[SI] New mandate needed

On 2012-03-23 21:44 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:16:08 -0500, David
wrote:

Eric writes:

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:02:04 -0500, David
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 .

I guess that's why I bought a 19" printer. :-)

Me too. But it has nothing to do with preparing an image for the SI.


--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

On 2012-03-23 21:46 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:13:43 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-03-22 19:08 , Eric Stevens wrote:
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.

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.

That's where we disagree.

You disagree. Most every one else has no issue preparing to the
requirement.

Indeed what you represented as a 2 MB image too difficult to reduce to
300 kB for a 1200x800 image was in fact more than 2x larger in dimension
with a geometric effect on file size. It's as if you don't even grasp
the basic mechanics of the issue.

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

On 2012-03-23 21:53 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:36:27 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-03-23 17:13 , Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012-03-22 19:08 , Eric Stevens wrote:
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.

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

Sorry, I take that back. The 2 MB image was in fact 2560x1712 pixels.

When reduced to 1200 x 803 and saved at "max quality" comes out to 700
kB. A slight reduction in quality gets it to 300 kB.

Yet you have just written "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." In my experience, that slight
reduction in quality can often take the edge off an image and turn it
from 'Gee Whiz' to 'Ho Hum'.

Disagree. In fact you should know the basic photo editing effect that
reducing in size increases the appearance of edge sharpness. This is
certainly the case in your poor contrast, less than crisp puddy-cat photo.

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

On 2012-03-23 23:14 , Robert Coe wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:19:30 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
: On 2012-03-23 14:48 , Robert Coe wrote:
: On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:31:59 -0400, wrote:
: : On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:02:56 -0400, Alan Browne
: wrote:
: :
: :
: :ideas? Please post here for the committee to consider.
: :
: : Taxis
: : On the Road
: : Album Cover
: : Man's man
:
: Taxis?? Where in our area are there any interesting taxis?
:
: Occasionally one sees a slightly interesting bus. But one hardly ever has
: a camera in one's hand on such an occasion.
:
: Instead of harping on his suggestions, what are yours?

Alan, if I've said something to offend you, I apologize. I really don't know
what it was, but this was only one of several snide or hostile comments you've
directed at me recently.


I asked for mandate suggestions.

Not only did you not offer any, you criticize what someone else offered.

So, no need to apologize, there is a need to suggest mandates.


As for my response to Bowser, he and I live in the same metropolitan area,
where the taxis are as boring as they are anywhere. (A few years ago, the
mayor of Boston made a campaign promise to demand that all taxis in the city
be the same color - white.) I'm confident that Bowser recognizes this and took
my attempt at humor in the spirit in which it was intended.

I really don't care.

I'm trying to get ideas for a mandate. What do I get?

1. Molon taking this off to some cockamamie discussion about newsgroups.
2. Eric and others displaying their complete lack of understanding of
image sizing and prep of an image for web display.
3. Few of the participants proposing an idea for mandates.

Really.

I bear no hostility yo you or anyone, but for Christ's sake it would be
nice if people would answer the call.

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

On 2012-03-23 22:04 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:29:12 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-03-23 16:47 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 15:29:49 -0400, Robert 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. 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.


Actually you have stated my position exactly. Thank you.

Robert, like you, doesn't seem to understand the process of getting an
image to a given dimension and file size quickly and efficiently.

I can do this with three different photo editors with an effort in time
of about 30 seconds.

Robeert, like me, is of the opinion that excessive compaction of the
image data may cause an image to lose its visual impact. It does't
matter whether it is compacted by reducing the number of pixels or by
increased JPEG compression. Either way you lose something of the
image.

Since you can't even submit a 1200x800 image (the so-called impossible
to compress 2 MB image - of course it was 2500 x 1700 or so...) I think
maybe you should master that simple operation first.

Both 'duck and I had no problems re-sizing that image and getting it
down to web size for presentation. Given it's lackluster original
contrast and overall dull tone, reducing it in size enhanced it, not the
opposite - despite further 'quality' reduction to attain file size -
which had no effect on the image when displayed.

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

On 2012-03-24 07:32:38 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 2012-03-23 23:14 , Robert Coe wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:19:30 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
: On 2012-03-23 14:48 , Robert Coe wrote:
: On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:31:59 -0400, wrote:
: : On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:02:56 -0400, Alan Browne
: wrote:
: :
: :
: :ideas? Please post here for the committee to consider.
: :
: : Taxis
: : On the Road
: : Album Cover
: : Man's man
:
: Taxis?? Where in our area are there any interesting taxis?
:
: Occasionally one sees a slightly interesting bus. But one hardly ever has
: a camera in one's hand on such an occasion.
:
: Instead of harping on his suggestions, what are yours?

Alan, if I've said something to offend you, I apologize. I really don't know
what it was, but this was only one of several snide or hostile comments you've
directed at me recently.


I asked for mandate suggestions.

Not only did you not offer any, you criticize what someone else offered.

So, no need to apologize, there is a need to suggest mandates.


As for my response to Bowser, he and I live in the same metropolitan area,
where the taxis are as boring as they are anywhere. (A few years ago, the
mayor of Boston made a campaign promise to demand that all taxis in the city
be the same color - white.) I'm confident that Bowser recognizes this and took
my attempt at humor in the spirit in which it was intended.

I really don't care.

I'm trying to get ideas for a mandate. What do I get?

1. Molon taking this off to some cockamamie discussion about newsgroups.
2. Eric and others displaying their complete lack of understanding of
image sizing and prep of an image for web display.
3. Few of the participants proposing an idea for mandates.

Really.

I bear no hostility yo you or anyone, but for Christ's sake it would be
nice if people would answer the call.

OK!
How about this for a mandate; "The Street"?
This would be a shot which captures the character and identity of a
particular street, be it well known or one of local legend. It could
show activities on that street and/or the people and buildings who make
the street unique.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 3/23/2012 2:44 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 07:42:15 +0000, wrote:
: Robert wrote:
:On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 09:45:13 -0700 (PDT),
:wrote:
:: On Mar 19, 5:02 pm, Alan
:: 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?


I assume your response was rhetorical. You have too much sense to expect
a rational answer.


--
Peter

On 3/23/2012 2:48 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:31:59 -0400, wrote:
: On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:02:56 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
:
:
:ideas? Please post here for the committee to consider.
:
: Taxis
: On the Road
: Album Cover
: Man's man

Taxis?? Where in our area are there any interesting taxis?

Occasionally one sees a slightly interesting bus. But one hardly ever has a
camera in one's hand on such an occasion.

Bob

We have pedicabs in NY, some of which have very interesting looking
"drivers."

--
Peter

On 3/23/2012 5:18 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012-03-23 14:55 , Robert Coe wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:52:28 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
: On 2012-03-21 17:40 , tony cooper wrote:
: On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 16:55:23 -0400, Alan Browne
: wrote:
:
: On 2012-03-20 23:17 , tony cooper wrote:
: On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:02:56 -0400, Alan Browne
: wrote:
:
:
: ideas? Please post here for the committee to consider.
:
: Don't forget the old stand-by: Open
:
: Then I'd suggest to the committee that it nominate a letter based
open.
:
: Whatever the mandate, "fresh" should requested (but not required).
:
: I'm not happy with the high number of archive shots in the recent SI.

What's wrong with archive shots if they fit the mandate? If you have a
good
picture you'd like to share, wouldn't you be pleased if a mandate came
along
that covered it?

The original intent of the SI was to get people out and shooting to
mandate. Archive shots were "let in" to increase participation - but it
always had a negative perception. Archive shots had to be so marked.

Given the smaller (and diminishing) number of usenet users,
participation in the SI has dwindled (early SI's had 25 or more
different photographers per mandate).

These NG's hardly have that many active posters now.

One rul I changed when I was the admin a few years ago was to allow each
shooter to put up 3 instead of a single photo. This helped "plump" up
the number of shots. I can't say it's helped quality much.

It's not that we're too lazy to take pictures. But those of us that
get to
take pictures on company time have to take the pictures our employers
want or
need, or they'll stop letting us do it.

Most in the SI work and find time to do it. You have the advantage of
having your camera at hand more often.

The SI was _originally_ every _week_ not every 4 - 5 weeks as it is now.



Alan, we appreciate your taking over a thankless job.
As feedback I am comfortable in saying that many of s look for some sort
of constructive critique. If any images are not as good as other images,
we ought to understand why.
I think Bob Coe's comment on taxis is as valuable as a positive comment.
It should give the committee some sense of what is not wanted.
I, for one definitely do not want the constant carping. Let's get on
with photography and reserve the negative comments for my images.

--
Peter

tony cooper wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 16:23:34 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 19:05:54 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-03-23 18:12:18 -0700, tony said:

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:34:00 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-03-23 12:47:03 -0700, Robert said:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:33:04 +0000, Pete
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

How about this for a mandate?
Any archive shots which would have been ideal for a past mandate, but
were never submitted because they were archive shots and ineligible.

When was an archive shot ever rejected as ineligible?

Only in a participant's mind.

There is no point in having rules which are not enforced.

Well, in some cases there is no point of having rules. In this
particular situation, I think "suggestions" is more appropriate than
"rules". The SI is not a competition. There are no winners or losers
or ribbons or prizes. The intent is to have a little fun in sharing
images with other people.

That's why it's spelled 'rulz' ;-)


The "rule" about size that Alan imposes is a practical one regarding
the limitations and cost of the host: pbase. The fact that you must
adjust the image, instead of Alan doing it, is a reasonable one for a
volunteer moderator.