Show us your camera's best pix! (1 Viewer)

[Dana Fillhart]

Blame that on Comcast's (IMHO severe) upstream bandwidth limitations. Actually the max upstream I get is 32 kiloBYTES/sec, but you get one or 2 others connecting and that is split and it really suffers. I'm hoping eventually, once the dust settles over the filesharing lawsuit fiascos, that Comcast will offer better basic upstream services.

As to the browser resizing ... I use MyIE, which is a shell atop IE. For some reason it doesn't support the image-resizing -- if anybody knows of a way to do the autoscaling in MyIE let me know.

I empathize with those with low bandwidths so I'll provide those smaller images when I get home in an hour or so. I'm figuring probably 800x600 with a higher compression, which should bring the size down to 80-200k per image (pretty reasonable).

 

[Brett DiMichele]

John,

What size monitor are you using and at what resolution?
I am running a 19.0" Viewable at native res which is 1268x
1024 and I don't have to scroll around a whole lot to view
most full scale images.

Trust me the last thing I get into is hardware wars.. We
(Sigma owners)have to be on the deffensive though because
we always get Trolls comming from Nikon and Canon forums
to bash our choice in equipment and because of that we let
the full scale images speak for themselves and it must work
because our SD9 and SD10 galleries have some of the highest
view ratios on Pbase.

I am more worried about the photography than the equipment
but at the same time none of my other digital camera's ever
produces photographic results that made me go "WOW" the way
the Sigma does (and I am not talking about in my hands) we
have some extremely talented photographers in our galleries
and I just hope to be 1/10th as good as they are some day

We also have a bunch of fantastic photographers in this thread
as well.

So keep shooting!

 

[JohnRice]

I'm using a 19" at 1280x960, but simple math shows that if someone posts a 3-5 MP image, it will be many times larger than any monitor will show.

 

[Dana Fillhart]

Updated my fireworks post to include the smaller versions; I'll get the previous posts tomorrow.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Hi, y'all.

I have to agree w/ those who prefer smaller sizes for general web viewing. That's partly why I only upload smaller versions to my pbase account. I think 750-800 pixels wide at ~200KB file size should be a good compromise in most cases. If there really is so much important, unresolvable detail that needs full size viewing, then there's some likelihood that cropping is needed or it's that rare photo that deserves plenty of poster size wall space -- and having to view it on a monitor w/ lots of scrolling will be like watching the pan-and-scammed version of Ben-Hur. :wink:

Well, I guess 1000 pixels wide at 300-400KB should be ok too since most people will probably have at least a 17" CRT or 15" LCD running at 1024x768.

Personally, I don't understand all the obsession w/ the pixel-peeping that goes on in the dpreview forums. And I can understand Brett's point in that light although I should hope that we don't fall into that kind of trap over here. FWIW, I generally stick to the Samples & Galleries forum over there because it's not about the equipment. But yes, I can also understand if people want some reassurance about equipment quality by looking at some full size images.

One more thing. I also have broadband access, but wasting bandwidth doesn't make much sense to me. If most people will only see the pics on a 1024x768 display, it's a real waste of the limited bandwidth available across the internet to transfer full size images only to be resized at the display end. But I guess if one wants to provide both full size and general web size versions, then that should work great also.

And oh, John, I don't mind at all.

_Man_

 

[Brett DiMichele]

Man,

Pixel Peeping? More like Measurbation.. I swear that's all
that goes on over at DP most of the times.. I posted in the
Canon Rebel forums once to defend Sigma EX glass from one
of their "better" photophrapers and when they found out
what body I was using all heck broke loose. Like gee you
can't even post in their forums unless you own a Canon
body too!

I don't think we have to worry about that garbage here on
the HTF because there aren't enough people in this section
to cause problems. You have to take into consideration the
sheer number of viewers on DP who are just looking for
photo related stuff but over here it's about HT stuff and
we just happen to also love photography

As for what I do with my images.. I generally upload mine
to my own web space at 800x533 and then I pick what I deem
to be a couple of my best and upload the full res images to
my PBASE account that way you can see them and print them
if you need to..

I put my watermark on all my full sized images but I could
not care less if people print them.. In fact if you were
shopping for a camera I would hope that you would print the
full sized images because it's like audio gear, you just
have to hear it first

 

[JohnRice]

Now I remember why I went to the dpreview forums once and never went back. Still, I notice there have been some efforts to do the same pixel stuff here, so maybe that can be left for the other place.

I was a mod in a photography forum which tried to get going a few years ago discussing actual photography and not solely hardware crap. Needless to say only about a dozen people had the slightest interest in discussing photography instead of battling over brands.

I am curious about one thing. I don't see any comments about Fuji SLR owners pulling this crap. Is it possible that most people who buy Fuji (and maybe Kodak) DSLRs usually buy them to actually use rather than make themselves feel superior?


FWIW, through the many years I have been working in photography, I have used Canon extensively, Olympus (when they made SLRs) a little, I worked for Minolta for several years, and now I have Nikon for 35mm film and Fuji for digital and I can assure every one of you that all this brand harping that goes on is nothing less than childish. Every one of them has their virtues, and if all these people really knew what the hell they were doing and were in it to create good work, they wouldn't be pulling that crap. How often do you see photographers pulling the same shit about their view camera equipment. HAH! You shoot with Horseman? You fool! Anyone who doesn't use Sinar is a rank amateur and doesn't deserve our attention!'

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Thanks for summing up why I have left every photographic forum I've participated in.

I have to sympathize a bit with Sigma owners: I shoot Pentax 67, a much-maligned system, and have frequently posted enormous scans to combat the misinformation spread about it, virtually all of which can be attributed to poor technique.

Anyways, a couple of images to share:

http://aaronreynolds.ca/gallery/band...2_05_portfolio

http://aaronreynolds.ca/gallery/Trin...f_v2_portfolio

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Very nice work, Aaron.

And glad that we all seem to feel more or less the same way about all that hoopla about equipment -- although I am far from being experienced enough to be too vocal about it.

John,

I'm not too sure, but my guess is that the sheer popularity and brand name recognition of the bigger players, especially Canon (but Nikon also to some degree), in the mainstream probably contributes a whole lot to that stuff. I do very often hear complaints about Canon trolls although I'm sure other brands have their fair share also. And then, I guess people take excessive pride in their choice of equipment as often happens regardless of the area of interest -- this stuff happens a lot in the home theater world as much as anywhere else.

Anyway, I would add that Fuji S2Pro shooters do seem to impress me more than most of the other DSLR shooters I've seen in my very limited experience. OTOH, this probably says nothing about the real pro's as few of them would bother (or want) to display their work freely on the web.

_Man_

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

One time I started a flamewar by posting "Which is better: a hammer or a screwdriver?" with a long diatribe calling screwdrivers crap for hammering things.

Much of the resolution testing and so on makes me giggle with the DSLR stuff: if your holy grail is resolution, why are you shooting a 35mm-style format? You shoot small format for speed and flexibility, and the obvious trade-off is image quality.

 

[JohnRice]

There is a critical difference. With HT equipment, you are creating nothing. You are just viewing what others have created. It makes a certain sense to attach your contribution to the movies by what equipment you choose to buy, though people take it way too far. Arguing over camera equipment is a little like arguing over who owns the best hammer.

 

[JohnRice]

Aaron beat me to it...

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Actually, anyone who shoots with either Horseman or Sinar doesn't deserve our attention! Linhof all the way, baby!

Seriously, this is obviously an excellent point.

And the point that the equipment does NOT make the photographer is repeated ad infinitum on these forums, and everyone chimes in about how they "agree", yet the same unrelenting posts regarding whether Canon's optics are better than Nikon's, or who makes the better body, etc. never let up, and I suspect it never will.

Some of the greatest photographers in history had "shit" equipment.

 

[Mark Shannon]

Saw this on MSN today. I thought it was appropriate for this thread.

What Makes A Photo Good

What do you think of their suggestions? On the mark or way off?

 

[JohnRice]

No kidding! I think Eugene Smith may have been known to use an Argus C3. Do any of you know what a C3 was?


That page is probably about as good as something so short can be. Putting these types of things into words isn't easy. Of course, the term "center of interest" was not the best choice of words to use.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Something like this?

 

[JohnRice]

That's one of them. There were many small varitations

 

[Brett DiMichele]

I have always said and I still do.. That a good photographer
can make beautiful art with a Brownie! Or a Pinhole..

And that's the truth!

I don't brag about equipment though when I am senselessly
bashed I do defend myself (that's not going to happen here
though). I made my choice based on image quality because for
my money I wanted what "I thought" delivered the most pleasing
results to my eye.. Just like one guy shoots Provia and another
shoots Velvia and the next guy won't even touch color emulsions at all!

Ain't it great having so many choices!

And now back to photography!

 

[Brett DiMichele]

Ohh and not to get OT or anything but I am just guessing
that you are a big fan of Buckaroo?

Wherever you go, There you are!

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Haha. Nice, mildy OT discussion here. I've never used a brownie or a pinhole camera and never even shot Provia or Velvia on film since I was just a typical p&s-er back when I still used film. But I did add some more digital photos to my pbase account recently -- including a few old ones from my G3 that I finally got around to processing. Let me know if there's any "art" there.

This one is (finally) a new take of the "Heroic" (http://www.pbase.com/image/23974711.jpg) I got around to sneaking a few shots for w/ my D70 + 85mm f/1.8 prime, but unfortunately, this is the only one that had decent focus in the terribly low lighting:

http://www.pbase.com/image/31122792.jpg

FYI, I work in this building, but I'm not supposed to take pictures inside. And this statue is right behind the security area w/ 24/7 coverage. So no setting up tripod or even monopod for these unauthorized shots. Ironically, I had an easier time w/ my G3 than the D70 for these because of the much larger DoF not needing exact focus point. Very difficult for the camera's AF given the extremely low contrast of the statue's face. The AF-assist light didn't seem to help much -- and I rarely ever use it, but had to here.

Here are a couple old ones w/ the G3 -- the first w/ 1.7x teleconverter added:

"Hope"
http://www.pbase.com/image/31147618.jpg

"Herald"
http://www.pbase.com/image/31147620.jpg

This recent flower photo I like w/ the D70 + kit lens:

http://www.pbase.com/image/31139680.jpg

Did I post this one before?

http://www.pbase.com/image/30484690.jpg

I like this one also though you can't see his face:

http://www.pbase.com/image/31122795.jpg

A few from a neighborhood street fair:

http://www.pbase.com/image/31121695.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/31121699.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/31121705.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/31121707.jpg

One from Coney Island:

http://www.pbase.com/image/31122637.jpg

One of a familiar church steeple (http://www.pbase.com/image/28921279.jpg) w/ the moon:

http://www.pbase.com/image/31122633.jpg

A rare straight-on architecture shot from me:

http://www.pbase.com/image/30485900.jpg

Something I shot (and of course, processed) for my relatively new church:

http://www.pbase.com/image/29863059.jpg

And I have finally updated my "What is 'art'?" gallery (http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong/what_is_art) where I wondered about the question in relations to photography though most of the new ones I've already posted in this thread.

_Man_