-
Random Images
-
|
|
-
-
|
« Previous image · Next image »
Dotterel
Click on image to view larger image
« Previous image · Slide Show · Next image »
Photo Details
MichaelF
Senior Member
Registered: August 2008
Posts: 2,126
|
Juvenile Dotterel, Newbiggin Golf Course, Northumberland, UK; 08/09/2008
|
· Date: Mon September 8, 2008 · Views: 3,154
· Filesize: 42.7kb, 930.1kb · Dimensions: 2112 x 1802 ·
|
|
Additional Info
|
|
Keywords: Dotterel
|
|
-
|
Mon September 8, 2008 3:23pm
|
|
-
Colin Key
user
|
Registered: December 2007
Location: Algarve, Portugal
Posts: 3,384
|
Michael,
Your Dotterel shots are very good, but I would advise you to resize them in whatever post-processing software you use to 800 pixels maximum dimension but to save them at maximum quality (12) JPEGs. At the moment, clicking on the images to see them at larger size only produces an enormous image at very poor image quality.
Colin
------------------------------
Fòrum Aves: http://aves.team-forum.net/forum
|
|
|
|
-
|
Mon September 8, 2008 4:23pm
|
|
-
MichaelF
Senior Member
|
Registered: August 2008
Posts: 2,126
|
|
|
|
|
-
|
Wed September 10, 2008 2:40pm
|
|
-
Colin Key
user
|
Registered: December 2007
Location: Algarve, Portugal
Posts: 3,384
|
Michael,
I hope you didn't take my comments the wrong way!!
What I am stating is that the image which is published is fine, but clicking to see a larger image just magnifies the original in terms of pixel dimensions.
If you were to resize in Photoshop (or whatever you use) to 800 pixels maximum dimension and then save as a JPEG at maximum image quality, you would get a much better on-screen image.
Just wondering, do you shoot in RAW, convert to TIFF (for processing) and then save as JPEG for publication?
Colin
------------------------------
Fòrum Aves: http://aves.team-forum.net/forum
|
|
|
|
-
|
Wed September 10, 2008 11:16pm
|
|
-
AndyB
Senior Member
|
Registered: February 2005
Posts: 1,525
|
|
|
|
|
-
|
Sat September 13, 2008 4:38pm
|
|
-
PeterD
Senior Member
|
Registered: February 2008
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 1,256
|
Michael,
Terrific images with plenty of detail. What Colin says though is right. I used to post larger images myself but since limiting them to 800 by 600 (most of the time) I have been happier with the results and they tend to be of a size that others can appreciate on their monitors. Download times are also reduced for those with slow internet connections.
Peter
------------------------------
PeterD
www.imageinuk.com
|
|
|
|
-
|
Sat October 4, 2008 10:20am
|
|
-
MichaelF
Senior Member
|
Registered: August 2008
Posts: 2,126
|
Not too good at navigating this site . . . only now just managed to re-find my pic! Once a pic goes off the four 'most recent' I can't find it again until it happens to crop up in the 'Random Images'.
I hope you didn't take my comments the wrong way!!
No problem!
If you were to resize in Photoshop (or whatever you use) to 800 pixels maximum dimension and then save as a JPEG at maximum image quality, you would get a much better on-screen image.
Think I get what you mean, I'll give it a try. But I'm not too computer-savvy, and even less camera-savvy.
Just wondering, do you shoot in RAW, convert to TIFF (for processing) and then save as JPEG for publication?
No idea! I'd not know how to tell a raw shoot from a cooked one. The pic is how it came out of the camera, except for cropping the edges a bit; when they appear on the computer out of the camera they are .jpg files (same as "JPEG"? or does the E matter?).
|
|
|
|
|
