Window light

Is it me or does this look out of focus on the face ? I looked at it without glasses on and with them on
Looks soft ? , Maybe it is me .
 
F1.2 said:
Is it me or does this look out of focus on the face ? I looked at it without glasses on and with them on
Looks soft ? , Maybe it is me .
Click to expand...

I kind of see it as well, but I think it could just be image compression?

A nice shot though.
 
F1.2 said:
Is it me or does this look out of focus on the face ? I looked at it without glasses on and with them on
Looks soft ? , Maybe it is me .
Click to expand...
The Eyes are very sharp but at f1.2 everything falls off very quickly
 
gman said:
I kind of see it as well, but I think it could just be image compression?

A nice shot though.
Click to expand...
Graham. This morning I went to the beach with Fon and I shot both wide open and at f2.5 (I think). The images are uploading into Lightroom as we speak, so I will have a look and try a comparison between the two settings;)
 
ndwgolf said:
Graham. This morning I went to the beach with Fon and I shot both wide open and at f2.5 (I think). The images are uploading into Lightroom as we speak, so I will have a look and try a comparison between the two settings;)
Click to expand...

Always worth a closer look, although I suspect there isn't an issue. It's only when I zoom in via the actual browser (never a good thing lol), but that's going to happen with any jpg image. Would it be possible to link to the full size image?
 
Last edited:
Sangoma said:
I quite like the softer look.
Click to expand...
Me too Steve, I remember posting a few high contrast pictures of my GF and I got many folks saying that I shouldn't try to make the images contrasty as it just doesn't make the model look pretty...........I tend to agree so I have stuck to shooting wide open at f1.2............Just love this lens
 
ndwgolf said:
How do I do that.......
Click to expand...

Popping the image on Flickr which has a free option and linking to it on here would allow a higher resolution version.

If you don't have or want a Flickr account then this site is free and you can specify a time limit as well if you don't want it up for too long: https://imgbb.com

I had a quick peek at your website and plenty on there are sharp when you start zooming in, but that's zooming in on a high resolution photo to 100%, whereas on here the smaller size is already 100% if you know what I mean, so zooming in on here is going to pixelate.
 
Last edited:
gman said:
Popping the image on Flickr which has a free option and linking to it on here would allow a higher resolution version.

If you don't have or want a Flickr account then this site is free and you can specify a time limit as well if you don't want it up for too long: https://imgbb.com

I had a quick peek at your website and plenty on there are sharp when you start zooming in, but that's zooming in on a high resolution photo to 100%, whereas on here the smaller size is already 100% if you know what I mean, so zooming in on here is going to pixelate.
Click to expand...
Try this mate........... just a minute it's too big
 
Last edited:
The gigantic full resolution version is absolutely perfect and razor sharp on the eyes. (y)

50% zoom here. Wonderfully sharp, so I'm thinking that something must be happening with the resizing or uploading.

1688466573871.png
 
Last edited:
ndwgolf said:
That link is working now Graham
Click to expand...
That helps but I do not like portraits with such narrow focus and not how I see things. I realise that some like that artificial effect but not me. When I bought my current camera with two Zoom lenses, I also bought a 35mm f1.8 because it was relatively cheap. However, I have had this lens for over 18 months now and never found a reason to use it.

Dave
 
Now seeing this at 100% it is very sharp and very BIG ;)
 
The pixel dimensions of the original did take me by surprise, I wasn't expecting that! lol

I was just wondering, how are you resizing the image?

If it helps, I had a quick play in PS and if I resize using Auto (which seems to give the same results as Bicubic Sharper), then the reduced 683x1024 image looks very sharp. But if I select Bicubic (smooth gradients) the reduced image seems to lose just a touch of sharpness and looks similar to the one you posted originally.


1688477759985.png
 
gman said:
so I'm thinking that something must be happening with the resizing or uploading.
Click to expand...
Even when I resize to the required 1024 long edge images still seem to be compressed/degraded when posted here... I have been doing secondary edits with significant additional sharpening to counter that.
 
sk66 said:
Even when I resize to the required 1024 long edge images still seem to be compressed/degraded when posted here... I have been doing secondary edits with significant additional sharpening to counter that.
Click to expand...

Could it be a forum thing? @Cobra
 
gman said:
Could it be a forum thing? @Cobra
Click to expand...
This has been discussed many times since Jesus was lad, it doesn't affect all images...
recent comments from the staff area.

I've seen that too and it also seems to affect some images more than others. I have looked into it in the past and didn't really find any obvious cause, other than the Xenforo software itself and there is not a lot we can do about that. Xenforo caches all images and probably applies some compression and I guess isn't using the best compression algorithms.
Click to expand...

As we both know, this comes up from time, and times way before "our" time.
I know Marcel looked into it, in is time, and found nothing either.

I do agree, It does seem to affect some images more than others, mine included.
I did run a comparison test, Flickr, attachments & TP gallery.
Attachments, seemed to be affected more than the other 2.
in fact in the random test images I used, the TP gallery did seem to have the edge.
Click to expand...

I know T'other Chris has been investigating, as to exactly how & what Xen does to images, but as yet not found a definitive answer.
 
Last edited:
Cobra said:
This has been discussed many times since Jesus was lad, it doesn't affect all images...
recent comments from the staff area.





I know T'other Chris has been investigating, as to exactly how & what Xen does to images, but as yet not found a definitive answer.
Click to expand...

Ah sorry, I've never had a problem myself so never had the need to look for anything on it!
 
gman said:
Ah sorry, I've never had a problem myself so never had the need to look for anything on it!
Click to expand...
No worries Graham.
I was just posting where we are so far with this.
And those quotes are from the staff area, so you wouldn't have seen them anyway.
 
Does Marcel Know ? ;) :marcel:
 
F1.2 said:
Does Marcel Know ? ;) :marcel:
Click to expand...
This question has been raised for years, so Marcel would have been in charge when this was raised a few times previously.
In answer to your question, he still retains all his accesses but he's not clocked on for over 6 months.
 
gman said:
The pixel dimensions of the original did take me by surprise, I wasn't expecting that! lol

I was just wondering, how are you resizing the image?

If it helps, I had a quick play in PS and if I resize using Auto (which seems to give the same results as Bicubic Sharper), then the reduced 683x1024 image looks very sharp. But if I select Bicubic (smooth gradients) the reduced image seems to lose just a touch of sharpness and looks similar to the one you posted originally.


View attachment 394383
Click to expand...
I use PS “save a copy to the web” JPG 100% highest quality with longest side 1400 x xxxx
 
ndwgolf said:
I use PS “save a copy to the web” JPG 100% highest quality with longest side 1400 x xxxx
Click to expand...
The forum max size is 1024px on the longest side.
The forum reduces anything larger.
It's now 1024 x 683px and 68kb.
 
I would usually resize to anywhere between 1200 and 1600 on the long side, but good to know it's 1024 as that will give me more on the quality slider!

I thought it was 500KB, I'm sure that's what the pop up message would say if you are over it?
 
ndwgolf said:
Okay thanks for that
Click to expand...
Can I suggest that you make a comparison?
If you are attaching images try processing the same around 800px or so, and keep it below 500kb or it won't upload,
and see how that compares.

gman said:
I thought it was 500KB,
Click to expand...
As above, it 1024px on the longest side and a max of 500kb or it won't up load, when attaching images.
from the likes of flickr its still 1024px but it can be over 500kb.

From the help pages

www.talkphotography.co.uk

Uploading images

Adding images to your post
www.talkphotography.co.uk www.talkphotography.co.uk
 
Is the 68KB what the forum reduces it to from a max of 500KB upload?
 
gman said:
Is the 68KB what the forum reduces it to from a max of 500KB upload?
Click to expand...
It was just the way the reduction came out, but then again, I've no idea what it was (kb wise) posted at originally, just what it ended up as.
 
ndwgolf said:
This is how I save from PS for this forum plus Facebook
Click to expand...
Again, you are trying to post images that are too big, which is probably responsible for the compression, when they get reduced.

Again, I suggest that you try a test image at around 800px
and see if that makes any difference.
 
Cobra said:
Again, you are trying to post images that are too big, which is probably responsible for the compression, when they get reduced.

Again, I suggest that you try a test image at around 800px
and see if that makes any difference.
Click to expand...
800 on the long side?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top