Its lonely in here

[mike c]

I must be off the main road cuz there ant no traffic hear. I hope who is ever here don't mind me puten up some pic's to kind of cheer up the place.I don't know the rules so I did,well talk to you all later.

mike c.

 

[hawkwind]

I'm assuming that most folks are out using their Hasselblads. I wish I was able to do it more. My day job takes up too many of my nights.

--Gary

Dead Link Removed

http://www.flickr.com/photos/foolscape_imagery/

 

[Bertil]

Mike, hope you don't mind also adding some pictures just to add to the traffic when all the others being out using their HB''s! Read your comments on Keeds picture about resolution on these uploads. I'm not very good at this and have been disappointed earlier with some uploads, but this time I think I'm more satisfied with the resolution. I did it like this: scanning the picture (neg) at 300 dpi output normal size and good sharpness, then just resize it to 600x600 pixel and saving in jpg mode rouhgly at 92.2 KB, as prescribed for the Albums (everything done in Photoshop CS). Guess it could be done in several ways.
Best wishes
//Bertil

 

[mike c]

Ahh yes I was hoping some one would give me a clue about down loading photo's, thanks Bertil I'll check what you have suggested . Your photographs are great, I've allso photographed the rock in Mirror lake,when I work out the up load stuff I'll upload it. Thanks you guys.

mike c.

 

[Bertil]

Mike, thank you for your comment on my pictures, hope you succeed with uploading yours. However, I don't really know how this works! Let me explain: I'm quite satisfied with the upload of these HB pictures, BUT the same procedure as I suggested didn't work when uploading pictures on the Sinar and Graphics groups from 4x5 negatives. I resized these images too in the same way, trying both the total size 600x600 = 360000 pixel, and with no side greater than 600 pixel, having a resolution of 300 dpi and a jpg quality to make the file close to the 92.2 KB (though my HB pictures had a starting size of more than 150 KB!). BUT when uploading these pictures they were resized by the APUG site to a larger size in cm but a resolution only of 72 dpi, result: the sharpness totally gone! Quite frustrating to have a nice sharp picture and showing it as if it were made through a too large pinhole! So I'm quite frustrated and confused about how to do it. Would be nice to know why it works sometimes but not always! Looking forward to your pictures from Mirror Lake; mine is from my one and only visit to Yosemite in 1989 (20 years ago, my God!) - the stone still around?
//Bertil

 

[mike c]

Hi Bertil, I'm going to put photo shop or similar program in my computer and get some help from my daughter (I'm a little weak on computer stuff) have been very busy lately and have not had time to try another upload yet. And the rock picture I took was in 1987 I think so we know its been there at least two years,haven't been back there since, it is a nice place.

Mike

 

[Bertil]

Hi Mike! OK, just took it for granted that you more recently visited Yosemite, assuming it’s quite close to your location. About scanning: I just tried to find some threads on APUG forums about scanning and found some relevant information. In one thread David A. Goldfarb gives the following scanning advice to a guy asking for quality: “Try scanning the print at, say, 300 dpi as you're doing, but then resize to the actual pixel size (850x750 pixels max for the APUG galleries) using whatever image processing software you have, so the gallery software won't resize it for you. Save as a JPG at the highest quality option you have available. You may need to resharpen slightly after resizing and converting to JPG”. (Pixel max for APUG differ for Albums (600x600) and Galleries, my comment)

Roughly the procedure I suggested, but with the exception of two perhaps important things:
(i) save in JPG at HIGHEST quality and
(ii) resharp AFTER resizing
Both these things are also suggested by other participants in the same thread.
Probably worth trying. Good luck!
Looking forward to your pictures. //Bertil

 

[mike c]

Thanks Bertil, I've checked a few threads over at hybird photo and think I have to install some kind of foto software ,also my flatbed scanner is one of those all in one affairs that does not do a very good job. I hate to up load any more fuzzy photos until this is corrected. Kind of frustrating as I have alot of photographs I'd like to share. I'l check out the thread you mentioned in Apug ,thanks again.
Mike

 

[Bertil]

Mike, my conclusion, at the moment, about preserving, to some extent at least, the quality of the original when uploading pictures is this: if you save your picture in JPG quality such that the file you get is much greater than what APUG requires, your picture will be changed by the site and you will lose definition, as far as I can see; try being close to the prescribed parameters. Resharping, after resizing and jpg saving, must be done Very carefully (at least using unsharp mask, as far as I can see), otherwise the picture will look quite ugly!
I share your frustration about uploading fuzzy photos, particularly when you start with a nice sharp picture you want to share with others; was very surprised that my uploaded pictures to this group looked as sharp as I could hope for (after all if fuzzy pictures is what one whats to make, than Hasselblad seems to be the wrong choice of equipment!), haven't been that lucky with other pictures (but I cant really understand why, perhaps the square pictures using all allowed pixels make a difference compared).
If you discover some threads which points to improving the suggested method, please let us know.
//Bertil

 

[mike c]

I'm wonder if there is a difference between scanning negs as to scanning prints? Bertil there are some posts in hybredphoto con that have website connections for learning how to scan and are quite descriptive and involved,I will track them down and try to post them for you.

Mike

 

[Q.G.]

Scanning negatives produces better results. The printing process adds a slight diffusing.

 

[mike c]

Thanks OG, that would make sense avoiding one generation of duplication, until I can commandeer or buy a better scanner PS is going to be my best help.

mike c.

 

[mike c]

Bertil, this is the web site mentioned in a post from hybride photo www.scantips.com .

mike c.

 

[Bertil]

Mike, thanks for the scantips site. Looks very good, but a lot to read!; see what I can learn when I get more time.
/Bertil

 

[Marek Warunkiewicz]

I'll be posting a bunch of images soon. Love my Hassie. Started using it again after a 35 year break. Addicted to it yet again. Any folks here in Toronto belong to this group?

 

[cjbecker]

I am just getting mine back for dave easterwood soon. I cant wait.

 

[pentaxpete]

You're RIGHT that it's LONELY -- I have supported this Group since I joined but NEVER get any comments on my photos -- I seem to be the only one uploading photos and I don't use my 'blad all that much !

 

[Q.G.]

Perhaps not lonely, but quiet?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I just realized that if I subscribe to this forum, I will see new postings. I hope that helps.

Steve