A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New mandate needed



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old March 24th 12, 03:20 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default 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.
  #22  
Old March 24th 12, 03:24 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default New mandate needed

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.
  #23  
Old March 24th 12, 03:25 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default New mandate needed

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.
  #24  
Old March 24th 12, 07:25 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Frank S
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 153
Default My idiosyncratic understanding of "threading" [was New mandate needed]


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:16:08 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

Eric Stevens writes:

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

Regards,

Eric Stevens


Leads me to exhort you hair-splitters and personal-parts-rubbers to Change
the freaking thread Subject title. Please.

--
Frank ess


  #25  
Old March 24th 12, 09:21 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default New mandate needed

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:20:54 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

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.


That is slowly dawning on me.

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #26  
Old March 24th 12, 09:27 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default New mandate needed

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:24:22 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

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.


That was the result of a quick grap at example files without doing
sufficient checking. But I wanted to make the point.

That the effect of which I complaining is real is shown by SavageDucks
two versions of the half-dome.

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #27  
Old March 24th 12, 11:30 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Andrew Reilly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 45
Default New mandate needed

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:08:17 +0000, Pete A wrote:
Actually, Preview is a crap image scaler. Up to and including OS-X 10.5
(Leopard), image scaling in Preview, Safari, Finder thumbnail view, and
other applications is not gamma corrected. I don't yet know if this
error has been fixed in later versions of OS-X.

http://www.4p8.com/eric.brasseur/gamma.html


Thanks for that link! It's a very nice exposition of the problem, with
good examples. I think that this situation has started to improve over
the last couple of years (when I first heard it discussed.) In
particular, Preview in OS-X 10.7 (Lion) passes the grey-Lama test with
flying colours. Sadly, none of the web browsers I have on this system
(Safari, Firefox, Chrome) do it properly, though. I guess that in
browsers, speed trumps correctness.

Unfortunately, the image scaler in NX2 is not gamma corrected either,
therefore I have no means of downsizing an image without losing quality,
irrespective of the JPEG compression level.


What does NX2 do if you do the scaling on the RAW/NEF image (which is
linear), rather than a JPEG?

Rather than faffing around trying to find proper image scaling software
I'll experiment with OS-X Lion - if its version of Preview has an
accurate image scaler I shall be very pleased indeed.


Prepare for slight/moderate pleasedness...

Cheers,

--
Andrew
  #28  
Old March 25th 12, 02:20 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography
Pete A
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default New mandate needed

On 2012-03-24 22:30:41 +0000, Andrew Reilly said:

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:08:17 +0000, Pete A wrote:
Actually, Preview is a crap image scaler. Up to and including OS-X 10.5
(Leopard), image scaling in Preview, Safari, Finder thumbnail view, and
other applications is not gamma corrected. I don't yet know if this
error has been fixed in later versions of OS-X.

http://www.4p8.com/eric.brasseur/gamma.html


Thanks for that link! It's a very nice exposition of the problem, with
good examples. I think that this situation has started to improve over
the last couple of years (when I first heard it discussed.) In
particular, Preview in OS-X 10.7 (Lion) passes the grey-Lama test with
flying colours.


Thanks for the feedback, Andrew. I'm glad to hear Lion Preview will
solve my problem.

I wrote my own image viewer many years ago, which gave me a good
understanding of image processing. I opted for speed over correctness
so it would run fast enough on the old and relatively slow CPUs around
at the time. My compiler predates the MMX and SSE CPU instructions so
I've never updated the viewer.

Sadly, none of the web browsers I have on this system
(Safari, Firefox, Chrome) do it properly, though. I guess that in
browsers, speed trumps correctness.


I'm surprised that Safari (at least) doesn't have an option to select
either speed or correctness.

Unfortunately, the image scaler in NX2 is not gamma corrected either,
therefore I have no means of downsizing an image without losing quality,
irrespective of the JPEG compression level.


What does NX2 do if you do the scaling on the RAW/NEF image (which is
linear), rather than a JPEG?


NX2 data in the editing steps is not linear, it's in the working space
colour profile, which is what causes the problem in the scaler (and
some other editing functions). Adobe Photoshop used to work this way
also, but it was eventually changed to work correctly by using linear
image data.

BTW, I do my testing with 16-bit TIFFs.


Rather than faffing around trying to find proper image scaling software
I'll experiment with OS-X Lion - if its version of Preview has an
accurate image scaler I shall be very pleased indeed.


Prepare for slight/moderate pleasedness...


Thanks again.

  #29  
Old March 25th 12, 04:19 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default New mandate needed

On 2012-03-24 16:27 , Eric Stevens wrote:

That the effect of which I complaining is real is shown by SavageDucks
two versions of the half-dome.


Not really. The options include reducing the size of the image you
submit (where needed to overcome re-sizing limits).

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.
  #30  
Old March 25th 12, 10:21 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default New mandate needed

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 11:19:19 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-03-24 16:27 , Eric Stevens wrote:

That the effect of which I complaining is real is shown by SavageDucks
two versions of the half-dome.


Not really. The options include reducing the size of the image you
submit (where needed to overcome re-sizing limits).


That has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make: that the
perceptual quality of the image suffers if you reduce the amount of
visual information either by reducing the size (in pixels) or by
increasing the JPEG compression.

Robert Coe expressed this very clearly in Message-ID:
when he 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."

My question was:

"Perhaps we should conduct a survey "What is preventing or
discouraging you from contributing to the SI?"

.... and Roberts original answer was:

"That said, what I've found most frustrating when I have
participated is the time it takes to get my pictures down to the
maximum accepted size while maintaining a level of quality
sufficient to make the effort worthwhile."


The problem is not getting the image down to fit within the size
limits of SI but retaining an acceptable quality while doing so.

You might be tempted to reply "some of us can do it so you should to
learn how to do it as well". My point is (again) it all depends upon
the type of image you wish to submit. Savageduck has provided two
excellent examples of the effects of data reduction on the quality of
a complex image.

First (when "big is appropriate"
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechut...me_0954BWc.jpg

Second http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechut...e_0954BWcw.jpg

My feeling is that even though the smaller image may still be
'acceptable' it loses considerably to the larger _and_more_detailed_
image. That kind of thing matters to me, and apparently to Robert Coe.
I accept that it might not matter to others.

I'm not trying to argue for open season on file size. I'm just trying
to say I would appreciate more room than at the present.

Regards,

Eric Stevens
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[SI] New mandate needed Alan Browne Digital Photography 220 April 2nd 12 12:02 PM
New mandate needed David J Taylor[_16_] Digital Photography 3 March 21st 12 02:50 AM
[SI] Shootin Reminders: Mandate: Tubes & Special Mandate PanoMosaicsDUE 2008.10.26 Alan Browne Digital Photography 0 October 16th 08 09:55 PM
[SI] Shootin Reminders: Mandate: Tubes & Special Mandate PanoMosaicsDUE 2008.10.26 Alan Browne Digital SLR Cameras 0 October 16th 08 09:55 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.