All cropped and re-sized from a 3MP Nikon 885. Enjoy.
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Fromcottage.jpg
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Ice.jpg
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/PeggysCove.jpg
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Tidesout.jpg
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/TopTruck.jpg
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Wood.jpg
Robatoy wrote:
> All cropped and re-sized from a 3MP Nikon 885. Enjoy.
>
> http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Fromcottage.jpg
>
> http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Ice.jpg
>
> http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/PeggysCove.jpg
>
> http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Tidesout.jpg
>
> http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/TopTruck.jpg
>
> http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Wood.jpg
Very nice, you have a good eye.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Robatoy said:
>All cropped and re-sized from a 3MP Nikon 885. Enjoy.
>http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/PeggysCove.jpg
Oh, yeah. How do you like the way JPEG compression foobars gradients.
Its one major shortcoming. I now have a crappy $100 HP with adjustable
yet non-defeatable compression - no raw mode. Even though it has far
more "megapixels" than its older and nicer predecessor (which fell
into a streamside 4 ft deep eddy hole carved into rock in the Sierra
Nevada's, along with an ex-girlfriend), the quality is far worse.
I regret not having the old camera in my hand at the time, primarily
so that I could have preserved the look on her face. (Yeah, I know -
I'm a bastard.)
Greg G.
On Dec 29, 1:32=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Robatoy,
>
> Ok, they are nice images. I downloaded this one into PS:
>
> >http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Wood.jpg
>
> and found that it is a 300 pixels per inch and it is 3x2 inches.
>
The original was 8" x 10" at 200 DPI.. a 9 MB file. Good enough for a
print of that size.
I had reduced the image size to speed up the upload to the host.
>
> Nice shots, tho.
Thank you.
>
> MJ Wallace
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:bff871ff-2483-4fe2-9258-de3a763fd6c2@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 28, 11:07 pm, "GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote:
> Nice shots!
>
> Here are a few (low res JPG compressed) from my Canon 8 megapixel SLR
>
> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/photography.htm
>
> --www.garagewoodworks.com
I managed to upload an untouched, non processed image from my H2.
It came in at 3.3 MB so as long as you know.
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Nomad.jpg
Sweet Ride! And nice shot.
>Great stuff! Love the tug shot! (and the others)
Thanks. All are processed in Adobe Photoshop CS. The last one was a
mistake my wife made by not turning on the flash in 'full-auto'. I thought
it looked cool so I kept it!
>I have since upgraded from my Coolpix 885 3 MP to an H2 6MP Sony with
>a 12x optical zoom Zeiss. It has a large CCD and is giving me some
>superb results. I have no way of getting those shots uploaded yet, but
>I have a few which really show the 6MP/Zeiss combo. My Contax 35mm
>still woops anything digital...but that's to be expected.
>As John Clarke touched on earlier, the instant shutter release is very
>important and my Cybershot is way faster than my old Nikon 885, but
>still a slug compared to my Quartz shutter on the Contax...which is
>instant.
On Dec 28, 10:14=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> All cropped and re-sized from a 3MP Nikon 885. Enjoy.
>
> http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Fromcottage.jpg
>
With a bit of Photoshopping, the 'Fromcottage' shot turns into my
desktop:
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/FundyManip.jpg
Robatoy,
Ok, they are nice images. I downloaded this one into PS:
> http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Wood.jpg
and found that it is a 300 pixels per inch and it is 3x2 inches.
What would happen if you blew it up to 8x10 at the same density?
I did and the image deteriorates kinda fast.
The point is if you had 3x2 image and it was 1200 PPI (which
you could not do with a 3 megapixel camera), and you
blew it up to 8x10 and made it 120 PPI, you probably wouldn't
see that much degradation.
I just took an image I had at 240 ppi, cropped a 2x3 image, made it
120 ppi and there is little degradation at 8x10. A bit fuzzy, but less
so.
All because I had more pixels to play with.
Nice shots, tho.
MJ Wallace
On Dec 28, 10:52=A0pm, Greg G.<[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy said:
>
> >All cropped and re-sized from a 3MP Nikon 885. Enjoy.
> >http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/PeggysCove.jpg
>
> Oh, yeah. =A0How do you like the way JPEG compression foobars gradients.
> Its one major shortcoming. I now have a crappy $100 HP with adjustable
> yet non-defeatable compression - no raw mode. Even though it has far
> more "megapixels" than its older and nicer predecessor (which fell
> into a streamside 4 ft deep eddy hole carved into rock in the Sierra
> Nevada's, along with an ex-girlfriend), the quality is far worse.
> I regret not having the old camera in my hand at the time, primarily
> so that I could have preserved the look on her face. (Yeah, I know -
> I'm a bastard.)
>
> Greg G.
LOL... indeed JPEG isn't the best compression scheme (TIF/Z is), the
original doesn't suffer the banding in the gradient... but then peeps
would be pissed because of the biggie file size.
On Dec 28, 11:07=A0pm, "GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote:
> Nice shots!
>
> Here are a few (low res JPG compressed) from my Canon 8 megapixel SLR
>
> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/photography.htm
>
> --www.garagewoodworks.com
I managed to upload an untouched, non processed image from my H2.
It came in at 3.3 MB so as long as you know.
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Nomad.jpg
On Dec 28, 10:06=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> LOL... indeed JPEG isn't the best compression scheme (TIF/Z is), >the ori=
ginal doesn't suffer the banding in the gradient... but then >peeps would b=
e pissed because of the biggie file size
Got that one right. Certainly a pet peeve of mine. I can't stand and
won't download pics I get that are 3,4,5 mb each. The almost always
come from one of my friends that is too lazy for a resize.
As far as computer viewing goes, just about any resizing or
compression protocol works fine, and they are everywhere. I have one
free program that offers 9 different methods just for resizing.
I would rather look at the pics at some reasonalle size and ask for
the files I want.
Slow morning here. Kind of a mini rant.
Robert
On Dec 28, 11:07=A0pm, "GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote:
> Nice shots!
>
> Here are a few (low res JPG compressed) from my Canon 8 megapixel SLR
>
> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/photography.htm
>
> --www.garagewoodworks.com
Great stuff! Love the tug shot! (and the others)
I have since upgraded from my Coolpix 885 3 MP to an H2 6MP Sony with
a 12x optical zoom Zeiss. It has a large CCD and is giving me some
superb results. I have no way of getting those shots uploaded yet, but
I have a few which really show the 6MP/Zeiss combo. My Contax 35mm
still woops anything digital...but that's to be expected.
As John Clarke touched on earlier, the instant shutter release is very
important and my Cybershot is way faster than my old Nikon 885, but
still a slug compared to my Quartz shutter on the Contax...which is
instant.