Announcement

**Thomas** · 2003-08-12, 07:39

I think both rejections are justified. The JPEG artefacts are too visible ... they can ruin the best photo. I don't know about the upload software, but I only upload photos with a maximum width of 1024 pixels & use a very low compression rate to get the best quality possible. Hope this helps.

Cheers, Thomas

**fox1** · 2003-08-12, 08:52

Originally posted by Thomas

I think both rejections are justified. The JPEG artefacts are too visible Cheers, Thomas

I must agree with Thomas...sorry..

**Aeronautics** · 2003-08-12, 09:14

Re: Whoa, whoa, whoa...did I start submitting my pics to a.n

Originally posted by JCS17

In my opinion, the problem with the compression has to do with the upload software. It generally will not allow me to upload anything larger than 1300x----, and I have recently started just uploading everything at 1200x---- to get around that problem. Even when I was able to upload huge pics, the compression software would hurt the quality of the photograph drastically, not to mention sharpen it and add contrast (and it still does that even when I do reduce the pic to 1200x----).

What sofware do you use?

And the size of the pics is currently about 130 Kb. For good quality I would say it should be about 200-300 Kb

**JCS17** · 2003-08-12, 11:04

What sofware do you use?

And the size of the pics is currently about 130 Kb. For good quality I would say it should be about 200-300 Kb

I use a cheap Photoshop knockoff, and when prompted I always save my photo at 100% quality. I dont think the camera is too much of an issue, either, its 3.3MP and with pixel coupling that doubles the MP.... Maybe I ought to look into installing the copy of Photoshop that has been sitting on my desk for the past month. :P

I have to get to work, but when I get back I will go to one of my personal photo galleries and post the full size original pictures.

Its just frustrating when you really think that your picture taking technique has improved so greatly from when you first started, and you didnt even get this many rejections back then....

**LX-A343** · 2003-08-12, 13:20

Originally posted by JCS17

I use a cheap Photoshop knockoff, and when prompted I always save my photo at 100% quality. I dont think the camera is too much of an issue, either, its 3.3MP and with pixel coupling that doubles the MP.... Maybe I ought to look into installing the copy of Photoshop that has been sitting on my desk for the past month.

Forget about that pixel doubling shite. That's just to fool customers, not more. Take pictures at the biggest optical resolution and resize in your photoediting programm, preferrably to 1024x... size. After correcting colors, apply some sharpening (if available: Unsharp Mask), then upload.

Cheers
Gerardo

**mikecweb** · 2003-08-12, 14:19

I wouldn't take it that your technique is being rejected but the conditions for your photo. I'll tell you right now the only reason why you got alot of grain in the first one is look at the sky! No sun. That makes it very hard for digital cameras to reduce grain especially at high shutter speeds.

**JCS17** · 2003-08-12, 15:21

Are you blind? The grain on pic 1 is as clear as day and I can see the compression in photo 2, look near the registration especially!

Honestly, I dont see it. It might be because I keep my monitor on 1600x1200, and if you look at many pictures uploaded recently there is more grain than that.... But what the fuck is with the attitude?! I swear to God, every week some people here get more and more uppity and get a worse and worse attitude.

**JeffinDEN** · 2003-08-12, 15:28

I agree. at least I'm consistent.

**Bruce** · 2003-08-12, 17:34

I agree with the others. I see the grain too and the jpeg artifacts in the 2nd one. Those conditions in which you shot the 1st one are very tough conditions to get a decent photo in.

Gerardo has the best idea. I dont know what pixel doubling is but I'll tell you, I use a 3 megapixel camera and dont get uploads that look like that. perhaps your "cheap knockoff" of photoshop editing program is not so great. that pic also has a greenish tint.

Here is what a pic taken in bad (cloudy) weather conditions with a 3 megapixel camera should look like:
[photoid=20292]

even a littl bit of sunlight among all the clouds is better than none at all:
[photoid=46338]

bruce

**Freightdogg** · 2003-08-12, 18:02

JCS,

The photos as you submitted them were not up to standard. As for grain I use two different monitors and I have noticed that grain is much more noticable on one than on the other. Just to see what could be done I spent some time massaging your photos. This was the best I could get out of them, but they would still be borderline I think.

**Bruce** · 2003-08-12, 18:06

is it just me, or does freightdog's first pic (the CRJ) look a little purple in the sky areas???

bruce

**PolishAir42** · 2003-08-12, 19:40

It does look purple.

Jcs17: It could be fixed if you installed photoshop and save at the 11-12 Quality rate which I recommend.

**mikecweb** · 2003-08-12, 19:49

Originally posted by PolishAir42

It does look purple.

Jcs17: It could be fixed if you installed photoshop and save at the 11-12 Quality rate which I recommend.

May not be possible if he doesn't have photoshop or the $$$ to the buy it.

**LX-A343** · 2003-08-12, 20:17

It doesn't need photoshop at all. Gimp is apparently very good, and FREE!!

Gerardo

Announcement

Whoa, whoa, whoa...did I start submitting my pics to a.net?!

Whoa, whoa, whoa...did I start submitting my pics to a.net?!

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment