took an age to download & will eat your bandwidth. A program like IrFanView can do it (as can the Windows Powertoy).
What settings was that on, they seem quite blurred and lack the clarity of my 3.2MP camera, wondering if thats a result of the camera over exposing (it looks like the sky is too bright in the first image) and the bottom is very blurred (maybe because it wasn't held still?)
What settings was that on, they seem quite blurred and lack the clarity of my 3.2MP camera, wondering if thats a result of the camera over exposing (it looks like the sky is too bright in the first image) and the bottom is very blurred (maybe because it wasn't held still?)
docevi1 said:
you should resize them for the web - they took an age to download & will eat your bandwidth. A program like IrFanView can do it (as can the Windows Powertoy).
What settings was that on, they seem quite blurred and lack the clarity of my 3.2MP camera, wondering if thats a result of the camera over exposing (it looks like the sky is too bright in the first image) and the bottom is very blurred (maybe because it wasn't held still?)
Resized! Looks like a nice bit of software to use as well.
They were on the highest settings possible and using the default "landscape" mode on the camera.
I think there might be some camera shake. I need to practise some more!
docevi1 said:
you should resize them for the web - they took an age to download & will eat your bandwidth. A program like IrFanView can do it (as can the Windows Powertoy).
Hi Phil, they may be resized but they're still 1Mb each, way too big.
Two steps.
1) Resize to 750 pixels max side
2) Compress to <100Kb. Trust me, they will look exactly the same.
If you don't have the software but run XP, right click on the image file, choose 'Resize' and '800x600'. It's a bit of a blunt weapon but will do the job
>> Edited by simpo two on Sunday 13th March 23:00
simpo two said:
you should resize them for the web - they took an age to download & will eat your bandwidth. A program like IrFanView can do it (as can the Windows Powertoy).
Hi Phil, they may be resized but they're still 1Mb each, way too big.
Two steps.
1) Resize to 750 pixels max side
2) Compress to <100Kb. Trust me, they will look exactly the same.
If you don't have the software but run XP, right click on the image file, choose 'Resize' and '800x600'. It's a bit of a blunt weapon but will do the job
>> Edited by simpo two on Sunday 13th March 23:00
How do I compress them? Resized them using irfan view to 500 x 666 already.
pmanson said:
How do I compress them? Resized them using irfan view to 500 x 666 already.
OK, pixel size and file size are two different things. You got one but not the other! I'm lucky in having PhotoShop CS but I'm sure you'd find PS Elements etc a good investment if you really want to enjoy digital photography and get the best out of your pix.
The compression happens when you 'Save As > jpg'. In PS you get a 0-10 sliding scale of file size vs quality so you can decide what balance to choose. In the meantime, try that right-click idea and then do Properties to see what the file size is.
Big files are important for A4/A3 prints but for the web, where pictures are chopped up into pixels anyway, you can really hack them down for no visible loss.
Hope this is helpful but post if you get stuck; it's what this forum is for!
pmanson said:
What did you think to the pics? I definatly prefer the 2nd to the 1st it just looks better.
Ah, the pix. Okeydoke...
I guess there are two things to consider, composition and how well you pulled it off.
The following is just an 'IMO':
1) Is the better of the two in terms of composition. The cart gives it interest and a pouitn of focus; the eroad make a good foreground and leads the eye in. However I feel you need to rotate the shot 5-10 degress clockwise 'cos something doesn't seem level.
Technically, you've lost the sky: the scene has too much contrast for the camera to handle. This is a big subject but the quickest fix is to expose for the highlights and bring up the shadows when you get your paws on PS. We'll discuss all that another day!
2) Is better exposed and you've got the tree filling the frame nicely, but what's it a picture of? If you like the tree and think it has potential as a b/g, move round it and see if you can find an angle that makes a better composition. The world is full of great photos, but sometimes you have to hunt around to find them. Unless you live in Switzerland!
Hi Phil,
I'm not too sure what settings Landscape mode will try out but I suspect it really does expect a fairly distant view and you have a lot of foreground in the first shot - it may be confused! I would expect it to focus a little too close (the marker tells you where it has decided to concentrate on for focussing) and even using the multi-point metering you would have a lot of dark areas.
If you have a look at the meta properties of the downloaded file (Properties button on the ACDC Browser menu is one way to see them) it may offer some insight.
The second shot has a bit more sky area and seems to have better balance overall. That said There is probably enough detail available (if not quite visible) in the first shot to make adjustments.
The Fotocanvas software supplied (I assume) is not too bad - quite easy to use and covers most things. Have a play with the 'Levels' - manually using the gamma adjustment initially to see what it can do for you. If you select the sky area first you can darken that without changing the rest.
Edit to say there is some latitude even on your compressed image which we might expect will have lost some detail so the original could be quite flexible. However digital does tend to have a high burnout factor on bright whites - as I think it was GetCarter pointed out recently.
>> Edited by LongQ on Monday 14th March 00:11
I'm not too sure what settings Landscape mode will try out but I suspect it really does expect a fairly distant view and you have a lot of foreground in the first shot - it may be confused! I would expect it to focus a little too close (the marker tells you where it has decided to concentrate on for focussing) and even using the multi-point metering you would have a lot of dark areas.
If you have a look at the meta properties of the downloaded file (Properties button on the ACDC Browser menu is one way to see them) it may offer some insight.
The second shot has a bit more sky area and seems to have better balance overall. That said There is probably enough detail available (if not quite visible) in the first shot to make adjustments.
The Fotocanvas software supplied (I assume) is not too bad - quite easy to use and covers most things. Have a play with the 'Levels' - manually using the gamma adjustment initially to see what it can do for you. If you select the sky area first you can darken that without changing the rest.
Edit to say there is some latitude even on your compressed image which we might expect will have lost some detail so the original could be quite flexible. However digital does tend to have a high burnout factor on bright whites - as I think it was GetCarter pointed out recently.
>> Edited by LongQ on Monday 14th March 00:11
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff