[theatregirl]

Test Test.....


This is of a girl from her senior picture session I did.

Sorry I just realized I put this in the wrong thread... and I didn't know how to get it off.. Also, can someone tell me how to get a pic under my user name??

I know I'm a dork.. I am SSSOOOO new at this Forum thing.. but loving it.

Thanks

[Mandy Mayday]

Cool!
I was asking this question a thousand times and thanx to your explanation I was able to do it!!!
Thanxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[texastarkus]

test


testing...one, two...three..testing..."is this thing on????"

[NT73]

Yes it is on. And so it would seem are sensor spots.
You can go a bit bigger with the pics, but exactly how big I don't know.

[Pavel]

Hello Tex,
It worked! Nice B&W photo by the way!
For both pleasure and critique, it is easier for my pair of eyes if you post big, so that a big chung of monitor is covered. For those who wish to see it smaller can always zoom down. I use 1800 pixels on the long side of the photo and let the software adjust the short side accordingly. After that, I adjust the JPEG quality to squeeze below 250K limit imposed by Shuttertalk. I use "save for web devices" (under "file") in Photoshop. to resize. This gives you an option to resharpen after resizing. Looking forward to your posts. Pavel

[NT73]

You cannot critique a picture properly if you can't see it in one go, and I don't want to be having to scroll around the screen to see it. Also neither do I wish to be clicking the zoom level changer up and down.
If you zoom down to get it on the screen what is the point of having it really big unless it is something really special? :/
Everybody will have their own opinion I know, but that is my take on it. I reckon most photos are big enough at 800/ 1000 px. Some on the net should only be avatar size if that. (Not on Shuttertalk by the way)

[Pavel]

Sorry NT, You may be right 1800 pixels fits comfortably on my screen with a bit of space left over. It probably has to do with the resolution of the screen you are using. Mine is set to 1920 x 1200. To me, this is not a huge issue. If you wish to have photos posted at smaller size, I will use 1000 and if need be, I will zoom in on my monitor. I will also stop urging people to increase the size of their photos. The truth is, for me it is not a question of masterpiece versus no so great photo, I really do see better if the image is larger and it is easier for me to appreciate or review larger images. It may have to do with our relative age or the quality of our vision. So peace, NT. Pavel

[NT73]

My PC is about xxx years old. Well the last millenium anyway.
It is a 15 " CRT monitor and the res. is set to 1024 x 768. The highest it goes is 1280 x 768.
So in practice I could post at 1024 (and get all the pic in)but the forum panel takes a bit of that at either side.
If you post larger and then click the picture it opens up in a new full screen window, with scroll bars etc.

I use another board where the max used to be 640 pix. Now that was a bit squishy especially for landscapes.

You can post whatever size suits you Pavel, and I mean that in a nice way. I don't run Shuttertalk and I have no idea what makes the works tick. I was just putting it from my perspective. Others may disagree.

A couple of photo's a few years back (Toad I think it was) with old buildings and a car in an alley, would have definitely been improved by posting that size. But they were composites. And can anyone remember the multibillion pixel landscape (hand done) thing a couple of years back.?
So I am not falling out, or cross, or grouchy, with you Pavel.

[NT73]

I have just looked up screen resolution on google and it came up with window site. At the beginning of the page was this ...
Quote Microsoft>>For higher legibility of documents on screen, you can adjust the screen resolution of your monitor (for monitors that support more than one screen resolution option). The higher the number of pixels, the more information you can display on your screen and the smaller items appear. Lower screen resolution makes items appear larger and can benefit people with vision impairments. Unquote<<

By the way don't alter anything for me. Sometimes what you are used to is best.

[Pavel]

Yes, if you have a small monitor, you basically have a choice of having sufficient detail but see only a small part of the picture on te monitor or see the whole picture and not have resolution. When I was middle aged, 15" monitors were all the rage. I remember I had one which desplayed everytihing as amber on grey background. All that driven by a Hercules card with whopping 720 x 350 pixels. Amber monitor was extra. The alternative was fluorescent green, which was more pleasant, but harder to read. Now I have a 2 monitor setup (very useful for my business) with 17" and 24" monitors, both rotatatable to landscape and portrait position. I think that it would be a joy for you to have more modern monitors. Leaving aside the the intense pleasure of looking at my photos with its garish colours more intense and spread about a bigger canvas, you would see greater detail in your own photos and the highlights would probably pop nicely compared to an old RGB. Check out the prices. These monitors have come down in price hugely and with your skills, you would be able to make use of better hardware. You would have ample room toi see both the photoshop menus and a large image. 2 monitors are a delight, as you coan configure them to form a single desk, where you can simply drag things from one monitor to another in the same way as you move things on your monitor from one corner to another - consider it. All you need extra is a dual monitor support in your graphics card - not a great expense these days.

[NT73]

Dual monitors! Interesting yes. I bought about 2 years ago a 17" lcd monitor and it was very good.
Apart from the fact that if you tilted it up or down the colours and luminosity changed a bit.
Anyway it went of one day, just out of warranty and I was informed that the backlight had 'gone'.
"Where to", I said. The dogs was the reply and it is likely to cost more than a new monitor.
So I am back with my 15" umpteen years old original one. (Temporarily of course, but a lot of other jobs come first) But even with the 17 " monitor I only used 1024 x 720 resolution. So it is horses for courses. innit

[texastarkus]

Hello Tex,
It worked! Nice B&W photo by the way!
For both pleasure and critique, it is easier for my pair of eyes if you post big, so that a big chung of monitor is covered. For those who wish to see it smaller can always zoom down. I use 1800 pixels on the long side of the photo and let the software adjust the short side accordingly. After that, I adjust the JPEG quality to squeeze below 250K limit imposed by Shuttertalk. I use "save for web devices" (under "file") in Photoshop. to resize. This gives you an option to resharpen after resizing. Looking forward to your posts. Pavel

Thanks Dreamingpixels....

[tonyjennings@sky.com]

Sorry
Trying to follow instructions but can't find upload button
Got as far as putting some pics on photobucket but how do I get them into the post?

Thankyou

[Barbara G.]

Sorry
Trying to follow instructions but can't find upload button
Got as far as putting some pics on photobucket but how do I get them into the post?

Thankyou

When creating a new thread, you will see at the bottom under the thread box, a button that says browse and add attachment. This will allow you to upload files to the forums. Once it is uploaded, you will see another button that says insert into post.

   

   

[tonyjennings@sky.com]

Sorry
Trying to follow instructions but can't find upload button
Got as far as putting some pics on photobucket but how do I get them into the post?

Thankyou

Thank you
Got it sorted, missed the button insert into post, wonderful thing being able to see

Cheers

Tony

[Barbara G.]

Thanks Tony! Glad you got it!

[john b]

ok just a test post this is the first photo I took with my new canon 700D
a Fordson major taken at the Ardingly steam and vintage transport rally on the 13 of July this year
I did not notice until I got home that I cut off the top of the exhaust
shot in Raw only thing done in photoshop is a bit of colour adjustment
[attachment=1700]
1/125 sec F8 at 27mm

[Barbara G.]

Nice john b - welcome to the forum! Glad you are here!

[canon400d]

How do you resize your photo to make it fit the attachment.

[EdMak]

Try this. Ed.

http://imageresizer.codeplex.com/

[DanMach]

[quote='shuttertalk' pid='91' dateline='1087435849']
if you're a forum member, you can upload images (100KB max) Just make sure to resize your photos to a reasonable size (e.g. 640x480)

Hi, I could use some clarification re sizing of pix to be uploaded.

A jpg in photoshop shows the following:-
Pixel dimensions 864.4K
Width 640pixels, Height 461 pixesls.
Document size = 6.4" (16.26cm ) x 4.61" (11.71cm)
Resolution 100 pixels/inch.

Yet, when ready to be saved as a copy prior to loading to a flash stick in preparation for transfer to the internet,the size is then shown to be 216.6K.

Yet again, once on the flash stick the size is given 205 Kb.

I am aware that each time that a jpg is saved, there is a futher loss of detail; but to drop from 864.4K to 216.6K is beyond logical expectations.

I get the feeling that by the time that it eventually is posted, it will be nothing more that a shapeless blur.

I look forward to any enlightment on this matter.#

Best regards, Dan

[gerainte]

http://500px.com/photo/57813240[/img][/url]"

may be testing

[Barbara G.]

http://500px.com/photo/57813240[/img][/url]"

may be testing

I tried to upload one of your photos as a trial, but the site will not allow me to add it from 500px.com link to our site. I don't know if the sites are "compatible" to allow us to see your photo linked here. I get a message that says "Hey, this photo belongs to..."

[MartinG]

Can you link from Flickr? I've tried but not had any luck.

[EdMak]

Make the longest side 2000 Pxls, keep the file size just under 1Mb, 8/900Kb is fine, go from there. Ed.