Woke up to warm temps and a spot of sunshine, the sun being unexpected today since it was supposed to rain all day, packed my stuff, and dh and I headed to Chincoteague for the morning. He got to play with his scope, and I got to play with my lens. It was fabulous and rejuvenating after a week of just blah skies and cold. Once the rain clouds started moving in, we headed home. On the causeway out of town, we spotted a commotion in the sky, and guess who flew by! I yelled "Stop! Stop!", and the dh pulled right over for me. I jumped out and shot off about 25 photos, and all but 2 of them were just as good as this one. The skies weren't real pretty by this time, but the shots sure came out nice! This was my favorite because of the position of his wings. I have to say, with all the photos I've taken with my old lens, I kept saying I knew I had to be better than the photos I was getting after all the thousands and thousands of photos I've taken. This proves it. National Geographic would never accept it, but I sure do! NOW I can start to figure out what I need to do to improve. This is hand held.
I do notice that, when I post to 365, the quality is quite downgraded. The exact same jpeg file on Facebook is much clearer, much less pixelated. Seems to be that way with all my shots. Am I doing something wrong?
Great detail and movement. I like this since it gives this beauty the majestic quality he deserves. Shoot a whole roll for 1 shot, that's what my Dad used to say.
Is this the 100-400? Do you do anything about downsizing the frame and re-adjusting it for display on 365? I have found that 365 doesn't do a lot of adjustment as it downsizes for display - 1024 on the long side at the full view - and can leave an image quite flat. It's almost like the PS resampling algorithm Bicubic/Smooth Gradients, rather than Bicublic/Sharper. Image | Image Size and check the resampling choices. Other sites, Flickr for instance, do a better job of preserving sharpness at various sizes. Facebook too.
While you might be uploading a 10mp "full size" JPEG, that is NOT what you are seeing on your browser when you get round to viewing it, at least if it fits in a browser frame, Some sort of re-sampled/downsized version.
It's a pain to downsize and re-sample, and perhaps re-sharpen, especially for 365, but it is almost essential if you want to present here what you see in more sophisticated sites.
@frankhymus So, are you saying I should downsize it myself before uploading to 365, then recheck for sharpness? (I have a program that does that, can't remember the name of it right this minute...)
@frankhymus I am indeed inclined. It's a little disheartening to have a really nice (by my standards) image, and not be able to present it as such. So, to clarify in terms that my brain will comprehend, I need to resize to 1024 on the long side and resharpen as necessary before posting?
@shesnapped Something like that. I actually now do it to 2000, any added sharpening is more subtle and not too overwhelming. If you do resize to 1024, you can try re-sampling with Bicubic Sharper in PS, and see if that alone preserves the sharpening/crispness you want. It often does. If not enough, then go back, resample with Bicublic/Smooth Gradients and then sharpen that. The reason for the complication comes because if you use Bicubic Sharper and then sharpen further, you will "sharpen the sharpening" which shows up often with extra dark edges around the already (light) sharpened edges. This can be very nasty.
Sorry to suggest the complexity, but it's what you have to do here on 365 to get the best results. I have lately resized only to 2000 or so, and the edging effects can be more flexible, and 365 seems to handle the further downsizing not to bad.
of course, some people don't bother even thinking about such things, and indeed, depending on the shot it many times doesn't matter. But when ti does, I find it most apparent.
While you might be uploading a 10mp "full size" JPEG, that is NOT what you are seeing on your browser when you get round to viewing it, at least if it fits in a browser frame, Some sort of re-sampled/downsized version.
It's a pain to downsize and re-sample, and perhaps re-sharpen, especially for 365, but it is almost essential if you want to present here what you see in more sophisticated sites.
Sorry to suggest the complexity, but it's what you have to do here on 365 to get the best results. I have lately resized only to 2000 or so, and the edging effects can be more flexible, and 365 seems to handle the further downsizing not to bad.
of course, some people don't bother even thinking about such things, and indeed, depending on the shot it many times doesn't matter. But when ti does, I find it most apparent.