For critique please

[Andrew Harley]

This is my first "proper" LF image.

Previous attempts at LF have been with "Heath Robinson" arrangements - easy to excuse poor results. Now I am responsible fro the image.

So here is the first (if I can get the technology to work).



Fomapan 100, Rodinal 1:50, 8 ims at 20C. Scanned Epson V700 and dust-busted in Lightroom!

Any constructive comments please.

Thanks

Andrew

[Peter Phipp]

Looks nice , you could have maybe made the sky more dramatic with a deep yellow filter but that's personal. nice perspective. Peter

[Andrew Harley]

Hi Peter

Thanks for the comment.

I did not get my stepping rings until the day after I shot this - otherwise the sky might have had a bit more presence.

Thanks again

Andrew

[Neil Barnes]

Andrew,

Did the forum image size restriction require you to apply so much compression? It looks a nice picture, but the jpeg artifacts on the lichen on the side of the bridge and in the branches are giving an odd 'defocussed' effect.

Any chance of a pointer to the image in higher resolution/lower compression?

Thanks,

Neil

[Andrew Harley]

Neil

The problem that I have is that the site that I use for hosting limits each image to 250k.

My original scan at 1000dpi creates a 10mb file. Any guidance on how to preserve the integrity of the image while fitting it ito a small package would be welcome.

Andrew

[Joanna Carter]

Just be aware that publishing an image at high resolution is one good way to let people steal it for their own use

[Neil Barnes]

Tsk. After thirty years on the various versions of t'internet, I *still* assume people are basically civilised. You'd think I'd know better...

Neil

[Joanna Carter]

Tsk. After thirty years on the various versions of t'internet, I *still* assume people are basically civilised. You'd think I'd know better...

And, yes, for attachments we do have a size limit. However links to externally hosted images are only restricted by the hosting site. Large images can be problematic for those who do not have high speed internet connections or who want to access the forums from a mobile device, therefore we consider it courteous to limit size for those reasons. But we would still counsel only ever publishing lo-res images, because there are unscrupulous so-and-sos out there who have created businesses out of stolen hi-res images.

Like you, Neil, possibly due to my memories of more trusting times, I can be far too trusting at times

[Patrick Dixon]

One other reason for a smaller/lower res version, is that it's always nice to see the whole picture without using the scrollbars ... and I only have a 17" monitor!

[Neil Barnes]

Indeed, hence my largish but forum-friendly previews with a link to a 10MB download/100MB display.

In most cases, a smaller image at lower compression will give a subjectively sharper image on the browser. That's a problem with perceptual compression systems like JPEG. Another hint is to make sure you're compressing an 8-bit monochrome image; if your scanner or whatever has left it in colour, the JPEG codecs will waste half their bit budget compressing the U and V images.

Neil

[Joanna Carter]

Indeed, hence my largish but forum-friendly previews with a link to a 10MB download/100MB display.

I see no link

[Neil Barnes]

Under the photo in my 'for critique' thread, Joanna. But don't click it if you don't have a machine with at least half a gig of memory, preferably a lot more. On a smaller memory it will be swapping in and out of the disc...

Neil