Lastest restore
 

The radio in the mid of the picture is a Stromberg-Carlson 325J - just
finished and sings like a bird.

The radio on the right is the FADA 43z that I am waiting for an interstage
transformer for but should be up and running soon.

Brian





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Lastest restore
 

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

Lastest restore
 

Try this one - don't know why it is sooo dark the email pics I sent to
others wasn't.

Brian



"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Is there any chance you could retake that photo with about 1 stop more
exposure?







--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Lastest restore
 

William Sommerwerck wrote:

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

Exposure? Seems close enough to me.

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.

BTW, nice collection of radios!

Lastest restore
 

"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.

Lastest restore
 

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

Lastest restore - Another picture try
 

"jakdedert" wrote in message
. ..
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

I used a Kodak DX6340 and on the first picture I had emailed to some friends
and in the Outlook outbox the colours weren't dark.
I also sent a copy to my works computer and again not dark.
I see the first pic here on the newsgroup is dark. I did not retake the
picture but brightened in Kodak easy share program. Didn't even notice the
size until after I sent it. Agreed that pictures should be under 100K.

Attached is a picture of some more of my radios. I used the lowest setting
on the camera, used explorer to resize to email myself it and attach it
here.

Comments?

Brian








--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Lastest restore
 

"jakdedert" wrote in message
. ..

IME, everybody shoots at maximum res and reduces for the
intended application. For this group, 50k 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.

Shooting everything at maximum resolution would quickly fill up one's card.
It's better to find the minimum resolution and compression that produce an
excellent image in your usual print size and use that consistently. You can
then switch to higher resolution for shots you intend to enlarge more.

Image quality varies among cameras. It seems that DSLRs have better sensors
and processing. The image posted here would have been of very poor quality
had it been at 1/10 the posted resolution (250K versus 2.5M). Note the
severe compression artifacts on at least one of the radio's grilles.

Lastest restore
 

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Shooting everything at maximum resolution would quickly fill up one's card.

That was probably the case a few years ago- but today - with the price
of cards so low - there isn't near the "cost" for shooting hi-res /low
compression there used to be. Of course it makes sense to understand the
tradeoffs - and choose the right resolution / compression for both the
subject and the target media. But since I don't always know that in
advance - I tend to keep my camera at 2048 X 1536 and compression at
minimum (though I can set it to none, I can't tell the difference). At
that setting - I can get 624 pictures on a 1Gb card. Of course at 640 X
480 with max compression I can get 10406 pictures on that same card -
but what on earth would you ever take that many pictures of? With 4Gb
and larger becoming more and more common - it gets hard to justify low
res and /or high compression.

Image quality varies among cameras. It seems that DSLRs have better sensors
and processing. The image posted here would have been of very poor quality
had it been at 1/10 the posted resolution (250K versus 2.5M). Note the
severe compression artifacts on at least one of the radio's grilles.

I'm not sure there isn't something else going on with that photo... it's
pretty distressed. Some processing software (particularly some of the
"freebie" kind) - can have less than good results.

Like all such things... just my .02
--
randy guttery

A Tender Tale - a page dedicated to those Ships and Crews
so vital to the United States Silent Service:
http://tendertale.com

Lastest restore
 

"Randy or Sherry Guttery" wrote
in message . ..

That was probably the case a few years ago -- but today -- with
the price of cards so low - there isn't near the "cost" for shooting
hi-res/low compression there used to be.

Cards have gotten so cheap that one might justify simply sticking in a new
card when the old is filled up, because the cost/frame is not much different
from that of film.


Of course it makes sense to understand the tradeoffs -- and choose
the right resolution / compression for both the subject and the target
media. But since I don't always know that in advance -- I tend to keep
my camera at 2048 X 1536 and compression at minimum (though I can
set it to none, I can't tell the difference).

Hmmm... 4:3... Which camera do you have?

The lowest JPEG compression is 2.7:1. This degree of compression seems to
have few, if any, visible artifacts.