hello all

17 posts / 0 new
Last post
Robyns nest
Robyns nest's picture
hello all

 Ok I have just started using this forum tonight and i need a bit of help already. Is there a trick to getting pics to right size to upload here to let others see. I tried to crop them but it does not help.

                                                        Clean lenses

                                                                Robyn

pacman
pacman's picture

the jpg file must be less than 500kb

if your file is larger you need to compress it, if you have MS Office it will select Picture Manager then you select Edit Pictures, then select Compress Pictures then decide to compress for Documents or Web Pages

hope that helps

Peter

roybat
roybat's picture

I find that my photos straight from the camera run into megabytes. So I use 'windows live photo gallery ' to edit.  All I do is straighten and crop. ( I don't believe in doctoring to make poor images better )  Once cropped I ' resize ' which automatically converts to JPEG. Sometimes they are still a bit to large to upload so further cropping may be necessary.. Roy

birdie
birdie's picture

Robyns nest..... can I suggest that the best way for you to go is to post via a host site such as Flickr?  With the sie of todays images it is a lot better for our forum if you can repost from such a site. Once you learn how to it is easy and then you dont have to worry about the resizing if you dont want to.  What kind of software do you have on your camera? I think the easiest ones is Microsoft picture manager if you have MS Office too.  I would not suggest cropping as a way of resizing as all too often we see over cropped images that lose their ability to look good if they are a little on the unsharp side. 

A flckr account is free for up to 200 images, or you can upgrade to a pro account if you find you need more than that many for a small charge.

We are happy to help if you get stuck

cheers

BIrdie

Sunshine Coast Queensland

Araminta
Araminta's picture

roybat wrote:

  All I do is straighten and crop. ( I don't believe in doctoring to make poor images better )  Once cropped I ' resize ' which automatically converts to JPEG. Sometimes they are still a bit to large to upload so further cropping may be necessary.. Roy

roybat, what do you mean by " straighten"?

I would not think "cropping" is the right way, all you do is enlarging your pixels and making your photo blurry.

Seriously, I do not understand what you are talking about , can you explain that a bit more?

M-L

Araminta
Araminta's picture

Hi Robin, I'm with birdie on this,I upload with flickr, I find it easy to use. If you need any help with it, just ask.

M-L

roybat
roybat's picture

Straighten ?  If the horizon slopes or buildings lean thay can be put right.   Cropping-  with windows live a once off crop does not blur to a great extent. I see very little difference in my images that have been converted.  Sometimes they still exceed the limit for uploading here so I crop a little bit of background off.  My camera has 18.5 megapixs which allows me a generous crop factor. Hope that is clearer now

Robyns nest
Robyns nest's picture

  Thankyou all for your wonderful info..i am taking as much on board as i can..baby steps at this stage. I crop pics as i had a clothes line in my kite hawk shot which did not look nice and i do nothing else. I think it looses its origial desire if it has to be doctored..I just love taking pics of birds and want to be amazed at their beauty i can capture naturaly.

                                    Robyn

         ¥Robynsmiley

birdie
birdie's picture

Just a note here, to stress that there is a difference between doctoring or manipulation, and simple basic editing techniques that are designed to bring out the best in your photo in the same way that the darkroom used to.

I have never been a fan of editing too much and am certainly not a fan of cropping just for the sake of removing unwanted pixels. To crop out a clothesline is obviously desirable smiley . Cropping for asthetics is fine but overcropping with the aim of bringing something up a lot closer is not something I would ever recommend . That is what Araminta was referring to.

In order to get the maximum information out of your recorded image, then the ultimate way is to shoot in RAW and edit in a good software program such as photoshop.  For the uninitiated, when you shoot in Jpeg , your camera is already doing the editing and compressing for you and producing the best shot it can based on a preset program. When  you shoot in RAW, you are getting the pixels just the way they are captured on the sensor, but it is not ready to view and will often look very grey and flat before editing.

The aim is to always expose for the best shot you can get and frame the shot accordingly wherever possible so as to avoid the need for cropping at a later point and retain the maximum amount of pixels containing information that you can. This is particularly important if you are aiming to reproduce the picture by way of printing. If the shots are just to be used on the web then it is still desirable to retain as much info as possible but to compress and optimise so that the online result looks acceptable.

I feel if we are going to have an information forum , then we should aim to be as accurate as possible and we do have a lot of knowledgeable members on here to draw knowledge from .  Editing results are subjective but the basic techniques are a skill set that is well proven and tested.

Hoep this helps clarify the purpose of this particular forum

Cheers

BIrdie

Sunshine Coast Queensland

Windhover
Windhover's picture

Cropping is not the be all end all. In my opinion, if my camera has 1, 2, 22, 33 or 100 megapixels, I will still do my best to capture an image as close to possible to full frame so I don't need to crop, or just crop a little bit for final presentation or crop because I was a little sloppy when I've pressed the shutter button and managed to capture a slightly tilted horizon, which can happen when you shoot with 700mm focal length hand held. And that's regardless whether I am using 300 or 1,400mm of focal length outfit. Of course not everyone has the same goal in photography; that is to create the best possible images (I am talking about image quality in particular) and are happy with whatever they can possibly get without much regard or understanding of digital capture, lens optics, depth of field, shutter speed and subject relation to background, overall colours, light and the many other factors that when considered and aligned harmoniously at the time of taking a picture can turn that picture into something more aesthetically pleasing than yet just another happy snap. But of course if one's aim is to just take happy snaps, then understanding the principles and techniques of digital photography and image optimization is a futile exercise.

There is a huge difference between image optimization and digital manipulation. Most folks, who are passionate about photography and taking high-quality images will do their best to learn the craft or art of digital photography. It ain't as simple as looking at your LCD to "judge" if your image is well exposed or not. There is a thing called a histogram. If you don't know what it is, don't read any further. Learn what it does and come back and ask questions later. That's your best friend.

Roybat, read my blog entry I have written explaining about digital exposure  and how to get the best out of a digital file. Reading your earlier comments I must be into manipulating images?

There is a general acceptance of techniques such as quick masking, noise reduction, colour adjustments (especially white balance issues) that can be optimized if one takes RAW images to begin with.  Most images will not look their very best when captured with a digital SLR camera. It's that simple. The steps needed to slightly improve the image are nowhere near what is considered digital manipulation by most photographers who know a little about digital photography and the use of Photoshop. It's funny because some time back I was "accused" of "probably photoshopping" my pictures by a person, who has some kind of Facebook name like Lisa Xxxxhill Photography or whatever. So in fact this person apparently knew or knows photography and makes uneducated judgements on a person's images with no clue about a lot of things including optics of super telephoto lenses and their relevance to creating shallow depth of field. Immediately the thought is manipulated in Photoshop. God! I tell you, the internet is full of self-proclaimed photography experts who predicate this and that and whatever else. It's best to show some photographic credentials before making too many misleading comments.

roybat
roybat's picture

It seems you have some serious photographic equipment usually possessed by professional photographers. Plus a knowledge of the finer points of digital cameras. If I had a  700mm lens to zoom in with I;m sure that I wouldn't need to crop. As it is I carry my camera around my neck on my gopher.  My best lens is 75-300 mm and often not being able to get close to the subject I get an awful lot of background which I crop out. I have a 500mm lens which needs a tripod and I use that from by back verandah . I'm sorry I entered this discussion now being a rank amateur.  Sorry if I came across as a self proclaimed expert.  I just explained my method of reducing to 500 kb. Thought I was being helpful. No more from me on use of cameras. Roy

Araminta
Araminta's picture

Hi Roy, you do have some good equipment, what are you talking about? I wish I had a 500mm lens.The best advice ever given to me by a professional photographer was:  You have to zoom in with your feet. In your case, with your weels. Even with the best lens, you still have to get as close as you can. Be patient, I sometimes sneak up on birds, wait for a very long time, and the bird takes off. You just have to do it all again tomorrow.

M-L

Araminta
Araminta's picture

I have a question for you Akos, might be a stupid one?  Is there a formula or rule of, "how much closer do you have to get on foot (in distance ), if my husband has a 600mm lens, but I only have a 400mm lens? To get the same result , how much closer would I have to be to the object?  Or is this a dumb question?

M-L

roybat
roybat's picture

Thanks Araminta. Getting my wheels close - not easy when in a cark park 50 0r 60  or more mtrs from the waterbirds, so the 300mm lens is used.  Seagulls come to me... lol.... expecting a feed.... I love em....  So cropping fof me is a necessity.

birdie
birdie's picture

No problems Roybat...we are all here to share and learn and it is always good to find others with knowledge to share smiley

Sunshine Coast Queensland

Windhover
Windhover's picture

Don't worry too much Roy, we all learn every day. No one knows everything about anything. smiley

M-L, I will get back to you. There is a formula to calculate image magnification increase between different focal lengths, though I am not sure how that would help with how far you should be. A rough guide from memory:

To photograph a Spotted Pardalote with my 300mm lens and 1.4x converter and get it relatively big in frame I'd have to be around 3 meters from the bird or less. To get the same magnification with my current 500mm lens and 1.4x converter, I would probably still need to be I reckon about 5, no more than 6 meters from the bird. That's a guess really. I wish I had a camera with the distance to subject info.

Araminta
Araminta's picture

Thanks Akos, my husband has a longer lens than I have.(LOL)  When we went to the beach we were taking photos from the same distance, I stopped taking photos, the birds were simply too far for my lens. We had this little argument, that prompted me to think about it. I'm just interested in how far into the water I would had to wade and get wet feet, to get the same result as him and his 600mm lens? 

M-L

 and   @birdsinbackyards
                 Subscribe to me on YouTube