lots of value left in film Photo for 2nd June

http://www.ryadia.com/POD/June/2-06-07.htm

The old GWS690, bought for a few bucks at a camera swap produces stunning
photos the likes of which Digitals simply can't equal.
--
Douglas,
Those who can, just do it.
Those who can't become bullies.
http://www.bullyonline.org

On Jun 1, 12:26 am, "Ryadia" wrote:
http://www.ryadia.com/POD/June/2-06-07.htm

The old GWS690, bought for a few bucks at a camera swap produces stunning
photos the likes of which Digitals simply can't equal.
--
Douglas,
Those who can, just do it.
Those who can't become bullies.http://www.bullyonline.org

Not a bad shot, but it suffers from jpeg artifacts, like banding in
the sky.

57KB for an image that size is just too much compression, IMO

Scott

On Jun 1, 6:26 am, "Ryadia" wrote:
http://www.ryadia.com/POD/June/2-06-07.htm

"There is a 4 feet by 5 feet print of this scene on my office wall. Viewing distance of 600mm."

"That's right, 4 feet by 5 feet .... I'm looking right at it." -D-Mac,
the Caveman

How do you get a 4'x5' pic out of that without cropping a foot off of
it?

On Jun 1, 6:13 am, Annika1980 wrote:
On Jun 1, 6:26 am, "Ryadia" wrote:

http://www.ryadia.com/POD/June/2-06-07.htm

"There is a 4 feet by 5 feet print of this scene on my office wall. Viewing distance of 600mm."

"That's right, 4 feet by 5 feet .... I'm looking right at it." -D-Mac,
the Caveman

How do you get a 4'x5' pic out of that without cropping a foot off of
it?

Don't be silly, there is no need to crop.
Take this photo
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/79781983
Now say I want to make a 4'x5' print of it, no problem
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/79781985

See, no cropping needed. Of course it helps if you view the print at
an angle, maybe mount it way up
high on a wall and view it from below. Oh I know what you are going
to say, "what a pain in the neck".

Scott

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 1, 12:26 am, "Ryadia" wrote:
http://www.ryadia.com/POD/June/2-06-07.htm

The old GWS690, bought for a few bucks at a camera swap produces stunning
photos the likes of which Digitals simply can't equal.
--
Douglas,
Those who can, just do it.
Those who can't become bullies.http://www.bullyonline.org

Not a bad shot, but it suffers from jpeg artifacts, like banding in
the sky.

57KB for an image that size is just too much compression, IMO

Scott



Yep, you get lots of jpeg artifiacts on 6cm x 9cm film. That's the main
reason I bought a digital camera!

--
Douglas,
Those who can, just do it.
Those who can't become bullies.
http://www.bullyonline.org

"Annika1980" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 1, 6:26 am, "Ryadia" wrote:
http://www.ryadia.com/POD/June/2-06-07.htm

"There is a 4 feet by 5 feet print of this scene on my office wall.
Viewing distance of 600mm."

"That's right, 4 feet by 5 feet .... I'm looking right at it." -D-Mac,
the Caveman

How do you get a 4'x5' pic out of that without cropping a foot off of
it?




Have someone print it on a 5 feet long sheet of paper so it will fit in a 5
feet wide space above the mantlepiece. Simply Aussie logic, doncha know?
--
Douglas,
Those who can, just do it.
Those who can't become bullies.
http://www.bullyonline.org

Value left in film, eh? You've just noticed?

On Jun 1, 8:26 pm, "Ryadia" wrote:
http://www.ryadia.com/POD/June/2-06-07.htm
Can you say POSTERISATION due to excessive compression? Bleeuch.
Didn't notice this, Doug? Or is it just 'acceptable', by your
standards?

The old GWS690, bought for a few bucks at a camera swap produces stunning
photos the likes of which Digitals simply can't equal.
But hang on, you claim to be able to blow up a postcard print to a big
poster*, so WTF do you need MF for?

....With "no loss of detail", and even "added detail" (your words) eg:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/au...844b72477fecdf


The scene looks nice. Pity it was you who took it, composed it dead
centre, and ruined it with incompetent post-processing.

Cheers, Dougie!

On Jun 1, 11:35 am, "Ryadia" wrote:
"Scott W" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Jun 1, 12:26 am, "Ryadia" wrote:
http://www.ryadia.com/POD/June/2-06-07.htm

The old GWS690, bought for a few bucks at a camera swap produces stunning
photos the likes of which Digitals simply can't equal.
--
Douglas,
Those who can, just do it.
Those who can't become bullies.http://www.bullyonline.org

Not a bad shot, but it suffers from jpeg artifacts, like banding in
the sky.

57KB for an image that size is just too much compression, IMO

Scott

Yep, you get lots of jpeg artifiacts on 6cm x 9cm film. That's the main
reason I bought a digital camera!

You would get a lot less if you did not compress so much, really 57K
is just not enough bytes for an image that size. You would have go
banding from a digital image saved at that level of compression.

Scott

wrote in message
oups.com...
Value left in film, eh? You've just noticed?

On Jun 1, 8:26 pm, "Ryadia" wrote:
http://www.ryadia.com/POD/June/2-06-07.htm
Can you say POSTERISATION due to excessive compression? Bleeuch.
Didn't notice this, Doug? Or is it just 'acceptable', by your
standards?

The old GWS690, bought for a few bucks at a camera swap produces stunning
photos the likes of which Digitals simply can't equal.
But hang on, you claim to be able to blow up a postcard print to a big
poster*, so WTF do you need MF for?

...With "no loss of detail", and even "added detail" (your words) eg:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/au...844b72477fecdf


The scene looks nice. Pity it was you who took it, composed it dead
centre, and ruined it with incompetent post-processing.

Cheers, Dougie!

----------------------
Let's see now.
It's taken with a film camera but it's got really bad JPEG artefacts.
(ScottW)
Great scent but bad composure. (Charles Stevens masquerading as Mark Thomas)
I'll tell you what the customer said about the monster 'lambda' print I made
from the negative for her:

"Excellent. Can you pack it well for sending to Korea please" as she signed
the cheque to pay me.

Your problem Charlie is too much fantasy and too little reality. You'd be
the only person I know who posts a God awful example of sharpening gone
wrong and then proceeds to pay out on someone else for not understanding the
process. Sadly you are not the only one who thinks a 720 pixel wide image is
something you can judge to photo from.

Gordon Moate. A man well respected in the Photographic community of America,
has already verified what you try to ridicule me over. That my enlargement
process works. Your attempt to light me up here is a really good
demonstration of a spoilt child behaving badly because you can't get the
recognition you so richly don't deserve. As you know, Grodon's article is
he
http://www.allgstudio.com/technology...nology_02.html

You've been trying to justify your abuse of copyright and illegal use of my
images for years. Then you expect me to forget all your past attacks and
post an example of what I do for a living. When I refuse, you start
attacking me with some more of your bullying. Nice work mate. Another piece
of evidence against you. You should read my sig and try the site it refers
to.
--
Douglas,
Those who can, just do it.
Those who can't become bullies.
http://www.bullyonline.org

"Scott W" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 1, 11:35 am, "Ryadia" wrote:
"Scott W" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Jun 1, 12:26 am, "Ryadia" wrote:
http://www.ryadia.com/POD/June/2-06-07.htm

The old GWS690, bought for a few bucks at a camera swap produces
stunning
photos the likes of which Digitals simply can't equal.
--
Douglas,
Those who can, just do it.
Those who can't become bullies.http://www.bullyonline.org

Not a bad shot, but it suffers from jpeg artifacts, like banding in
the sky.

57KB for an image that size is just too much compression, IMO

Scott

Yep, you get lots of jpeg artifiacts on 6cm x 9cm film. That's the main
reason I bought a digital camera!

You would get a lot less if you did not compress so much, really 57K
is just not enough bytes for an image that size. You would have go
banding from a digital image saved at that level of compression.

Scott


This was one of the "values" left in film, Scott
Digital can't equal that.
Had I processed it in 16 bit mode, the "artefacts" would not be there.
Had I scanned it with a 'wet bed' scanner I'd have a lot more detail to play
with in the first place.
Had I stayed in Samoa, I could have been sipping a cold beer on the beach
instead of engaging in a worthless discussion on the merits of a picture not
much larger than the negative it came off.

But you get that on Usenet!

--
Douglas,
Those who can, just do it.
Those who can't become bullies.
http://www.bullyonline.org