This is a reply to Jon-Monon from the "Scratchin' & Bashin'" > "Tips and Tricks" Sticky Thread Website Images.... I thought that it was more appropriate to post here....
Hi Jon,
I take all of my photos with a Canon "Aqua Snappy" 35 mm and 200 ASA film (fixed focus.
). I'm thinking of trying 800 film for photograghing my modelling efforts. I hope that this will help me get around my fixed focus problems by being able to crop and resize the images. I'd also like to get my own negative scanner. A friend of mine in the IT department tells me that you can now get a regular flatbed scanner with an adaptor for scanning film negatives.
When I get the film developed, I have a photo CD made. I find that images scanned directly from the negative are sharper than ones scanned from prints. Ask your photo lab which way they do it. The images tend to be of much higher resolution than any digital camera and the file size is usually over 500 kb. George Elwood prefers that origional unedited images be e-mailed to him and he will crop, edit and resize them for his Erie Lackawanna and other Fallen Flag and Shortline Railroad Photos. Read George Elwood's section "Submitting Material" for more information on posting images on the web.
What I have found is that you can always take a large image and make it smaller. If you take a small image and try to blow it up, you end up with grainy/blurry pictures.
In your case, the thumbs are good, but some of your larger images get grainy. Images that are 323 x 166 pixels and 565 x 317 pixels, for example, are okey. The larger images of the "Shack on a Raft" are 1110 x 500 pixels and 971 x 388 pixels, are grainy.
Your SRS picture is good, except for the lighting, but I understand that this was unaviodable due to the time of day that the picture was taken. I had the same problem, but because I could get closer, I was able to use the flash on my camera.
There are other websites that have advice on how to post images to websites. I think that there is something in "The Acadamy" on digital images as well as on the
Website Photographs.
I hope this helps.
Originally posted by jon-monon
Hi Ron!
I didn't realize who you are until now. Yes, indeed, you are good with the 35 MM, especially when following an SRS
I'm glad you brought up this grainy problem, I've heard it before, but I can't seem to duplicate the problem here....
I think my images are too big. If the thumbs look good but the enlarged ones gets grainy, I probably just need to tone them down a little. Please let me know if there are any that are particularly bad.
jon
Hi Jon,
I take all of my photos with a Canon "Aqua Snappy" 35 mm and 200 ASA film (fixed focus.
). I'm thinking of trying 800 film for photograghing my modelling efforts. I hope that this will help me get around my fixed focus problems by being able to crop and resize the images. I'd also like to get my own negative scanner. A friend of mine in the IT department tells me that you can now get a regular flatbed scanner with an adaptor for scanning film negatives.When I get the film developed, I have a photo CD made. I find that images scanned directly from the negative are sharper than ones scanned from prints. Ask your photo lab which way they do it. The images tend to be of much higher resolution than any digital camera and the file size is usually over 500 kb. George Elwood prefers that origional unedited images be e-mailed to him and he will crop, edit and resize them for his Erie Lackawanna and other Fallen Flag and Shortline Railroad Photos. Read George Elwood's section "Submitting Material" for more information on posting images on the web.
What I have found is that you can always take a large image and make it smaller. If you take a small image and try to blow it up, you end up with grainy/blurry pictures.
In your case, the thumbs are good, but some of your larger images get grainy. Images that are 323 x 166 pixels and 565 x 317 pixels, for example, are okey. The larger images of the "Shack on a Raft" are 1110 x 500 pixels and 971 x 388 pixels, are grainy.
Your SRS picture is good, except for the lighting, but I understand that this was unaviodable due to the time of day that the picture was taken. I had the same problem, but because I could get closer, I was able to use the flash on my camera.
There are other websites that have advice on how to post images to websites. I think that there is something in "The Acadamy" on digital images as well as on the
Website Photographs. I hope this helps.
It was free to me. It does have some nice features, like macro capability and a decent autofocus (thus the washed out flash you noticed; it was less than 16" back from subj., because I did have to turn on the macro focus.
