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.

Lastest restore
 

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"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.

There's also the option (actually the necessity) of dumping the card to
disk. I try not to let too many linger there, in case something happens
to the card, or god forbid, the camera. Even at that, with a one gig
card and a 7.something megapix camera, that's a hundred or so
shots...even with the odd mpeg mixed in.

Sure beats the old days when the choice was between a 12 or 24 exposure
roll.

The cost/frame equation falls completely apart when you realize that
unlike film, you can reuse the card. Why anyone would store anything on
one for any longer than it took to get to a computer is beyond me.

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).

My experience as well; but I admit my camera's not that great.

jak

Lastest restore
 

"jakdedert" wrote in message
. ..

The cost/frame equation falls completely apart when you realize that
unlike film, you can reuse the card. Why anyone would store anything
on one for any longer than it took to get to a computer is beyond me.

I periodically dump my cards to an external hard drive. However, I don't
wipe the card until it's full.

Why? Well, it doesn't hurt to have two copies of something. Also, flash
cards have a finite number of write/erase cycles. I think it's tens of
thousands of cycles, but it seems to me that the less often you write to the
card, the longer it's likely to last.

There is also the matter of having prints made at Costco. (I don't use an
inkjet printer. Costco is better and cheaper.) It's easier to pull the card
from the camera than to copy the image from the hard drive back to the card
(assuming it's a "recent" photo).

Lastest restore
 

jakdedert wrote:

There's also the option (actually the necessity) of dumping the card to
disk. I try not to let too many linger there, in case something happens
to the card, or god forbid, the camera.

Point well taken - in fact can be extended by noting it's usually easier
to change cards in modern cameras than film traditional cameras in most
cases.

Sure beats the old days when the choice was between a 12 or 24 exposure
roll.

Indeed - plus bracketing - which used to be only for those shots where
there truly were (usually) very poor or unusual conditions - now it's no
big thing to bracket a half dozen and an equal number of composures of
the same subject. On glimpsesofmeridian - I've posted a handful of the
train pictures - out of a choice of nearly a hundred. Some of the
hand-held night shots are totally trash. but as can be seen - a couple
came out pretty decent.

best regards...
--
randy guttery

http://www.glimpsesofmeridian.com Trains, planes, steam and stuff...

Lastest restore
 

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

Indeed - plus bracketing - which used to be only for those shots
where there truly were (usually) very poor or unusual conditions -
now it's no big thing to bracket a half dozen and an equal number
of composures of the same subject.

Composures?

Given the appropriate software, bracketed shots can be combined to produce a
picture that shows detail in both the highlights and shadows, over a
ludicrously wide brightness range.

Lastest restore
 

William Sommerwerck wrote:


Composures?

duh, where DID that come from? Compositions would be better.

best regard...
--
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
 

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Randy or Sherry Guttery" wrote in message
.. .

Indeed - plus bracketing - which used to be only for those shots
where there truly were (usually) very poor or unusual conditions -
now it's no big thing to bracket a half dozen and an equal number
of composures of the same subject.

Composures?

Given the appropriate software, bracketed shots can be combined to produce a
picture that shows detail in both the highlights and shadows, over a
ludicrously wide brightness range.


Even my admittedly poor camera has a mode where it will shoot bracketed
exposures, three of them for each shutter press, at a selected bracket
of +/- .5, 1.0 or 1.5....automatically. I've seen some instruction on
how to combine the shots in layers to bring out detail in shadowed
areas, without washing out the same in brighter areas.

The effect is almost surreal...like a video game scene.

My thought, although I haven't yet tried it yet, is that much could be
done by saving the same exposure several times with various settings of
gamma and/or brightness, then layering back the copies to the original.

The only software I have to do that is Corel Photopaint, although I just
downloaded a copy of GIMP...freeware, but highly recommended.

jak

jak

Lastest restore
 

jakdedert wrote:


Even my admittedly poor camera has a mode where it will shoot bracketed
exposures, three of them for each shutter press, at a selected bracket
of +/- .5, 1.0 or 1.5....automatically.

That's the "usual" as trying to get many more without you (or the scene)
moving gets problematical.

I've seen some instruction on
how to combine the shots in layers to bring out detail in shadowed
areas, without washing out the same in brighter areas.

Photoshop has provisions to not only work in areas - but to handle
shadow, midtone and highlight areas separately; lightening / darkening /
increasing and decreasing saturation - and you can select to apply
either to the entire image or specific areas. Add that to the ability to
handle layers each with such capability - and you can do some pretty
neat stuff. Fortunately - Minolta (and the successor Sony) has a
multizone exposure system that usually does a pretty good job of
"getting the details". Of course like all such "stuff" you can tell it
to mind it's own business and either use simple or totally manual
controls as you wish. Sometimes in very low light - it's better to shut
the autofocus off and do it by hand - so you get the exact subject in
focus - rather than the camera guessing at what is supposed to be in
focus. In good light - it's not a problem - as the lens is (usually)
stopped down enough to get everything "good enough" - but when the lens
is wide open - it's time to give the automatics "the boot".

The effect is almost surreal...like a video game scene.

Yeah - that's something I have to watch - sometimes when "tweaking" - I
can get a bit overboard - and need to quit "pushing" things before they
become "unreal"...

My thought, although I haven't yet tried it yet, is that much could be
done by saving the same exposure several times with various settings of
gamma and/or brightness, then layering back the copies to the original.

You could - but sometimes it's better to do a transformation of the
original by the values (usually of some specific area) of the brackets
(or tweaked copies). Photoshop let's you have best of both worlds - as
you can apply a layers as a transitional mask (add, subtract - or even
multiply or divide depending on effect desired). Then if you screw it up
- you delete the layer - and the original is untouched.


The only software I have to do that is Corel Photopaint, although I just
downloaded a copy of GIMP...freeware, but highly recommended.

Fortunately - since much of my work requires Photoshop and several of
it's siblings - I "get" to use Created Suite which has all the "toys". I
use mostly Photoshop and GoLive (web work) though I find myself using
Illustrator more and more lately as I work in more technical "stuff".
I also have the "non-suite" package Adobe Audition - which used to be
"Cool Edit" for working with audio like Photoshop does graphics.

best regards...
--
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
...

Photoshop has provisions to not only work in areas - but to handle
shadow, midtone and highlight areas separately; lightening / darkening /
increasing and decreasing saturation - and you can select to apply
either to the entire image or specific areas. Add that to the ability to
handle layers each with such capability - and you can do some pretty
neat stuff.

Note that, for this to work optimally, the camera needs to be on a tripod,
with the focus and aperture the same for all shots.

Lastest restore
 

William Sommerwerck wrote:


Note that, for this to work optimally, the camera needs to be on a tripod,
with the focus and aperture the same for all shots.

Optimally, perhaps, but as fast as some cameras are - they can rip off
three shots fast enough to not matter. The new Sony SLR based on Minolta
technology can rip off shots at 5 FPS at it's full 12+Megapixel
resolution -- that three shots (bracketed) in .6 seconds... And with the
camera's "anti-shake" systems - the field won't move (the subject might
- but a tripod won't help in that case either).

best regards...
--
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
. ..
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Note that, for this to work optimally, the camera needs to be on a
tripod, with the focus and aperture the same for all shots.

Optimally, perhaps, but as fast as some cameras are - they can rip
off three shots fast enough to not matter. The new Sony SLR based
on Minolta technology can rip off shots at 5 FPS at it's full 12+ Mp
resolution -- that three shots (bracketed) in .6 seconds... And with the
camera's "anti-shake" systems - the field won't move (the subject might
- but a tripod won't help in that case either).

Correct. But you still want the aperture to be the same. If you're
bracketing +/- two stops (which would be normal for capturing a wide
brightness range) and the camera is set for Program, the aperture might
change.

Lastest restore - Another picture try
 

amyotte wrote:


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?

a) Thank you for the size reduction.

b) Nice collection!

c) exposure seems fine on my monitor. ;-)