Jump to content

Recommended Posts

A smiling face from street.

 

CL + 18-56

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by Louis
  • Like 18
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is really more a Barnack Bar post, for those who like high-end cars.  This one passed me as I was bicycling through a neighborhood where people live in tents and boxes on the sidewalks.  The Huayra Pagani Roadster.  I believe the price is ~2.4 million USD.

 

It blurred as it was driving away, but this second shot is so you can see the whole car.

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

]

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer a question, these were taken with AutoISO, CL 11-23@23,  at 1/60 sec:

 

41172312692_febc0a5b8d_o.jpgC1040193 1 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr ISO 2000

 

26456433327_c621a03083_o.jpgC1040196 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr ISO 5000

 

album from this trip at https://www.flickr.com/gp/133969392@N05/1YP2q5 

 

scott

Edited by scott kirkpatrick
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In Sydney on dinner cruise. ISO 25,000 as wanted reasoable shutter speed due to boat motion. Still usable in my view.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

May I remind members of the size limits of this forum. 1280 pixels on the longest side and max 500 kB. Sponsoring members  1000 kB.

 

THESE SIZE LIMITS ARE ALSO VALID FOR IMAGES EMBEDDED FROM OTHER SITES LIKE FLICKR !

 

Images that not comply with these rules will be deleted without notice.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect... how many viewers of this forum are really upset by slow downloads of larger images?   500KB is apretty highly reduced file, compared to what we see when creating the file.  And when the file is imported from external sites like Flickr, Leica doesn't bear the cost of the download.

 

Would you consider running a poll to see if new, larger limits are appropriate?

 

scott 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Night shot in Plovdiv, Bulgaria.

Leica CL+ Summicron-T 23

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

Night shot #2 in Plovdiv, Bulgaria.


Leica CL+ Summicron-T 23


Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

Night shot #3 in Plovdiv, Bulgaria.


Leica CL+ Summicron-T 23


Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 15
Link to post
Share on other sites

Misty evening on the Thames, Greenwich

CL+18mm

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect... how many viewers of this forum are really upset by slow downloads of larger images?   500KB is apretty highly reduced file, compared to what we see when creating the file.  And when the file is imported from external sites like Flickr, Leica doesn't bear the cost of the download.

 

Would you consider running a poll to see if new, larger limits are appropriate?

 

scott 

This is a privately owned forum and the owner sets the house rules.  Feel free to discuss them with Andreas per PM. As it is, the moderators will maintain the rules.

 

FYI, I happened to be on a wobbly Internet connection this afternoon (don't start me on the ineptness of providers  :angry: ) and this thread refused to load because of oversized files. And that in a country that has a 98% broadband, glassfibre and 4G coverage. Imagine the situation in less well provided parts of the world. It is all about accessibility on an international forum.

1280 and 1000 (500) are ample parameters for excellent internet images. Megabyte overkill adds nothing.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a privately owned forum and the owner sets the house rules.  Feel free to discuss them with Andreas per PM. As it is, the moderators will maintain the rules.

 

FYI, I happened to be on a wobbly Internet connection this afternoon (don't start me on the ineptness of providers  :angry: ) and this thread refused to load because of oversized files. And that in a country that has a 98% broadband, glassfibre and 4G coverage. Imagine the situation in less well provided parts of the world. It is all about accessibility on an international forum.

1280 and 1000 (500) are ample parameters for excellent internet images. Megabyte overkill adds nothing.

May I just add that if you use Flickr, the small image displayed in this forum is just a vignette to the larger image one can view directly in Flickr, should anyone cared to click on the vignette. That way you get the best of “both worlds”: adhere to the somewhat sensible rule, and offer full quality images to those who want to access them, without inflicting the community.

 

I was originally against this rule of posting some time ago and once I understood how easy it is to link to Flickr, rather than attaching an image directly to the post, I calmed down :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been downloading from Flickr all along, because I only want to make one final copy of each picture that I save.  But I always take the default of "BBCode" on Flickr, which is the full saved size (I use 3000x2000 as a rule).  Your browser resizes that to fit the screen size or frame width in use.  But here is the 1600x1067 size version of a recent pic from Scotland, which probably generates a download of less than 500 KB:

 

26456531167_713d133e30_h.jpgC1040268 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

 

and here is the 1024x683 version:

 

26456531167_67f89f8c4a_b.jpgC1040268 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

 

do they download quickly enough? The second one seems to have lost some detail.  The first one looks OK to me.

Edited by scott kirkpatrick
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If  you stick to the limits for the embedded image, you can link to one as large as you wish :) As long as they are not uploaded to the forum window, no problem.

 

That first one is a bit large at 1600 pixels and 836 Kb, so it is still slightly outside the limits, I fear. Get it down to 1280 and have a look at the JPG quality, please.

A touch of sharpening would probably clean up the second one.

 

I find making a special LUF version - one has to adjust the sharpening for screen and dumb down the colour space anyway- , save it to the desktop with the proper JPG compression and upload through the forum software gives by far the best results, better than relying on Flickr, browser, etc. resizing, those are are not very impressive and tend to lose detail.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...