PDA

View Full Version : Why post massive files


IanB
6th October 2015, 12:10 AM
Sorry; another rant but with all respect to MargaretR.

I went to open Margaret's iceland panos thread yesterday and sadly I closed the thread because it was taking forever for the images to open even though I have rather fast internet connection although expensive compared to other parts of the world; and Australia. And I'm a lucky I'm not in the more remote large properties/stations where I have heard of au$600 per month for 20mb!

So why are we so obsessed by "sharpness"; especially with images on forums?

'Every time someone tells me how sharp my photos are, I assume that it isn't a very interesting photograph. If it were, they would have more to say.' ~Author Unknown

My export for forums/flickr LR presets limits my files to 190kb. Margaret's image below is (auto set) 140kb compared to her 936kb and 2 1/2 times the length of my 1000px. My standard files are posted at 800 or 900px. IMO vertical files should be 600px due to these dumb wide screens.

Picture removed, unauthorised use.

It is that bad to look at; read, understand? Do we really need to see every ice crystal?

Obviously I opened her thread this morning and to see the image I needed to hold that key and hit this key. Yeah OK; I'm lazy, but surely we shouldn't need to be downing and upping our screens so much.

When I was doing a lot of serious CC,[mark will understand the 'lot' bit] I often did that CC from small insert files. I don't need to have a big files to see the good and bad photography points. I'm was not interested in sharpness apart from camera shack. I was explaining photography. IMO that is what forums are more about; photography quality

Time to get over the sharpness thing; good photography can be done with the cheapest of camera. Sharpness IMO is only a drama when we want large photos on the wall. Why have I gone from a ff canon files down to sub 12-16mg files? lol my first pro camera was 6mb

Do we really need big bulky files on forums; this forum; even if it's a camera make forum? Not every one has a big monitor folks and not everyone can afford great cameras. Should we be viewing their images any differently to those with better gear?

Again; meaning no disrespect to Margaret or her wonderfully iceland images *yes. The one posted above looks great compared to the 39c and hot 50kph winds we are expect here today. The bulk of the local wheat crop is about to be wiped out.

Cheers folks

Ralph Harwood
6th October 2015, 02:46 AM
Hi there IanB!

I think the issue with people posting larger and larger images on the forum is because more and more people are getting big screens. A screen of 1024 x 768 used to seem big, but my current laptop has 1920 x 1080 pixels, so an image of 800 x 600 as suggested for the forum looks lost on the page.

I agree that a great image is a great image whatever the size, but also and especially the landscapes, I find that in the larger images it is easier to "loose yourself" in the details captured as well as the overall image. If people didn't agree, who would want to buy 50MP Hasselblads :rolleyes: .

I do agree with you though that it is irritating to have to zoom in and out or scroll to see the whole of an image - perhaps it would be possible for the forum to detect the size of screen you are using and scale the images to fit regardless of the size they were posted at, so everyone can see the image at it's best.

Cheers,

Ralph.

IanB
6th October 2015, 03:57 AM
If people didn't agree, who would want to buy 50MP Hasselblads :rolleyes: .
.
don't get started with another rant :rolleyes:

I have no dreams or wishes to own a 50mb camera although down track I might have a em5 mark2 that can make 40meg files if nothing moves. But of course I do panoramas to make bigger and better files so I guess I just shot off a toe or three :rolleyes:

It does seem the commercial photographers at the top end town are in a pixel war but surely there will come a time when the war arrives at a sensible usable end the same way I feel there is limit to sensible usable file size for forums.

Most writers seem to agree 20mp is about all the lowerly happy-snapper really needs. But there will always be the gear nuts looking for more mb so they can post 1/2 mb file on a forum.

It has always been a concern of mine that forum talk of big files, big cameras, big lenses, the sharpest of photos and the likes actually turn new to photography people away because they cannot afford all that sort of gear; yet good photography returning good quality photos is available under a $1000. I have been shouted down many times by using good PS cameras (Canon G12) and a cross-over camera (lumix FZ200) which is all we really need to still enjoy snapping away in our spare time. I feel many shouting me down were just Ped off I could get better photos than they could with their mega $$ gear. And it often seems to be those who feel the need to post the big files. I'm not looking at you Margaret; honest. I'm just jealous of the damn icebergs lol *yes [36.8 c>> and 56kph wind gusts from the NW which is the hot direction down here

mstphoto
6th October 2015, 05:28 AM
I don't quite get your question "why are we so obsessed by sharpness?"
Isn't this what we strive to achieve?
Any unsharp images in my book aren't worth posting and quickly find their way to the Recycle bucket.
Not doing yourself any favours by showing mediocre soft images.
Perhaps I'm too much of a perfectionist

Mike

Phill D
6th October 2015, 06:01 AM
I'm afraid I can't agree with you on this Ian your version of Margaret's image is so soft and just doesn't have the same impact for me. I'm not keen on lots of scrolling either but if you view images on a tablet it's pretty easy to pinch them to an acceptable size. Can't try a pc view at the moment as it's got a virus and needs sorting out. Interesting I thought that 512mb was the file size limit on here anyway? Thanks for the post bye the way as I'd missed Margaret's fantastic images first time round.

IanB
6th October 2015, 06:04 AM
I don't quite get your question "why are we so obsessed by sharpness?"
Isn't this what we strive to achieve?
Any unsharp images in my book aren't worth posting and quickly find their way to the Recycle bucket.
Not doing yourself any favours by showing mediocre soft images.
Perhaps I'm too much of a perfectionist

Mike
Come on Mike
so anyone using a sub camera to you is not in the "club"? Maybe you will not be allowed to play with the big girls and boys with "bigger than yours" [camera]. Bit surprised you use an oly camera at all as the big full framers give far sharper photos. Now try a medium forum digital; they spit out super sharp files

image/file/photo sharpness has sweet bugga all to do with good photography mate.

How do you think someone without much money and using a basic $200 P+S camera would feel if you said their photo wasn't sharp due to being a cheap camera.

How this for this for $100 Nikon Coolpix S31 camera https://www.flickr.com/photos/alannicol/21719421630/in/dateposted/. amazing the images alan can make with any camera

Umm not written as hard as is might read mate *chr

Ralph Harwood
6th October 2015, 06:42 AM
Sharpness isn't everything - most people look better in a soft focu portrait, without the pores, spots and blemishes standing out. But I agree that in landscapes sharpness throughout the frame can give a photo impact, but then again Mark (Pandora)'s shot of the sun through the mist in another post has a beautiful softness that makes the image. As for pixel counts, some of my best photographs were taken with the E-1 - only 5MP but boy does it make the most of them!

Cheers,

Ralph.

Ps for me Margret R's Iceland photos are fabulous at their full size, giving me so much more detail to look at as I explore the frame.

Kiwi Paul
6th October 2015, 06:45 AM
I think it's important to differentiate between sharpness and resolution. A 6Mp camera images aren't necessarily less sharp then a 16Mp camera just smaller resolution. From a viewing perspective my laptop has a 15" screen and a resolution of 3200 x 1800, at that resolution on a 15" screen processed RAW photos look absolutely stunning, the clarity and detail is unreal, it really is like looking through a window. So viewing images in high resolution certainly can enhance your viewing experience, that's why I've ordered a 5K 27" monitor with a resolution of 5120 x 2880 pixels.

But trying to view large photos uploaded to the web can be a pain if they are bigger than the screen, in fact sometimes I can't bothered viewing them and just move on.
Some photos do generate more impact if they are larger but if you can't view them on one screen then any impact is lost.

Paul

Beagletorque
6th October 2015, 06:46 AM
It always amuses me when the internet police turn up! It's a shame they seem to loose all sense of proportion knowing what is best or having some evangelical opinions. Still, something to keep us smiling on a cold wet morning. 😊

pdk42
6th October 2015, 07:26 AM
In this day and age, I don't think a 900k image is excessive. Large resolution monitors are now fairly common and in most parts of the developed world bandwidth is good enough for streaming video - let alone 900kb still images. Photography can be enjoyed at many levels and for some images (landscapes among them), large and detailed versions have a visual appeal of their own. Just because an image has visual impact doesn't mean it won't have more when it's larger.

I sympathise with those having low-res screens and slow internet bandwidth, but it's how the world is moving and as a photographer it's a necessary part of the gear bag to keep up.

mstphoto
6th October 2015, 07:54 AM
My first digital camera was a 4mp Canon G2
Capable of producing "sharp images"
I also have an iPhone - capable of producing "sharp images"
All cameras these days are probably capable of producing "sharp images"
Even your so called sub cameras produce sharp images!!

Granted, portraits benefit from a touch of softness but the eyes need to be sharp

Incidentally, I came to Olympus from FF Canons + a series of top notch "L" lenses so I suppose you can call my E-M1 and E-M10 "sub" cameras by comparison but I still produce sharp images ;)
To me, image quality is everything and whatever camera I happen to use if I don't produce a sharp image then it's my fault not the cameras and it gets binned.

Otto
6th October 2015, 08:25 AM
I'm with IanB on this, I too find it annoying to have to scroll/zoom to see a full image. Surely the sensible way is to post a medium-sized version that (amost) everyone will be able to see and add a link to a full-size version for those with giant screens?

As for image quality, Bert Hardy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_Hardy) made some of his most memorable images with a Box Brownie!

alfbranch
6th October 2015, 09:26 AM
Sorry but why should I post tiny low res images?

IanB
6th October 2015, 09:52 AM
thanks for joining in; no need for anyone to get upset over it.

Sorry but why should I post tiny low res images? look at it the other way. The only reason I post photos is so i can share them with as many people as possible; however if I post massive size files less people are likely to look because like me, others may not be bothered waiting for the photo to open and then be upping/downing the screen size or scrolling up and down to see the photo.

personally; I don't care what size file you or anyone posts Alf. But I would like to open files and view them as easily and as quickly as possible. That is why I opened this thread; just to bring attention to the fact I don't see all the photos shared by others. That's a shame IMO.

Harold Gough
6th October 2015, 09:55 AM
I have 20MB broadband and the images opened up instantly. I also have a wide screen which they fitted perfectly. I am fortunate.

My comments refer to panoramic images only. If you don't have the image wider (pixel count) than standard format they are no longer panoramic. The file size seems to be not particularly large, fractionally larger than standard photo website size. (The size correlates with some lack of detail).

Harold

andym
6th October 2015, 09:58 AM
Surely with the 500kb file size limit on this site nothing going to take long to load even on slow internet.

Naughty Nigel
6th October 2015, 10:48 AM
Good photography is often about controlling depth of field and selecting the point of focus. A typical example would be focusing on the eyes in a portrait whilst throwing the background out of focus.

(In my day job I often need to focus on technical points of interest in paintwork (such as runs, dust or orange peel texture) so that paint finishes are seen as a critical eye would see them. By default, autofocus usually focuses on the reflections in the paint finish which is of no use to me. This is why I use the OM-D in preference to my Canon G11, which is otherwise a perfectly good camera.)

If, as the OP seems to propose, images are reproduced in soft focus, the effects discussed above are lost, and there becomes no point in using anything other than a mobile phone camera with finger marks on the lens!

However, on the subject of file size, I believe many people confuse sharpness with resolution. The fact is that even large monitors don't necessarily need huge image files, whilst small image files can still appear perfectly sharp.

As an example, I regularly scan medium format film to 100 MP plus, even after cropping! The detail in a 6x7 Velvia transparency scanned at 4,000 dpi is incredible, but it would be highly irresponsible to upload a file of this size to an online forum. Nevertheless, these images still looks pretty impressive if reduced to (say) 800 x 600 resolution for screen viewing.

(My desktop monitor has a 27" screen with a resolution of 2560 x 1440.)

To quote another example, the OM-D-EM5 that I use for my day job produces 16 MP files. A selection of the images that I take (usually about 50 of them) will end up in reports, which will either be submitted as an Adobe Acrobat document (which will usually be viewed on screen), or increasingly rarely these days, printed on my colour laser printer and sent by post.

I doubt that MS Word would run too smoothly with 50 x 16 MP images embedded in a report file, and in any case neither Acrobat or my laser printer would reproduce them at anything like their full resolution. I therefore reduce the image sizes to 2 or 3 MP in Camera Raw by default, but lose nothing in quality for the intended purpose.

PeterBirder
6th October 2015, 11:06 AM
I have 20MB broadband and the images opened up instantly. I also have a wide screen which they fitted perfectly. I am fortunate.

My comments refer to panoramic images only. If you don't have the image wider (pixel count) than standard format they are no longer panoramic. The file size seems to be not particularly large, fractionally larger than standard photo website size. (The size correlates with some lack of detail).

Harold

I'm even more fortunate in that I have 38Mb (download) broadband and a fairly new wide screen PC but that is rapidly becoming the "norm" in the UK (and this is a UK user group). I do understand from posts from other Australian members (and we do enjoy all the contributions from Oz) that the Australian broadband infrastructure is somewhat lacking and that seems to be fundamental to Ian's problem.

I agree that panoramas need to be seen as large as possible to gain their full impact. Frankly, if Margaret had posted her stunning image in the way Ian has re-posted it I wouldn't have given it a second look because it has no impact at all.

Digital photography is much dependent on the technologies which enable it and which are evolving at a very rapid rate. We should make the best use of the new opportunities they give us rather than trying to make them simply mimic what came before. A panorama like Margaret's, taken on film would need to be printed large and hung on a wall for us to appreciate it but the technology available to (most of) us now enables us to enjoy such an image in our own homes.

Regards.*chr

IainMacD
6th October 2015, 11:14 AM
Slightly off-topic, but is Margaret aware/happy that you have uploaded her image to your personal Flickr account, IanB?

Zuiko
6th October 2015, 01:10 PM
I do agree with you though that it is irritating to have to zoom in and out or scroll to see the whole of an image - perhaps it would be possible for the forum to detect the size of screen you are using and scale the images to fit regardless of the size they were posted at, so everyone can see the image at it's best.

Cheers,

Ralph.

That would be a fantastic solution but is probably unlikely. An alternative low tech solution would be to post two different file sizes for each image, one at around 800 pixels wide and another at, say, 2000 pixels. That way more people would have an optimum image to view relative to the size of screen they are using. :)

RogerMac
6th October 2015, 01:41 PM
Sorry; another rant but with all respect to MargaretR.

I went to open Margaret's iceland panos thread yesterday and sadly I closed the thread because it was taking forever for the images to open even though I have rather fast internet connection although expensive compared to other parts of the world; and Australia. And I'm a lucky I'm not in the more remote large properties/stations where I have heard of au$600 per month for 20mb!

So why are we so obsessed by "sharpness"; especially with images on forums?

'Every time someone tells me how sharp my photos are, I assume that it isn't a very interesting photograph. If it were, they would have more to say.' ~Author Unknown

My export for forums/flickr LR presets limits my files to 190kb. Margaret's image below is (auto set) 140kb compared to her 936kb and 2 1/2 times the length of my 1000px. My standard files are posted at 800 or 900px. IMO vertical files should be 600px due to these dumb wide screens.
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/724/21355991953_796a085261_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/yxa3nP)21887871456_167ec3a162_o-2 (https://flic.kr/p/yxa3nP) by Ian Browne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/75510429@N02/), on Flickr
It is that bad to look at; read, understand? Do we really need to see every ice crystal?

Obviously I opened her thread this morning and to see the image I needed to hold that key and hit this key. Yeah OK; I'm lazy, but surely we shouldn't need to be downing and upping our screens so much.

When I was doing a lot of serious CC,[mark will understand the 'lot' bit] I often did that CC from small insert files. I don't need to have a big files to see the good and bad photography points. I'm was not interested in sharpness apart from camera shack. I was explaining photography. IMO that is what forums are more about; photography quality

Time to get over the sharpness thing; good photography can be done with the cheapest of camera. Sharpness IMO is only a drama when we want large photos on the wall. Why have I gone from a ff canon files down to sub 12-16mg files? lol my first pro camera was 6mb

Do we really need big bulky files on forums; this forum; even if it's a camera make forum? Not every one has a big monitor folks and not everyone can afford great cameras. Should we be viewing their images any differently to those with better gear?

Again; meaning no disrespect to Margaret or her wonderfully iceland images *yes. The one posted above looks great compared to the 39c and hot 50kph winds we are expect here today. The bulk of the local wheat crop is about to be wiped out.

Cheers folks

When I try to look at the liked image it comes up "This photo is private" Am I doing something wrong or is this all some kind of a joke

Roger

PeterBirder
6th October 2015, 03:46 PM
When I try to look at the liked image it comes up "This photo is private" Am I doing something wrong or is this all some kind of a joke

Roger

No Joke.
To see the original you need to look at Margaret's thread http://e-group.uk.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39640

The reason the link in this thread does not work is that Ian has copied Margaret's picture, modified it, uploaded to his Flickr as a private image and re-posted it here. Post #19 refers to this.

Regards.*chr

Simon Bee
6th October 2015, 05:09 PM
Any unsharp images in my book aren't worth posting and quickly find their way to the Recycle bucket.
Not doing yourself any favours by showing mediocre soft images.
Perhaps I'm too much of a perfectionist

Mike

Good job Digital wasn't around when Cappa shot these then:eek:

However if it had been I cannot imagine he would have hit the 'delete' button.

It's not always about ultimate sharpness Mike, then again I'm sure you know that;)

Kind regards, Simon

https://www.google.com/search?q=omaha+beach+robert+capa&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CB8QsARqFQoTCKWTt7SprsgCFYI_FAodOwgCPA&biw=1278&bih=684

Ralph Harwood
6th October 2015, 05:36 PM
Granted, portraits benefit from a touch of softness but the eyes need to be sharp



Hi there mstphoto!

I would debate that comment - for me some of the most iconic portraits were of the 30's and 40's movie stars - shot through nylon stockings to soften the whole image. The eyes should be the point of focus, but they do not have to be as sharp as they can be - sometimes less is more.

I don't view "sharpness" as critical at all. Having all the elements of the photo that I want to show clearly in focus is important to me, and I agree if I haven't got that then they often go straight in the bin - but maybe I am wrong to do that. As Simon pointed out in his link to Cappa not all of his were sharp, but the imagery they have captured is worth more than all the sharpness in the world!

On another topic, I introduced camera resolution purely to show that there is a demand for higher resolution images as people enjoy looking at the smallest details in landscapes - my E-1 has only 5MP but uses all of them and gives beautifully sharp images when used correctly. However, when shooting landscapes with it I am occasionally disappointed when I zoom in to look at a detail I missed when taking the photo, only to start seeing individual pixels.

Cheers,

Ralph.

Ralph Harwood
6th October 2015, 05:42 PM
That would be a fantastic solution but is probably unlikely. An alternative low tech solution would be to post two different file sizes for each image, one at around 800 pixels wide and another at, say, 2000 pixels. That way more people would have an optimum image to view relative to the size of screen they are using. :)

Hi there John!

I quite often use my android phone or tablet the view the forum, not using the App but using the web browser supplied. This automatically scales the width of the page to suit the resolution of the screen (1280x800), so even MargaretR's beautiful panaromas are shown in full. The down side to this is that the text becomes so small it is unreadable - perhaps if people are showing their images on a large scale they could use a much larger font to match so that we can read the text and look at the image at the same time.

Cheers,

Ralph.

OlyPaul
6th October 2015, 06:46 PM
If your using windows press the CTRL button and scroll the image to fit takes a split second.;)

RogerMac
6th October 2015, 06:49 PM
No Joke.

The reason the link in this thread does not work is that Ian has copied Margaret's picture, modified it, uploaded to his Flickr as a private image and re-posted it here. Post #19 refers to this.

Regards.*chr
So I was right it is a joke....................but not a very good one

Roger

Zuiko
6th October 2015, 11:21 PM
If your using windows press the CTRL button and scroll the image to fit takes a split second.;)

I never knew that! *chr

IanB
7th October 2015, 12:06 AM
Slightly off-topic, but is Margaret aware/happy that you have uploaded her image to your personal Flickr account, IanB?
very good point Iain; thank you.

That is EXACTLY why I have been asking for the forum to consider allowing the most common jpg files to be inserted so I could then have up loaded the photo straight from the privacy of my computer. The file is in what I hope is a hidden and unsearchable state in flickr. If anyone can see it let me know and natural if asked by Margaret or the mods I will remove the photo; which is well identify with her signature.

Mods; if there are dramas please remove to photo *yes.

IanB
7th October 2015, 12:27 AM
When I try to look at the liked image it comes up "This photo is private" Am I doing something wrong or is this all some kind of a joke

Roger

hopefully answered in my last post Roger

IanB
7th October 2015, 12:29 AM
If your using windows press the CTRL button and scroll the image to fit takes a split second.;)yeah but; I'm lazy *chr

IanB
7th October 2015, 12:34 AM
No Joke.
To see the original you need to look at Margaret's thread http://e-group.uk.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39640

The reason the link in this thread does not work is that Ian has copied Margaret's picture, modified it, uploaded to his Flickr as a private image and re-posted it here. Post #19 refers to this.

Regards.*chr
Just to be clear, the only modifying was to export from LR using my standard 1000px preset for panoramas at a max of 190kb

Zuiko
7th October 2015, 01:51 AM
very good point Iain; thank you.

That is EXACTLY why I have been asking for the forum to consider allowing the most common jpg files to be inserted so I could then have up loaded the photo straight from the privacy of my computer. The file is in what I hope is a hidden and unsearchable state in flickr. If anyone can see it let me know and natural if asked by Margaret or the mods I will remove the photo; which is well identify with her signature.

Mods; if there are dramas please remove to photo *yes.

Yes, but should you be storing someone else's pictures in the privacy of your computer and uploading them from your computer to the Internet without that person's permission? There is a sort of understanding that we edit and repost pictures posted in Looking for Improvement, to demonstrate a suggested improvement, but that is as far as we should go.

I certainly wouldn't advocate what you appear to suggest in your "Sun in the Photo" thread, lifting pictures from other forums such as Photo Cascadia to post here as examples of points you wish to make. Not unless you contact the author personally for his/her express permission before posting. That is a good reason for not providing the facility you suggest on this site.

IanB
7th October 2015, 02:17 AM
^^ my understanding was we could use photos from the WWW as long as credits/bylines/backlinks where posted also.

As I said John; remove the image [or images] if there is a drama; in fact I wouldn't really care if this thread was closed and the photo removed. If have learnt a lot from this thread ;)

Phill D
7th October 2015, 05:37 AM
I'm afraid this thread has confused my little brain. I only ever post jpg files on this site so how is it not allowed? They also have to be below 512kb so how are people posting larger files?

Zuiko
7th October 2015, 08:26 AM
^^ my understanding was we could use photos from the WWW as long as credits/bylines/backlinks where posted also.

As I said John; remove the image [or images] if there is a drama; in fact I wouldn't really care if this thread was closed and the photo removed. If have learnt a lot from this thread ;)

You can link to other websites; that way the site in question gets the benefit of extra traffic and potentially (if they are commercial) additional advertisement revenue. Also, the picture is seen within the context in which it was originally posted and the author gets full credit and appropriate links. The picture is also displayed at the resolution intended by the author; some photographers may not approve of their image being posted at a lower resolution or greater compression (lower quality) than they originally intended. In short, the author keeps control of their image.

As a matter of courtesy I have contacted Margaret to ask if she was comfortable with the copying of her picture and its use within this thread. Quite understandably she has replied that she is not comfortable; therefore I am removing the picture and closing the thread as you suggested, Ian.