Picture Of The Day

JohnR · « **Reply #280 on:** 25 Dec 2007, 12:18 am »

Bob, very nice! But it seems a little dark, I wonder if a touch more light on the face would work well. I'm not much of a flash user but you could try experimenting with the flash level settings?

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #281 on:** 25 Dec 2007, 01:11 am »

John Thank You.
I used an indirect flash. The flash unit was separated from the D40, sitting a few meters to my left and a few meters above my position. The flash was pointed directly vertical. (I'm sure there are 'official' words for this but I don't know them.)
Of course this is one of the first vollies of photos from a 'wanna-be'. I've got a few I'm proud of, will download as my dial-up allows.
Is there a reason this photo appears grainy? Most pics I see here are very clear. I uploaded this directly from the D40 to PhotoBucket.com, no touching up done.

Bob

ooheadsoo · « **Reply #282 on:** 25 Dec 2007, 01:41 am »

Could it be the iso 400 film speed? It still looks really clear, considering the 400 iso.

nathanm · « **Reply #283 on:** 25 Dec 2007, 03:23 am »

It doesn't look grainy at the posted size at all. Usually the nice SLRs have low noise one normally doesn't associate with the ISO numbers. (Yes I'm jealous, my camera is ISO 80-Or-Bust) The lighting angle seems more front and center rather than ceiling bounced as Bob describes, but I'm no flash expert. Anyway, it just needs a little fill light, wee taste of highlight recovery, juice the saturation a smidge to warm up the skin tone and you're in like flynn.

That's a cool shot Imperial, it looks like it's an underwater coral reef!

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #284 on:** 25 Dec 2007, 05:07 am »

My Picture of the Day.....

Well....Its not my photo....I borrowed it....

December 25th........

Happy Birthday nathan.....

Chris

JohnR · « **Reply #285 on:** 25 Dec 2007, 05:59 am »

Bob, it doesn't look grainy to me, although it could also be that the image is a little soft and could stand a touch of sharpening. Having said that, you could try shooting at ISO200. BTW are you uploading the fullsize image to photobucket? If so you may want to try resizing and sharpening on your own PC before uploading, that will also save you time and bandwidth.

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #286 on:** 25 Dec 2007, 12:39 pm »

Hey John,
I'm uploading a file size of about 4Meg to "PhotoBucket" (via dial-up

), I see the image has been 'downsized' considerably.
By grainy I mean pixelated, low rez. Not near as sharp as many I see here. I'll have to work on that.

Bob

nathanm · « **Reply #287 on:** 25 Dec 2007, 03:59 pm »

Thanks for the birthday wishes guys!

Bob, your photo is in no way pixelated or grainy, could it be browser-related? Any additional image-related parameters at work there like compression or scaling? it looks just fine on my end. Here's my edit, see if it looks OK:

One of the keys to good screen-based imagery is making sure there's no software-based scaling going on and sharpening the file at its final 1:1 size with fractional Unsharp Mask values. 100/0.3 for instance. This increases accutance. But don't go overboard as what looks crisp on CRT may go too wiry on LCD.

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #288 on:** 26 Dec 2007, 04:46 am »

Nathan, Thank You!!
Yours is noticeably smaller in physical size, but a larger file size by several thousand Kb. Not sure how you did that?? Some of the photos I've seen here are "frameable" as they are displayed, PERFECT images, crisp and clear, like the ones you've posted recently. Mine looks like a super low res file.

Possible browser related (I am using AOL after all

). But why would pics imported from other sites like the 'flickr' hosting place I keep seeing, be so much better??
I need to do some playing around with settings, adjustments etc... and see what I can accomplish. I didn't want to turn Scott F's wonderful thread into "Bob's photo tech support thread".

But for the time it takes to upload a 4Meg photo on dial-up connection will prevent me from posting crappy looking photos like I've done to date, that's for sure.

Abe, It could be the 400 ISO, but when I preview the photo on my PC as a file, It's PERFECT!. Somethings 'mucking it up' on it's way to here....

Bob

ooheadsoo · « **Reply #289 on:** 26 Dec 2007, 05:32 am »

Bob, your file looks pretty sharp on my end. I thought my monitor just wasn't showing what you were seeing, but it seems other people are confirming that your picture does indeed look sharp. If you view the files in a dedicated viewer without resizing, does it look the same?

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #290 on:** 26 Dec 2007, 11:54 am »

Hey, come on over.........

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?action=post;topic=42049.280;num_replies=289

Imperial · « **Reply #291 on:** 27 Dec 2007, 03:43 am »

This here is King, my brothers now 9 weeks old Dobermann.

The human pillow is his wife.
My pic of the day!

arthurs · « **Reply #292 on:** 27 Dec 2007, 03:50 am »

The Mini Cat crashed out....

Imperial · « **Reply #293 on:** 27 Dec 2007, 04:31 pm »

A bit of a reflective Window payne trick...

All pertinent data are viewable if you look at the "properties" of this image.

Imperial

nathanm · « **Reply #294 on:** 2 Jan 2008, 09:23 am »

brj · « **Reply #295 on:** 2 Jan 2008, 06:27 pm »

Nice shot, Nathan! I was hoping that you managed to take some pics from that snowstorm. (I was back visiting family and friends right near you over the holidays.) It has been a long time since I've seen snow stick to the trees so completely for so long... there were amazing photo ops everywhere, and I was kicking myself for not having brought my camera. True "Winter wonderland" images...

nathanm · « **Reply #296 on:** 2 Jan 2008, 08:55 pm »

Yeah, the clingy snow lasted quite a while. I got a few night shots in after the family Christmas gathering. I didn't think any one of them deserved their own photo, though. Well, the top\center one is probably the best. It's cool how you can achieve a number of different feels by changing the white balance. In reality these scenes were probably more yellow\orange, and darker!

The snowy river shot above actually was some of the most "expensive" digital photos I've taken. Twenty nine bucks in fact. After like three hours of shooting in the freezing cold at various locations I sat in my car with numb fingers and proceeded to DELETE THE ENTIRE CARD!!! Gah!!! Idiot! So I had to spring for some file restore software. *grumble* But at least I got them all back.

some young guy · « **Reply #297 on:** 7 Jan 2008, 10:52 pm »

i liked this one also...

nathanm · « **Reply #298 on:** 8 Jan 2008, 01:21 am »

Ha! Those are cute! Kind of a unique take on the baby photo.

Still, on this page at least I'm partial to the "King" shot, only the dobermann is a bit distracting.

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #299 on:** 8 Jan 2008, 07:37 pm »

Classic Nathan......... Classic!!! hahaha

Nice photos S.Y.G.!! Very cute!