jackal Posted September 10, 2009 Share #121 Posted September 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) why do people compress their jpegs so much ? If you compress your jpegs, seriously, don't bother posting it ... here or anywhere on the net for that matter. What's the point ? They just look dreadful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 Hi jackal, Take a look here I have M9. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
andybarton Posted September 10, 2009 Share #122 Posted September 10, 2009 I don't know. That one above your post is 86kb. Not exactly showing off a full frame sensor to it's best, given the forum parameters, is it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toke Posted September 10, 2009 Author Share #123 Posted September 10, 2009 easy now, the file I uploaded is 1,7Mb, so maybe the forum is at blame............. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 11, 2009 Share #124 Posted September 11, 2009 If you exceed the permitted image size of 244k the forum software will compress it - once upon a time the image would have been rejected, which personally I think was a better idea. You can identify the images that have been compressed as they appear under the heading of 'attached images' rather than in the body of the text. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toke Posted September 11, 2009 Author Share #125 Posted September 11, 2009 bad software...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 11, 2009 Share #126 Posted September 11, 2009 Bad user processing. The limit on file size is there for a reason. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toke Posted September 11, 2009 Author Share #127 Posted September 11, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) oh, so You are the police? Why not write software, that works for mankind, instead of making man working for software???? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 11, 2009 Share #128 Posted September 11, 2009 No, I'm not the police. I'm also not the person who pays for the hosting of the forum, I suspect you are neither. The size rules are there to make sure Andreas - who does pay for the hosting - can keep his costs reasonable. Andreas pays for this free forum himself, and his only income from it is from subscriptions/donations and the advertisements. The higher the bandwidth, the greater the costs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toke Posted September 11, 2009 Author Share #129 Posted September 11, 2009 but why not write software, that automatically recognize the file size, and, if needed, rezise the uploaded photos to the max allowed filesize, so the pictures will appear as large as possible, so that viewers can see the fine details? That way we could all benefit from the software, instead of being told that the time we spend uploading photos to friends, is a waste of time...... I'm just trying to be positive and constructive, instead of negative and bashing...... I mean, this IS about Leica gear and photos right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 11, 2009 Share #130 Posted September 11, 2009 Good idea, but if the forum software doesn't support that feature there's not a lot that can be done - and wouldn't it be better in any case if the person uploaded the photograph did the resizing rather than rely on some potentially dodgy automated function? Personally I'd prefer any oversized images to be rejected, then it's the photographer's responsibility to get it right in the first place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toke Posted September 11, 2009 Author Share #131 Posted September 11, 2009 i have fallen in love with the 50mm again....with the M9 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/95931-i-have-m9/?do=findComment&comment=1028587'>More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted September 11, 2009 Share #132 Posted September 11, 2009 Toke, you'd probably do a lot better to upload files to flickr.com are another site and then link to that picture so that it shows up here. I see that the latest JPG that you've uploaded is now 233KB, but for some reason it still doesn't look particularly sharp of clear and therefore does not show off the M9 capabilities. —Mitch/Potomac, MD Bangkok Hysteria©: Book Project Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toke Posted September 11, 2009 Author Share #133 Posted September 11, 2009 iso 160 no, not dust... :-) 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/95931-i-have-m9/?do=findComment&comment=1028598'>More sharing options...
toke Posted September 11, 2009 Author Share #134 Posted September 11, 2009 rock 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/95931-i-have-m9/?do=findComment&comment=1028602'>More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted September 11, 2009 Share #135 Posted September 11, 2009 Toke, you're back to 94KB in the picture above, which again is not clear or sharp. I must say that the bulk of the JPG shown in this thread would not make me run out and upgrade from the M8.2 to the M9, so I don't know what you see in all this. Perhaps someone else might know what the problem is. Have you seen my post #133? —Mitch/Potomac, MD Scratching the Surface© Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
henning Posted September 11, 2009 Share #136 Posted September 11, 2009 it's just not about noise. things are not final yet, we haven't seen enough samples, and people have bad memories and concerns from the early M8, that's what gets reflected here. those of us who are holding our analogue cameras [MP in my case] and were anxiously waiting for M9, need know that it's a foolproof camera [not 'fooling ourselves' in doing so], allowing us to join the Leica digital world, no longer via scanned negatives. and one doesn't require your advice (and definitive prediction) to make that transition and a decision to purchase. leave it to me/us. Sheesh. That's some chip you got on your shoulder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted September 11, 2009 Share #137 Posted September 11, 2009 Toke, most of your images look flat / overexposed and this is actually a common occurence here, make the images look really, well, digital.[...] ....maybe it is good they didn't, this camera might be too much of a distraction from shooting Kodachrome. 28 Summicron at F/2, ISO 800: I think, in terms of contrast, they're fine. Colors are actually excellent except for skin tones, which can be adjusted in s/w. >"Digital is like shaved legs on a man - very smooth and clean but there is something acutely disconcerting about it." "Film, especially Kodachrome, is for cave-dwellers who refuse to walk out of their caves to meet the rest of the world" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted September 11, 2009 Share #138 Posted September 11, 2009 Toke, Thanks for sharing your images. I am a little more convinced ... it seems like the camera needs to be set with a permanent +ev0.3. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted September 11, 2009 Share #139 Posted September 11, 2009 Toke, you're back to 94KB in the picture above, which again is not clear or sharp. I must say that the bulk of the JPG shown in this thread would not make me run out and upgrade from the M8.2 to the M9, so I don't know what you see in all this. Perhaps someone else might know what the problem is. Have you seen my post #133? —Mitch/Potomac, MD Scratching the Surface© For heavens sake. Post at thumbnail or a 200k file if you have to with a link to a large file somewhere else, dont link the megafile here. If people dont understand enough to do that theres probably no point looking at what they are doing anyway. Mitch your advice is off the planet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted September 11, 2009 Share #140 Posted September 11, 2009 Rob, most people link 300-500KB files from other sites and get more clarity than some of these pictures. I was hoping that someone could figure out what the problem with some of the uploads here is. No reason to get testy. —Mitch/Potomac, MD Scratching the Surface© Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.