/ New UKC article: 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.
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/
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??
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.
no argument surely??? ;o)
but it's like writing an article called 'why trad leading is the only proper form of climbing'...I hate to be exclusive...
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!
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.
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.
damn I'm gettign involved in this already... :o)
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!!
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)
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!
> 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.
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
we just need two articles; one for digital and one for proper photography!
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?
'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...
Er, it's originally a very Ancient Greek way of presenting an argument.
Ah, another worshipper of the sacred OM1.
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!
<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.
(sorry that sounds really patronising)
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.
> 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.
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!
if you do get any slight result from RAW conversion then try a bit of PS shadow/highlight as well...
Elsewhere on the site
October 21, 2014 – Textile Exchange, a global nonprofit dedicated to sustainability in the apparel and textile industry,... Read more
So, just what is the Petzl RocTrip? Every year French climbing manufacturer pick a sport climbing area that has potential... Read more
In tonight's Friday Night Video, we see Alex Honnold soloing Heaven 5.12d in Yosemite Valley. The route starts 3000ft above the... Read more
The B.D.V. — short for Black Diamond Vertical — jacket and pants are Black Diamond’s most versatile climbing... Read more
This streamlined, midweight thermal layer has an incredibly speedy moisture wicking ability and dries ultra fast if it gets... Read more