William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Carter-k8vt" wrote in message
t...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Is there any chance you could retake that photo with
about 1 stop more exposure?

Exposure? Seems close enough to me.

On my monitor -- which has been huey-calibrated -- it's awfully dark.


But seeing as we are starting a "wish list"... :-)
...my wish would be reducing the size of that file from ~500k down
to maybe 50k? (Anything bigger than ~50k that will be displayed on
a computer monitor is a waste). The 500k file is mildly slow loading
for DSL and an eternity for anyone on dial-up.

I was startled at the 2.5MB size of the second photo, especially as it shows
severe compression artifacts which, for a file of that size, it should not
have. (My Olympus E-500 can take 1.5MB JPEGs that produce sharp,
artifact-free 12x18 enlargements.) If you like, I'll post one.

I agree that 50K to 100K JPEG should be enough for a Web posting. The image
should be reasonably sharp, and if it shows any artifacts, they should be
limited to a bit of scan-line aliasing ("jaggies").

I would urge Brian to check his camera's settings. My guess is that it's set
for too much compression and unnecessarily high resolution. It's my current
opinion -- which might change -- that high compression degrades the image
more than low resolution. I therefore have my Olympus set for 2.7:1
compression (the lowest possible for a JPEG) and 1200x1600 resolution.


IME, everybody 'shoots' at maximum res and reduces for the intended
application. For this ng, 50 to 100k (per picture) should be
sufficient, unless there's an unusual circumstance, like someone asks
for hi-res--either to study detail, or to archive a shot of something
unusual.

jak