ShipSpotting.com
Login: Lost Password? SIGN UP
Ship Photo Search
Advanced Search
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: fog photography - standards?  (Read 2198 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
dirk septer
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 177

Navigare necesse est


View Profile
« 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Jens Boldt
Photo Corrections
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,902



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: October 01, 2021, 03:36:24 pm »

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 (...)
Report to moderator   Logged

“Never be afraid to laugh at yourself. After all, you could be missing out on the joke of the century.”
- Dame Edna Everage

One day your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure its worth watching.
- Unknown
dirk septer
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 177

Navigare necesse est


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: October 01, 2021, 05:15:40 pm »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dеnis
Photo Administrator
Home away from home
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 332


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: October 01, 2021, 10:14:46 pm »

Such quality as if the photo was compressed in size - it's only 104 KB while normally a 10MP photo out of the camera would be within 2-4 MB.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2021, 01:30:29 pm by Dеnis » Report to moderator   Logged
dirk septer
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 177

Navigare necesse est


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: October 03, 2021, 02:06:01 pm »

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......
Report to moderator   Logged
Dеnis
Photo Administrator
Home away from home
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 332


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2021, 03:37:49 pm »

Dirk, is that how your camera outputs? 100-200KB in size for 10MP photo? Maybe something's not right with the camera settings?
Report to moderator   Logged
dirk septer
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 177

Navigare necesse est


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: October 03, 2021, 07:50:23 pm »

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.....
Report to moderator   Logged
pieter melissen
Photo Corrections
Home away from home
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 400


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 03, 2021, 08:28:55 pm »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dеnis
Photo Administrator
Home away from home
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 332


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: October 03, 2021, 08:40:26 pm »

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.

Why?
Report to moderator   Logged
davidships
Webmaster
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,233



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: October 04, 2021, 01:00:08 am »

@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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Tuomas Romu
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 352


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: October 04, 2021, 05:43:00 am »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
pieter melissen
Photo Corrections
Home away from home
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 400


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: October 04, 2021, 07:01:13 am »


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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Tuomas Romu
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 352


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: October 04, 2021, 07:27:51 am »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
pieter melissen
Photo Corrections
Home away from home
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 400


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: October 04, 2021, 09:46:12 am »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Tuomas Romu
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 352


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: October 04, 2021, 01:24:15 pm »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.027 seconds with 18 queries.
Copyright © 2010 All rights reserved