|
|
|
Alice M
{K:1425} 11/22/2006
|
beautiful summer shot
|
|
|
|
GREG DUNNAM
{K:3937} 6/15/2006
|
Nice Gayle, Nice...Will be out of my environ for a few...It's called 'Work', and I got's to do it...
|
|
|
|
Gayle's Eclectic Photos
{K:91109} 5/20/2006
|
hi and thanks for the lovely comment!Nothing beats the magic of B/W film...in my opinion ;>
|
|
|
|
Marcia .
{K:16108} 5/19/2006
|
A dreamy image here.... effects look like a beautiful paiting!
Well done, dear friend!
|
|
|
|
|
Chuck Freeman
{K:13616} 5/18/2006
|
Save this image for sure. A fantastic image that only can be preserved through that magic called PHOTOGRAPHY. Place on CD and maybe on Scansdisk. I see beauty here.
Chuck
|
Up close and dying away. |
|
|
|
Paul Lara
{K:88111} 5/10/2006
|
I like the angles, the exposure and the processing, Gayle!
|
|
|
|
Marcio Janousek
{K:32538} 5/6/2006
|
great tones and grains composition ,nice feeling to the photo Gayle.
|
|
|
|
Roger Skinner
{K:81846} 5/5/2006
|
Hi G my stad upload is 18X12cm @ 100DPI but saved at a file size < 440K but all that aside I reckon the shot is great lovely ethereal feel nice zig zag affect from the stream which then lead the eye to the downthrust of the trunk of the tree.. a cunning composition indeed your IR effetc work pretty damned well to I might add for me personally I've not had a lot of sucess with that on digital so well done
|
|
|
|
|
Gayle's Eclectic Photos
{K:91109} 5/5/2006
|
hi,and thanks for your image examples and in-depth explanations...i,too,have no idea why UF required the 72 low res. even tho' the pixel size
(650x650max) was much smaller than now...i shoot film and the lab transfers directly to a CD at 72 res.,so i just followed UF directions...
Re: printing--quality loss is very obvious between printed 72 low res. vs. 300 high res....the compression here causes some probs with some of my images,but i will continue to post as i have been doing over the last few yrs....i checked some images here and am surprised that several people upload at 200 res. quality since anybody could get a decent print from that...nice to think most people wouldn't sink so low,but would be naive to think that nobody would...
No sharpening involved with this image,so perhaps you are right that he thinks the effect is an unwanted distortion..LOL..thanks,cookie!
|
|
|
|
Caterina Berimballi
{K:27299} 5/4/2006
|
Almost forgot, what Kiarang refers to as "pixels" are indeed pixels... coz...that's ummmm... what the image is made up of...  But he could mean he's seeing the grain effect as some sort of pixel distortion??? Oversharpening perhaps?? Dunno, looks ok to me babe, so don't worry.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
Caterina Berimballi
{K:27299} 5/4/2006
|
...and number two...
Now, if you were to send both these images to a printer, the first one embedded with 72dpi instructions would have no show of being printed any larger than what you see, without pixel distortion (I guess this is what folk refer to as "quality" loss).
However, the other one's embedded instructions tells the printer to use more dots per inch (220), making the output larger so you'll end up having more flexibility with print sizes.
I can't imagine why UF would have asked members to save at 72. At the end of the day, the image still had to fit inside width/height constraints for uploading to the website, so as long as you're within that, the dpi wouldn't matter one iota.
Clear as mud, right?
|
220dpi |
|
|
|
|
Caterina Berimballi
{K:27299} 5/4/2006
|
Hi Gayle,
Ok, let me put it another way. I'll attach two photos here. The first will be saved at 72dpi with pixel dimensions of 700x507.
The second one I'll post, will be saved at 220dpi with same pixel dimensions.
What you will see is absolutely **no difference to quality** between the images as they appear on screen. The monitor doesn't care about dpi and will completely ignore it. It's only interested in pixel dimensions, i.e. width and height of image in pixels.
Here's the first...
|
72dpi |
|
|
|
|
Gayle's Eclectic Photos
{K:91109} 5/4/2006
|
hey, i didn't read your com until after i replied again to Kiarang...when i first joined UF in 2003,one of the FAQs stated that we needed to make sure our resolution was set at 72ppi...and was same requirement the following years as far as i knew...i resize in paintshop,but it doesn't show file size,it only shows print size,and how large in pixels it will show on monitor...so i save a 300ppi for printing,and a 72ppi for UF which is often 750x650 or similar....the 300's are usually a print size 8x12 or larger (i forget the pixel size,but over 1200x1200 usually)
anyway, not sure why kiarang sees pixelation on this image and i do not?....also, i was told that anyone could right click our images on UF,save and print, but at the low quality 72ppi,it wouldn't print a quality image at most sizes...any truth to that? Thanks,cookie
|
|
|
|
|
Gayle's Eclectic Photos
{K:91109} 5/4/2006
|
Thanks for reply,Kiarang...300dpi is high res for prints and i would never upload that higher quality online because i sell my photos and anyone could save and print! The 72dpi doesn't make a decent print,and serves as some protection...
When did UF change from allowing higher resolution? It was always a requirement to resize at 72dpi the last couple of years. Do you use the high res 300dpi on UF?
Yes,there is a soft filter look,but no pixelation that i can see...maybe you think the water texture or the leaves are pixelated? Please say where you see it on the image.
|
|
|
|
|
Caterina Berimballi
{K:27299} 5/4/2006
|
:) By the way... I love the moody scene and post work here too. Very clever and very beautiful...
|
|
|
|
|
Caterina Berimballi
{K:27299} 5/4/2006
|
Hi Gayle,
I just read Kiarang's last reply to you and wondered if I might be able to clear up any confusion about pixels/dpi. I believe it's completely inaccurate to suggest that it matters at what dpi you save for display on monitors...
Dpi implies inches on paper, or film, or someplace where inches exist. Paper is dimensioned in inches, but video screens are dimensioned in pixels. Dpi numbers are instructions to the printer on how to print them (how to space the pixels on paper, how large to print the image on paper). Obviously, the higher the dpi, the bigger the print size.
For the video screen, and therefore web pages too, simply scan images at whatever resolution necessary to get the image size desired from the original being scanned. For example, if you scan a photo at 220dpi, the actual pixel dimensions (I'm making this up) may be 3000x2000 pixels. That's way too big to be viewed at once on any monitor without scrolling, so you resize/crop to say 850x565. Or, you can scan the photo at 72dpi (approximately 1/3 of 220) and end up with pixel dimensions of say 1024x768. That's still too big for UF (you would need to crop or resize), but will fit neatly within the average user's screen without having to scroll.
Ultimately, the size (width x height) of the cropped/resized image *in pixels* is all that matters on any screen. There is no concept of dpi in the video system. All the image information is there whether at 72dpi or 300dpi, the only relevance these numbers have is specifying how big you want that information displayed for PRINTING.
Hope this makes sense. If there's anything you're still unsure of, let me know :)
Cheers
Rina
|
|
|
|
Kiarang Alaei
{K:49415} 5/3/2006
|
I think that 300 dpi is much better than 72 dpi for monitors.thanks for reply, but i see a thing like pixels in this shot, like a soft texture!
|
|
|
|
Kamran Bakhtiari
{K:24042} 5/3/2006
|
great shot GG,very artistic and poetic.have a sound,early morning....
peace
|
|
|
|
|
Gayle's Eclectic Photos
{K:91109} 5/3/2006
|
yes! a fairytale...something many of your images convey,o'holy one ;> an honor to know how you read my images...thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
Gayle's Eclectic Photos
{K:91109} 5/3/2006
|
Thanks and so nice to hear from you,Erik...exactly how i feel about this scene,Magical...
|
|
|
|
|
Gayle's Eclectic Photos
{K:91109} 5/3/2006
|
hi,Kiarang...no pixelation showing on my monitor and wonder if either your monitor needs adjusting,or that you are thinking the glimmering water looks pixelated because of the way the light hits? If you are talking about the speckling in the darker areas around the trees, that is partly from slow shutter capturing rain and from the slight IR effect...nice to hear from you and always appreciate your feedback
(this is my 3rd year here and i have always used the 72ppi resolution because it was required...is that no longer true and i should use a higher res?)
|
|
|
|
pan g.
{K:16899} 5/3/2006
|
Like a scene from a fairytale, excellent work!
|
|
|
|
|
Kiarang Alaei
{K:49415} 5/3/2006
|
Soft exposue emphasized it. very artistic and elegant composition. the texture works very well. the texture works well, but i'm a bit distract of the low resoloution and pizels in the file you've submited.
|
|
|
|
Erik Neldner
{K:10846} 5/3/2006
|
a beautiful scene! the glimmering water has a magical feel to it. the square format really works here as well.
|
|
0 
