Jump to content

Nature Unlimited, 8 November 2019


DavidTriplett

Recommended Posts

This is the additional weekly image thread for the Nature Forum. While images posted to this thread should still be nature in theme, it may contain a small amount of human-made objects and therefore less restricted than the Monday in Nature threads. Please see this discussion for more details: Alternative weekly thread in Nature forum

 

Each participant please post no more than just one image per weekly thread.

Contorted cedar, Canyonlands National Park, Utah, USA:

NatUnlmtd-191108-1.jpg.f0aa4def3768e57095ed41446e363c36.jpg

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone else noticed that images that are posted on another site and linked to on photo.net seem slightly sharper and perhaps with a touch more contrast when viewed natively on the other site than the image that appears on photo.net?

 

Case in point tcyin's image of the hawk (#6 above) seems sharper on Flickr than inline above. There is not much difference, but to my eyes, there is a difference. Or perhaps it is just the size difference. But the same applies to Dieter's image (#2 above) that has very little size difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is not much difference, but to my eyes, there is a difference.

Don't see one myself. Are you comparing to the flickr image displayed on a black background? If so, that might explain a perceived different. Try comparing to the flickr ones on a white background accessible through the "view all sizes" (downward arrow in the lower right). Though the image size on photonet does not match the one on flickr - for my image this amounts to the difference of 1024 x 819 on flickr and 1014 x 811 on photo.net. Not sure if that's cropping or rescaling. If the latter, then it would not be surprising if some "sharpening" was applied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't see one myself. Are you comparing to the flickr image displayed on a black background? If so, that might explain a perceived different. Try comparing to the flickr ones on a white background accessible through the "view all sizes" (downward arrow in the lower right). Though the image size on photonet does not match the one on flickr - for my image this amounts to the difference of 1024 x 819 on flickr and 1014 x 811 on photo.net. Not sure if that's cropping or rescaling. If the latter, then it would not be surprising if some "sharpening" was applied.

 

 

I did try looking at your image on a white background; it still seemed slightly sharper with a "tad" more contrast. But it could be just my old eyes.

 

Looking at the eye on tcyin's hawk, the eye on Flickr seems slightly sharper and better defined.

 

I have noticed the same effect on various other images posted in the two Nature groups. I like to look at images full size to better admire them.

 

The other thing I have noticed - you are getting your money's worth out of the 500mm PF <grin>. You have some great images with it - part due to the lens but most due to the photographer. The close up image of the Osprey you posted last week was magnificent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it could be just my old eyes.

Nope. Did a direct side-by-side of both Tycin's and my image and there's definitely a slight difference. There's also the slight size difference I already mentioned.

 

The other thing I have noticed - you are getting your money's worth out of the 500mm PF <grin>. You have some great images with it - part due to the lens but most due to the photographer. The close up image of the Osprey you posted last week was magnificent.

Well thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...