Canon Thursday Pic 2010: #5

[matti_kari]

<p>One question to You Ken if I may. Why does these 700 px photos get enlarged (they appear bigger than 700 px - click your photo to see what I mean) when they appear on PN? The reason I am asking this is that they look blurry unless you do extra sharpening to them.<br>

Matti</p>

[DickArnold]

Oxen in a 4500 lb. pulling contest

[DickArnold]

I'll try again

[rogernoel]

<p>Ok, I will give it another try.<br>

Driving from Phoenix to San Francisco, we stopped at Santa Barbara. This is a view of part of the harbor. Beautiful area. <br>

30D Sigma 10-20 1/320 f7.1, ISO 200 16mm</p><div></div>

[rogernoel]

<p>Ken, My compliments to you for your brief critiques/comments. Good Job. I think we corresponded one time long ago. Regards, Roger</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Dick -- post a JPG file (AKA "JPEG") (file extension is normally ".jpg" 99.9999% of the time). Do that, supply a caption, ensure your image is 700px wide or less and the world's your oyster.</p>

[EricBoehm]

<p>Ken Papai said:<br>

> Anyway, back to the good stuff, why we are here - capsule reviews of pages 3 and 4:<br />> Eric - red sunset, excellent, perfectly exposed. Red & black only.</p>

<p>Ken - Thanks for the comments...and for including my work in "the good stuff!" At least on my (admittedly poor) laptop monitor, there's a bit of blue for counterpoint in the upper right. :) I have a few versions which I hit with a touch of curves and exposure changes (shadows and mids up a half stop or so ). I always shoot raw + jpg, but in the end the version I posted is nothing but a resize of the as-shot JPG. </p>

<p>I also have to thank Josh for starting this weekly set of threads. Been a while since I've been inspired to pick up the camera.</p>

[pksswat]

<p>Ken, I will repeat again that the information on the FAQ page is insufficient. You go on to mention all your accomplishments, but fail to realize that I mentioned my experience in programming not to tout my horn but to drive home the point that I am not completely tech-ignorant, and yet I still had trouble with something as simple as posting an image on this forum. If you or the PNET admins fail to realize that this is a real problem, so be it. You can carry on your merry ways; I may try once more next week to submit an image, and if that still does not work, I will stick to just reading PNET articles rather than participating more actively. It's too bad as, other than the pissing matches that people seem to get into quite often here, this site is quite useful and informative.</p>

[dean_schreuder]

<p>Praveen,<br>

If you use Flickr, it's simple...</p>

<p><img src="http://deanschreuder.com/images/photonet.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[michal_hegedus]

<p>One from NYC...<br>

<img src="http://hegifoto.xf.cz/ny3.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="533" /></p>

<p> </p>

[pksswat]

<p>Dean, Yes thank you. This is the sort of thing that would be useful in a FAQ. In any case, I had done exactly what you show in your post (as I have done often enough when I have posted in Flickr threads) and pasted it in the Response box, typed in a line of text after it, and everything went haywire. I therefore, incorrectly, made the assumption that the PNET is not compatible with the HTML snippet from Flickr and hence tried editing the post trying different things. It still did not work. I went back to the FAQ to see if I had missed anything. By the time I came back, the edit button on my post was gone. <br /><br />Now, if there had been a more detailed description in the FAQ, chances are this would not have happened. I will admit that it is almost 99% certain that this was an operator error on my part, but how do I determine that this is the case w/out having a good FAQ as a reference or posting potential junk Responses in forums? Maybe a practice thread is what's needed, where people can learn by trial and error? <br /><br />Finally, just before I saw your post, I tried the process of submitting an in-line image from Flicker again here without actually clicking on the submit button. I was able to figure this out after 10 minutes of playing with the buttons at the top of the Response dialog box. So this is no longer an issue for me personally. I suspect though, it will remain an issue for others.</p>

[DickArnold]

Ken. I just picked the wrong pic out of the file. sorry

[BruceSturm]

<p>Mesa Arch, Canyonlands, Utah 9-13-10</p><div></div>

[b_christopher]

<p>Washington DC. 5D MkII, 70-200 f/2.8 + 1.4 Ext, 1/30 f/11 ISO100<br>

<img src="http://www.bchristopherphotography.com/temp/temp/dc100925.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

[photogorilla]

<p>Ok, so I thought since this is the first time I've participated in this thread, I'd include one of my first photos from my current digital setup that I am also not completely happy with (How's that for covering all the bases?).<br>

What motivated me was checking out the portrait ability of my rig, which was new at the time of the photo (40D, 100-400). What I like is the exquisite detail in the subject. What I don't like is the way I failed to recognize the different DOF of the vertical branches on the right.<br>

<a title="easternBluebird by The Photo Gorilla, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3649/3331721068_914cc62245_z.jpg?zz=1" alt="easternBluebird" width="640" height="495" /></a></p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>I'm late to the party. Ah well. It was a long week.</p>

<p>A B&W from me. This guardian angel stands in a local cemetery. Her skirt is gathered to form a small bird bath, after a rain anyway.</p><div></div>

[jaydesi]

<p>My first attempt at IR photography. For those who say it can't be done with a 7D, I beg to differ.</p><div></div>

[nathangardner]

<p>Thanks, Ken. Yes, a bird lover I am. I'm currently chasing pileated woodpeckers. Well they're pretty skiddish so there's not much chasing, more sitting very still and hoping to get lucky. You know I'll post that pic here when I get it, which could be within the next 3 days, 3 months, or 3 years. They are quite a challenge, especially with a 70-200mm as my longest lens. Camo and patience are mandatory.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Matti asked, "<em>Why does these 700 px photos get enlarged (they appear bigger than 700 px - click your photo to see what I mean) when they appear on PN? The reason I am asking this is that they look blurry unless you do extra sharpening to them</em>."</p>

<p>A: they don't. PN displays them as-is in this forum. They are not enlarged nor reduced. They are displayed "in-line" so to speak. They are not clickable. Unless someone has coded and made available via an HTML link, what you see is what you get (unless you might be using some obscure browser that is resizing images for you?). [<strong>that nice bluebird from Gorilla</strong> above is a perfect example of a click-thru image via HTML coding]</p>

<p>Submitters concerned about the quality of their work, must optimize for this 700 px limit for this EOS Thursday forum. If that optimization is about custom framing or sharpening then that is each photog's concern and certainly varies to subject type and detail in the image.<br /> Nearly always, when I submit an image at 700 px it's generally sharp enough (due to the bicubic sharpener reduction algorithm in Photoshop) and I do nothing special to it beyond a black frame.</p>

[esfishdoc]

<p><a title="Wooden Boat at Kiptopeake by esfishdoc, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/5016414756_ffd101c88e_z.jpg" alt="Wooden Boat at Kiptopeake" width="640" height="299" /></a></p>

[matti_kari]

<p>Oops... Ken, You are absolutely right. They (pictures) appear as they are. I forgot that I had made my fonts bigger and photos got larger as well. My bad, sorry. No need to make extra sharpening to photos. <br>

Matti</p>