ShipSpotting.com Forum
Shipspotters all over the world => Site related news, functions and modules => Topic started by: dirk septer on October 01, 2021, 02:25:23 PM
-
http://www.shipspotting.com/photos/removed/big/4/8/1/3346184.jpg
I disagree that this photo had ro be deleted as hazy/out of focus:
look at how sharp the foreground is;
though maybe somewhat shrouded in morning fog, vessel can certainly be recognized.
-
The foreground is sharp... but the tug and the barge are in the background which is, to be frank, a mud of pixels.
The name of the barge is not discernable.
Site standards for all photos point 2 (Sharpness)
(...) In a sharp image, names (my emphasis), windows, cranes and other ship details will be clear (...)
-
with all due respect, there are thousands of photos posted where the name of the vessel is not discernable.
The photograph in question is sharp; only that morning fog obscures the barge slightly.
-
Of the 10,000+ photographs I've posted here over the last 10 years, these were all in the same KB range.
Of the 3 million+ photos on this site, how many were originally shot at 10 MP?
My deleted photo is clear as a bell (see foreground); has excellent composition; only because it was
taken on a fall west coast morning there's a little fog around the target. To me this only adds to the
quality and "atmoshere" of the photograph.....
Today suddenly a number of other recent and even less recent photos were deleted as out of focus, including this one:
http://www.shipspotting.com/photos/removed/big/3/6/0/3347063.jpg
I really would like to get a second and third opinion about this; otherwise they might as well delete the rest of my 10,000 photos on this site......
-
Frankly I don't think I know anybody who shoots at 10 MB... How many of the almost 3 million photos posted at Shipspotting were shot at 10 MB?
All the 10,275 photos I posted here were shot at between 3-4 MB, and then saved Small size, reducing them to about 400 KB. Never encountered a problem with this in about 10 years.
http://www.shipspotting.com/photos/removed/big/3/6/0/3347063.jpg
Today this photo of Celebrity Millennium was deleted as "out of focus/hard to see detail" ....
Did I step on somebody's toes with my inquiry two days ago about my previously deleted fog picture, about which I'm still looking input for.....
-
My photos are generally well over 20 MB, Dirk, which allows me to work on them to get acceptable results even under difficult circumstances. The only set back is that this site does not accept RAW format.
-
@Dirk - I have sent you a PM
@all - by all means continue discussion on the technical questions about images/cameras, but no more about specific deletions, please.
-
While the photograph itself is very nice, I fully agree that the technical quality is not up to the standards due to overcompression.
The only set back is that this site does not accept RAW format.
I have always thought RAW is more like a digital negative whereas JPG is the "developed" photograph.
-
I have always thought RAW is more like a digital negative whereas JPG is the "developed" photograph.
[/quote]
That is correct, but RAW contains much more information than shooting directly in jpg. That info can used to improve the jpg that results from the raw conversion.
-
That is correct, but RAW contains much more information than shooting directly in jpg. That info can used to improve the jpg that results from the raw conversion.
Absolutely. Every photographer's workflow should be "shoot RAW, process, publish JPEG". Thus, there is no need for the website to accept RAWs.
-
Tuomas, I actually only mentioned the RAW size as a reply to the statement that Dirk knows nobody who shoots at more than 10 MB. Sometimes I get jpeg sizes of about 10MB, when I use the Canon 1Dx, but I prefer the 1D Mark IV as my lense 28-300 does not vignetting problems there because of the 1.3 crop factor.
-
Tuomas, I actually only mentioned the RAW size as a reply to the statement that Dirk knows nobody who shoots at more than 10 MB. Sometimes I get jpeg sizes of about 10MB, when I use the Canon 1Dx, but I prefer the 1D Mark IV as my lense 28-300 does not vignetting problems there because of the 1.3 crop factor.
Thank you for explaining.
I usually shoot "RAW+JPEG fine" with my Nikon D600. The JPEGs tend to be about 12-14 MB if there are a lot of details in the pictures.
-
So now Dirk knows of two people who shoot over 10 mb...
-
I am convinced that most dedicated amateur photographers record with a minimum of 10 mb and I would think this applies to the majority of those who post on Shipspotting incl. myself.
3-4 mb was something you used 10-12 years ago so I guess most have got a new camera since.
I have tried to scale Dirk's image of Celebrity Millennium down to 1200x900 px and given the unsharp mask it gave a clearly improved result try it yourself. And I see no reason to post in full size.
-
I have tried to scale Dirk's image of Celebrity Millennium down to 1200x900 px and given the unsharp mask it gave a clearly improved result try it yourself. And I see no reason to post in full size.
I did the same,(see Dirk's other tread). and it seems we can conclude that there is most likely nothing wrong with Dirk's photo's but that his processing methods can ruin the shots.