Re: Lead Painters' League Photography

[Blackwolf]

I believe I am one of the bad photo culprits,just did some research and you know what? Better photo,too late for the 3rd round though,already sent it in last night......
  What I did learn is all about AV,the higher the number,more will be in focus.Oh yes and not too high ISO one's pics go all grainy if it's set too high (as mine are).

  Ah well live and learn.

  Cheers

 Blackwolf

[Hammers]

I believe I am one of the bad photo culprits,just did some research and you know what? Better photo,too late for the 3rd round though,already sent it in last night......
  What I did learn is all about AV,the higher the number,more will be in focus.Oh yes and not too high ISO one's pics go all grainy if it's set too high (as mine are).

  Ah well live and learn.

  Cheers

 Blackwolf

That's the beauty of LPL, I think! While it is first and foremost a Good Show, it also seems to have this effect: it encourages individuals to get ahead but makes raises the standards of the collective.

[NurgleHH]

The new Photoshop Elements 9 (Mac and Win) is really good. A lot of good function, a lot of online- tutorials and a brilliant management for photocollections. And you can upload to several providers like flickr.
There are some good and free tutorials about macro-photography or objekc-photography in the net, so try this source.

I think it is important to understand the photography-rules about aperture and time, that is enough...

[Captain Blood]

And compared to Capt Blood or Frank I'm crap at it

You jest, comrade. You are past master of the crisp pic.

one thing I have problems with is maintaining image quality when reducing pictures to the dimensions required for the contest, Any suggestions?

No, because I've never quite got my head around juggling the three dimensions of physical image size, pixel count and resolution.

Theoretically, if you set the pixels at 800 wide, you can reduce the resolution and / or physical image width as much as you like, and as long as you keep the 800 pixel image in view at 100% (of 800 pixels) there should be no apparent deterioration in image quality compared to a much higher resolution / larger sized version of the selfsame image.

In which case - is it just my imagination that when I reduce the pixel count and the image size, but hold onto a higher resolution (which results in a larger file size of course) the picture looks just that little bit sharper...? 

I'm not enough of a scientist to understand the workings behind this, so if anyone can explain - as simply as possible - the principles and best way of resizing images whilst maintaining best quality, I'd certainly find that helpful, and I'm sure a lot of others would as well 

[Westfalia Chris]

In theory, resolution only affects the picture if you choose to print it. For example, 300dpi refers to "300 dots per inch", which means that a square inch printed in that resolution is made up of 300x300=90.000 pixels.

That gives you a lot more pixels, and therefore potential variation of tone, than, for example, a resolution of 96dpi (which is a common screen resolution, and results in 96x96=9216 pixels to the square inch).

So, if you have a pic 800 pixels wide and set the resolution to 300dpi, it means a "physical" copy will be 2 2/3 inches wide if printed from the set resolution. If you were to print it at 200% (i.e. 5 1/3 inches), the pixels are blown up to double size, and the image becomes more grainy (and yes, the image is actually four times the size, as the 200% refer to width and height, not image area).

As for file size (in kb), this is dependent on the number of pixels and the number of colours. For photos, especially in something like this contest context, you usually want to go for high colour depth (16.7 million being a current standard, IIRC - I can remember when 256 colours were quite the rage). The basic assumption is, the more pixels in an image, and the higher the colour depth, the greater the file size. For example, an 800x800 pic contains 640.000 individual pixels. Note that if you keep a set image size (AxB pixels), changing the (printer) resolution, i.e. "x dpi" will only thange the way it is printed, not how it is displayed on screen.

Next, you have the format in which you save. All the above and below refers to the bitmap principle, which assigns each pixel a definition in the file code.

The original "bmp" format does not compress at all, and is therefore the largest of the basic file types - however, there is no loss in picture quality as all pixels are saved "as is".

JPG, on the other hand, uses a complex algorithm to compress the file size, and does so by not including all pixels in 8x8 sections, but approximates them, therefore reducing the number of different types of and therefore the file size. The problem with that is that if you set the compression too high, this will lead to "blocky chops" referred to as "compression artifacts".

The basic point is that you have a tradeoff between file size and quality. I found that with most graphic programmes I use (e.g. Irfanview, Photoshop, Photopaint X), it is sufficient to go for about 85-90% quality (Irfanview) or the "High" setting in Photoshop (9-11) to produce an image that has an acceptable file size (between 100 and 250kb) and still retains good quality as not too many artefacts occur. Other factors such as your screen resolution may come into play as well, but are of less importance and mainly affect your perception of the image.

[oxiana]

Some really useful points here. I'm always a bit frustrated with how photos of my minis turn out (of course, in reality they're all Golden Demon winners!), so clearly there are a few things I need to play with to improve my outcomes. Lots of food for thought here!

[Calimero]

  I don’t understand half of the things you guys are talking about (and I’m being generous saying "half")… I’ll try to find tips on the net later (in French if available). Unfortunately, rounds 3 and 4 are already submitted

[Heldrak]

I believe I am one of the bad photo culprits,just did some research and you know what? Better photo,too late for the 3rd round though,already sent it in last night......
  What I did learn is all about AV,the higher the number,more will be in focus.Oh yes and not too high ISO one's pics go all grainy if it's set too high (as mine are).

  Ah well live and learn.

  Cheers

 Blackwolf

I'm sure the Captain will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that you can submit revised photographs of your contest entry up until the deadline for that entry (thus you can still send in better photographs of a round 3 entry).

[Ray Rivers]

I put my camera on "auto" and hope for the best... 

[Hammers]

In theory, resolution only affects the picture if you choose to print it. For example, 300dpi refers to "300 dots per inch", which means that a square inch printed in that resolution is made up of 300x300=90.000 pixels.

That gives you a lot more pixels, and therefore potential variation of tone, than, for example, a resolution of 96dpi (which is a common screen resolution, and results in 96x96=9216 pixels to the square inch).

So, if you have a pic 800 pixels wide and set the resolution to 300dpi, it means a "physical" copy will be 2 2/3 inches wide if printed from the set resolution. If you were to print it at 200% (i.e. 5 1/3 inches), the pixels are blown up to double size, and the image becomes more grainy (and yes, the image is actually four times the size, as the 200% refer to width and height, not image area).

As for file size (in kb), this is dependent on the number of pixels and the number of colours. For photos, especially in something like this contest context, you usually want to go for high colour depth (16.7 million being a current standard, IIRC - I can remember when 256 colours were quite the rage). The basic assumption is, the more pixels in an image, and the higher the colour depth, the greater the file size. For example, an 800x800 pic contains 640.000 individual pixels. Note that if you keep a set image size (AxB pixels), changing the (printer) resolution, i.e. "x dpi" will only thange the way it is printed, not how it is displayed on screen.

Next, you have the format in which you save. All the above and below refers to the bitmap principle, which assigns each pixel a definition in the file code.

The original "bmp" format does not compress at all, and is therefore the largest of the basic file types - however, there is no loss in picture quality as all pixels are saved "as is".

JPG, on the other hand, uses a complex algorithm to compress the file size, and does so by not including all pixels in 8x8 sections, but approximates them, therefore reducing the number of different types of and therefore the file size. The problem with that is that if you set the compression too high, this will lead to "blocky chops" referred to as "compression artifacts".

The basic point is that you have a tradeoff between file size and quality. I found that with most graphic programmes I use (e.g. Irfanview, Photoshop, Photopaint X), it is sufficient to go for about 85-90% quality (Irfanview) or the "High" setting in Photoshop (9-11) to produce an image that has an acceptable file size (between 100 and 250kb) and still retains good quality as not too many artefacts occur. Other factors such as your screen resolution may come into play as well, but are of less importance and mainly affect your perception of the image.

This is good, solid in sight...

[Andy0476]

I put my camera on "auto" and hope for the best... 

Also my gameplan ...  
I got paintshop photo pro version 3 or something like that, but I don't understand half of it! I'm keeping it simple and will just be submitting my usual haf-bothered pictures  

[Captain Blood]

I put my camera on "auto" and hope for the best... 

 

I'm sure the Captain will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that you can submit revised photographs of your contest entry up until the deadline for that entry (thus you can still send in better photographs of a round 3 entry).

Yes, that's quite right  

Chris, thanks for the explanation. I didn't really understand on a first reading, but I shall sit down and try to work it through logically!
 

[Westfalia Chris]

Chris, thanks for the explanation. I didn't really understand on a first reading, but I shall sit down and try to work it through logically!
 

Yes, it is not terribly clear, I'll admit. Maybe I'll just sum up the major points:

A digital image has two "sizes", screen size (given in pixel width times pixel height) and "print size". The print size is directly related to the screen size, in that the print dimensions are simply the screen dimensions multiplied by the resolution.

If you modify either size (as you can do in Photoshop, for example - it gives you two sets of dimensions, both the print size and the screen size), the other will be modified accordingly as long as you keep the same resolution.

Since we want pics for screen presentation (online), you want to modify the screen size (given in pixels x pixels) so that the maximum width and height are 800 pixels.

You actually do not need to bother with the resolution, but if you want to allow people to print the images in a usable size, you may want to set the resolution to 100dpi, giving you a printed image 8x8 inches, but with less quality than a 300dpi image, which, printed from the 800x800 file, would be only 2 2/3 inches square.

For saving, JPG usually works out as the best compromise. Check that your image meets the maximum pixel size (800x800), and save with a high, but not maximum quality factor (90% usually is a good compromise), and you should get a good-looking file with little artefacts and an acceptable file size.

[Captain Blood]

Since we want pics for screen presentation (online), you want to modify the screen size (given in pixels x pixels) so that the maximum width and height are 800 pixels.

You actually do not need to bother with the resolution, but if you want to allow people to print the images in a usable size, you may want to set the resolution to 100dpi, giving you a printed image 8x8 inches, but with less quality than a 300dpi image, which, printed from the 800x800 file, would be only 2 2/3 inches square.

Aha. It's starting to become clearer... So it is right to say that, purely for on screen viewing purposes, if you have reduced your image to, say, 800 x 800 pixels, then then resolution is neither here nor there - unless you wanted people to be able to print a higher quality image from your on screen image?

So viewing an 800 x 800 pixel image on screen (at 100% of its size in pixels), I shouldn't be able to discern any difference if the resolution is 300 dpi or 96 dpi. Correct?

(Sorry, Chris - I'm an artiste darling, not a physicist  )

[phreedh]

So viewing an 800 x 800 pixel image on screen (at 100% of its size in pixels), I shouldn't be able to discern any difference if the resolution is 300 dpi or 96 dpi. Correct?

Correct, the difference would be when printing. 300 dpi would yield a tiny but sharp printout and 96 dpi would yield a large but fuzzy printout.