Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Digital Photography -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Done, gone. who wrote (8330)	7/9/2004 9:59:02 AM
From: Crocodile	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21667

That sounds like a good way of bumping up the saturation. I agree with Ed about the way that the increased saturation makes the photos seem more clear. I've noticed that, particularly with nature photography, increased saturation helps to make a photo jump off the screen a bit -- which is usually what I would like to see when trying to show people how something looks to me when I'm out in the field. I know that isn't a concern for many types of photos, but for nature illustration, it seems critical. For example, I want to show someone how a particular insect looks when it is sitting on a leaf, so I don't want it looking flat and lifeless. Btw, metallicky, light-reflecting beetles are particularly difficult and often take a bit of fiddling around to get them looking "real". Here's a good example of a very tiny (1/4 inch long) beetle that falls into the above category. pbase.com Bottom line, feeling MUCH better about them as a whole. :-) Well, I think you're on the right track with these. Definitely makes them come off the page (screen) for me just that bit more that counts. croc

To: Done, gone. who wrote (8330)	7/9/2004 10:28:08 AM
From: Thomas Mercer-Hursh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21667

Then I mass processed them all via fredmiranda.com to 12x16 inches @ 300 DPI. After that I shrunk them back down to 640x480 @72 DPI. A ton of jaggies went bye bye in the process (love that!). Hmmm. 1/3Mp converted to 17MP and then converted back down again ... do you get any sense that you are no longer really dealing with 640x480 as a medium? To be sure, regardless of the resolution in the original picture, most web images are processed down to a quite limited total pixel count and DPI (otherwise they would be too big!). Clearly, you don't end up with the same image scaling up and scaling down as you would just scaling down ... one can't interpolate detail that isn't there ... but web viewing certainly puts things on more of a par. If you scale back only to a size and resolution which would be suitable for a book and print it, what do you think of the image then?