Pictures...again!
- Thread starter Melzy
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
CHJ
Established Member
That's fine on my screen Mel, and 800X 600 gives reasonable detail for most subjects when clicked.
If you have something that needs higher resolution for fine detail then you will probably find you can go up to 1024X 768 and still be under the 256Kb limit.
If you have something that needs higher resolution for fine detail then you will probably find you can go up to 1024X 768 and still be under the 256Kb limit.
I normally use
640 x 480 pixels
0.30 MB file sizes
The forum software allows this size
so if your camera has that size in the image quality files size option there is then no need to re size each photo :wink:
640 x 480 pixels
0.30 MB file sizes
The forum software allows this size
so if your camera has that size in the image quality files size option there is then no need to re size each photo :wink:
Melzy":fnkaf5u0 said:
The size is better but they are, mostly, somewhat out of focus. Are you using a mobile phone? I bought a kodak digital for less than £40 a couple of years ago which takes much better pictures than that. If that's not an option, see if you can get more light onto the subjects, maybe take them outside?
mailee
Established Member
I like the gate Mel. How did you make the lettering? They are all good pieces of work of course.
jimi43
Established Member
You have a natural talent Mel....some nice ideas there.
The personalisation of craft items is one good way of dramatically increasing the price you can charge...particularly if it is done in a bespoke fashion....you have a good eye for doing it well.
I would try that idea for a while...great stuff.
Jim
The personalisation of craft items is one good way of dramatically increasing the price you can charge...particularly if it is done in a bespoke fashion....you have a good eye for doing it well.
I would try that idea for a while...great stuff.
Jim
Lord Kitchener":2pyxecnz said:
As it goes, it looks more to me like they were resized up from small images to big images.
Unfortunately, it doesn't much matter what size the images started out as, if any of your steps involve making them bigger, you're going to get a result like this - it's best to start with the original large version and resize down to the display size all in one go.
Lord Kitchener":2qpbt09s said:
Yes, i noticed some of them are out of focus!! grrr!! Never mind!! You can ort of see wat my work is like?! They are all from my camera! Its not a bad camera! Perhaps i need to chang a few settings on that?!
:roll:
jimi43":1e7fr4ca said:
Thank you very much Jimi!! I do worry sometimes about the things i make! But should knock that on the head because some people are going to like my work and some people are not! simple!! Thank you again!! :lol:
alex8_en":1zpzhr6p said:
Thank you Alex!! This took me a few attempts!! I left an evening course many years ago, with the intention of doing the boot in my own time!! But, i failed to do so, and picked it up many years later!! I had, of course, forgotten how to do it!! but once i began, it wasn't as difficult as i'd thought! yay!! :lol:
CHJ
Established Member
An impresive variety of work and techniques there Mel, just keep churning such out and it will all get easier each time you attempt a variation. May not always be exactly the form or finish you were aiming at but whatever the case it will be many times better than thousands of other people could have achieved.
On the picture front, as has been said, size down to your preferred size in one go from your original if at all possible for best results.
Images in JPG format are, in simplistic terms, made up of a series of dots (pixels), to make the images smaller some of the dots are removed, because the resulting image is smaller the eye does not resolve the errors caused by the missing bits.
If however you then try to make the image bigger the missing bits can't be recovered and you end up with the fuzzy stepped images that look at a quick glance to be out of focus as the software tries to fill in the missing bits.
The same degradation of the image takes place each time you edit and save a JPG image, it is always looking for the best average of information to give you the sharpest image possible, if however the bits have already been removed in a previous edit and save, it does not have them to work with, therefore the image rapidly degrades on every additional edit and save.
On the picture front, as has been said, size down to your preferred size in one go from your original if at all possible for best results.
Images in JPG format are, in simplistic terms, made up of a series of dots (pixels), to make the images smaller some of the dots are removed, because the resulting image is smaller the eye does not resolve the errors caused by the missing bits.
If however you then try to make the image bigger the missing bits can't be recovered and you end up with the fuzzy stepped images that look at a quick glance to be out of focus as the software tries to fill in the missing bits.
The same degradation of the image takes place each time you edit and save a JPG image, it is always looking for the best average of information to give you the sharpest image possible, if however the bits have already been removed in a previous edit and save, it does not have them to work with, therefore the image rapidly degrades on every additional edit and save.
Thank you for that information!! That has actually explained things alot better to me!! I understand it now!! Very clear explanation! Thanks!!
And a massive thank you for what you said about my work!! I really do appreciate any comment!! It helps me alot in many ways!!!
And a massive thank you for what you said about my work!! I really do appreciate any comment!! It helps me alot in many ways!!!
