/ New UKC article: Preparing photos for the Internet

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Photography: Preparing photos for the Internet

This is the first in a series of photography articles on UKClimbing about a range of different issues - from composition and choosing equipment, to the technical nitty-gritty of post-processing. If you would like to write an article in this series, please get in touch.

We kick off the series with how best to resize your scanned or digital photos down to a size suitable for using on the Internet. Hundreds of photographs in the UKClimbing galleries are ruined by uploading them at the wrong size (too big to view comfortably or too small to appreciate the details), or by saving them with the wrong JPEG settings.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=96

Cheers
sg - on 10 Feb 2005
In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:

Paint Shop Pro is a good alternative to Photoshop. Not quite got all the bells and whistles, and not the industry standard, but much cheaper: www.jasc.com/en/products/
In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:
Nice succinct summary, not too sure if it will improve the actual standard of shots on the site though. When are you doing one about what makes a crap photo??

Chris :-)
In reply to Chris Craggs: grin. I don't feel qualified to talk about composition, but I hope that some other photographers on the site will stick their necks out and give some tips in the form of an article. We already have a couple of photography articles being developed, so please get in touch if you have an idea for one.

I think the most popular topic of discussion on the forums is "which camera should I buy?" quickly following by "best camera at altitude" and "digital vs. film?" so those articles would be very welcome.

Cheers
Ian Hill on 10 Feb 2005 - 82.152.165.38 whois?
In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:
> "digital vs. film?"
>

no argument surely??? ;o)
In reply to sg: Thanks, I've now updated the article to include PSP.
In reply to Ian Hill: Right! I nominate YOU to write the "why digital photography works for me" article ;) Now we just need someone to be volunteered for the film photography... are you out there Gordon?
simon c on 10 Feb 2005
In reply to Ian Hill: lol, wanna bet! ; 0)
Ian Hill on 10 Feb 2005 - 82.152.165.38 whois?
In reply to Nick Smith - UKC: well I can give you some prose...how many words do you want for these things anyway?

but it's like writing an article called 'why trad leading is the only proper form of climbing'...I hate to be exclusive...
simon c on 10 Feb 2005
In reply to Nick Smith - UKC: as regards digital / film.

why not an email conversation between two people on the merits of each, one takes the film route one the digital and publish the email exchange?

each produces a considerd and adult exchange?

no edits and a constructive exchange!

In reply to Ian Hill: Well that's another good title for an article! The most popular articles are the controversial ones - just ask... well, you know who.

Don't worry about the word count. My article is about 1500 words, but I'd have thought anything from 750 to 2500 would be fine, depending on the subject. And of course, a picture often demonstrates something much better than lots of dense text.

Thanks
In reply to simon c: An interesting idea - don't see why not. (Apart from the "no editing" bit - it's the editing that turns a thread/email with some interesting bits buried into a good article that is worth keeping.)
Ian Hill on 10 Feb 2005 - 82.152.165.38 whois?
In reply to Nick Smith - UKC: a thread on which only the two protagonists can post...?
simon c on 10 Feb 2005
In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:
> (In reply to simon c) An interesting idea - don't see why not. (Apart from the "no editing" bit - it's the editing that turns a thread/email with some interesting bits buried into a good article that is worth keeping.)<

ok i conceed that but i would be willing to participate for the film aspect, im not anti digital but can give a good debate as to its continued need and why people should embrace it.

Ian Hill on 10 Feb 2005 - 82.152.165.38 whois?
In reply to simon c: the problem with this is it's not black and white...I mean I'm very pro-digital but certainly not anti film...each has its place...

damn I'm gettign involved in this already... :o)
simon c on 10 Feb 2005
In reply to Ian Hill: ive seen a recent email exchange by a photographer and a film maker whose interaction became an article. the article is published and people are able to respond to the content.
Ian Hill on 10 Feb 2005 - 82.152.165.38 whois?
In reply to simon c: it's a very Victorian way of presenting an argument (that's not a bad thing)
In reply to Ian Hill: I've just been reading yet another RAW vs. JPEG argument on the dpreview forums...

So far my experiments with shooting RAW are just slowing down my post-processing as I dither about what to adjust in the RAW->TIFF conversion, and what to adjust later :( And the disc space it is using. 7.5Mb per RAW shot, and 24Mb per TIFF!!
Ian Hill on 10 Feb 2005 - 82.152.165.38 whois?
In reply to Nick Smith - UKC: ignore TIFFs completely...shoot in RAW, adjust the RAW when you open it, save as .psd

RAW is *much* better for quality if you're printing...if it's just for online then shoot JPEG

shooting JPEG otherwise is wasting having the SLR...why have the control available and not use it? :o)
simon c on 10 Feb 2005
In reply to Ian Hill: > (In reply to simon c) it's a very Victorian way of presenting an argument (that's not a bad thing)<

and hence back to photographys process roots, go on you know you want to? we know each other and respect each others work, its about mutual respect from one anothers relative standpoint and being able to put a cohesive discussion about the merits of one from another, i think we could bring together an interesting article Ian.

up to you but it might be really interesting!

ads.ukclimbing.com
Ian Hill on 10 Feb 2005 - 82.152.165.38 whois?
In reply to simon c:
> (In reply to Ian Hill) > (In reply to simon c) it's a very Victorian way of presenting an argument (that's not a bad thing)<
>
> and hence back to photographys process roots,

good point

go on you know you want to? we know each other and respect each others work, its about mutual respect from one anothers relative standpoint and being able to put a cohesive discussion about the merits of one from another, i think we could bring together an interesting article Ian.

I think I might agree with you too much though much of the time!

>
> up to you but it might be really interesting!

oh go on then...state your case
kevin stephens - on 10 Feb 2005
In reply to Ian Hill:

we just need two articles; one for digital and one for proper photography!
In reply to Ian Hill:
Not absolutly sure about this - only tried RAW once and thought it so s-l-o-w. I would be interested to know how much better "much better" is when printing (most shots in the new Blanca guide are digital JPEGS). Re the need for control do you always use the camera on manual as well as shooting RAW?

Chris
simon c on 10 Feb 2005
In reply to Ian Hill: not tonight though as ive got to get off the laptop soon, lets do it through email and then send it to nick, they can then put it together as an article.

Ian Hill on 10 Feb 2005 - 82.152.165.38 whois?
In reply to Chris Craggs: which bit is slow? Most good cams now will record a RAW file almost as quick as a JPEG...particularly if they've got a decent buffer.

'Better' is such that you can see the difference even in 10x8 shots...for small pics such as in guides then there probably isn't much difference

Shooting RAW gives you a digital neg which you can adjust and work with far more than a JPEG...alter white balance, exposure compensation, etc...shooting JPEG is letting the camera do some of your image processing without you having any control over it, it's like taking a B&W neg and letting some oik in Jessops print it without you even seeing it...

re control...I do often shoot in full manual, but of course often in A or S priority...but then I'm after a digi OM1 really...
simon c on 10 Feb 2005
In reply to simon c: in reply to myself i'll have a chat with Ian offline and see if we can come up with something that might spur on constructive debate, i dont want to bounce ian online into something so we'll have a chat about it bearring in mind each of us have committments beyond this forum.
Ian Hill on 10 Feb 2005 - 82.152.165.38 whois?
In reply to simon c: yeah that's fine...you'll get me in the day too that way
Cosmic John on 11 Feb 2005 - 82-47-147-75.cable.ubr11.brad.blueyonder.co.uk
In reply to Ian Hill:

> (In reply to simon c) it's a very Victorian way of presenting an argument ...

Er, it's originally a very Ancient Greek way of presenting an argument.

Cosmic John on 11 Feb 2005 - 82-47-147-75.cable.ubr11.brad.blueyonder.co.uk
In reply to Ian Hill:

Ah, another worshipper of the sacred OM1.

In reply to Ian Hill:
Interesting - I prepared to be convinced - or at least have a go. I'll let you know the results in a week or two.
OM1? - I remember those but only just!

Chris
Bob on 11 Feb 2005
In reply to Cosmic John:

<sigh>I used to have an OM1, the battery was only needed for the meter. Light and tough as nails.</sigh> It went to the great post processing house in the sky after a prolonged encounter with Karakoram dust.

Bob
lewis on 11 Feb 2005
In reply to Nick Smith - UKC: Nice article. Well done.

(sorry that sounds really patronising)
Mark Alderson - on 11 Feb 2005
In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:
Thanks for providing this useful article. It has made me realise the importance of sharpening my photos for the web.

One thing you might want to consider: I regularly view my web photos on a variety of monitors at different screen resolutions (800x600, 1024x768 etc). The resulting combinations can significantly affect the image quality. In some cases I have found that images that appear ideal at 1024x768 are unacceptably rough/jaggy at 800x600. A compromise setting usually solves the problem.
In reply to Mark Alderson:
> (In reply to Nick Smith - UKC)
> Thanks for providing this useful article. It has made me realise the importance of sharpening my photos for the web.

Ta, glad you liked it.

> One thing you might want to consider: I regularly view my web photos on a variety of monitors at different screen resolutions (800x600, 1024x768 etc). The resulting combinations can significantly affect the image quality. In some cases I have found that images that appear ideal at 1024x768 are unacceptably rough/jaggy at 800x600. A compromise setting usually solves the problem.

I think that is probably a monitor/operating system issue, rather than a problem with the photo resolution. eg, if you run an LCD monitor at a different resolution from 'standard' then it will scale up/down the image and it can appear rough/jaggy. It shouldn't be such a problem with CRT monitors though - most can run happily at a range of different resolutions.

Of course if you run a nice big 19" monitor at only 800x600 pixels then everything will look rough/jaggy simply because each pixel is so large!
In reply to Ian Hill: Well I shot some RAW this morning in bright sunshine, and when I got back to the computer I realised that several of the shots had slightly overexposed highlights. Adjusting the exposure by half a stop in the RAW conversion was infinitely better than trying to rescue an overexposed JPEG :)
Ian Hill on 11 Feb 2005 - 82.152.166.249 whois?
In reply to Nick Smith - UKC: if you overexpose the highlights there's nothing there to rescue...not even if you shoot RAW! This is *the* one thing to avoid with digi cams...don't overexpose as you will not be able to recover anything...

if you do get any slight result from RAW conversion then try a bit of PS shadow/highlight as well...

Ian

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.