Thread: New Lens

Right click on the photo, click on properties and you will see the link.

Bob

Thanks Bob - very handy to know .... I will have to join photobucket - it should save me some time!

Clubby my Uncle is a very keen bird person I was wondering if you'd mind me printing off a copy of your photo for him.

One of his old eagles is stuffed and at the Sydney Museum

PM your email address and I'll send you the original image.

Bob

Originally Posted by clubbyr8

PM your email address and I'll send you the original image.

Bob

TY bob greenie on way too for the photo which is excellent and the favour.

Thanks Bob e-mail arrived ok after fix in yahoo went to spam box.

Now I could if I had the printer plotter printed this off as an A2

I have placed the details where when and by who on the boarder of the photo.

Hope it prints out OK, I've printed an A4 size on my Hp Photosmart 3110 on HP Premium Plus paper. Came out a treat.

Bob

Originally Posted by clubbyr8

Hope it prints out OK, I've printed an A4 size on my Hp Photosmart 3110 on HP Premium Plus paper. Came out a treat.

Bob

It printed very well A4 Epson 915 Photostylis Glossy Paper

That's a great shot clubbyr8. I'd love to get myself a decent camera.

Imageshack allows images up to 1.5MB, and you don't have to sign up.

This one is only 133kB, but it's 1600px wide:



This one is just over 1.5MB, and it's almost 4200 px wide:



There's an image at the Hubble site that's 15852 x 12392 pixels here.

Hi John,

Superb shot. What is the Exif data on that shot?

Photobucket will allow images 1024 x 768 (for free) or 2mb per image if you subscribe for $25 a year). I only made the 800 pixels wide because I subscribe to a Canon forum and they only allow images up to 800 pixels wide. I just assumed all forums were like that. This is the above shot at 1024 pixels. Thanks for the info on Imageshack.


Bob

Yeh I use my photobucket account most of the time, but Imageshack is better for big shots and I'm a cheapskate who doesn't pay for hosting if I don't have to.

I don't know anything much about cameras, and I've just got a nifty little Olympus with a 3X optical zoom, but it's nothing special. I just like space pics and I found them on the web.

I found that moon image on OCAU science forums which I frequent. They've got a good photography forum there as well, but I don't hang around there. You have to sign up there at the moment, but they'll soon be going public. Second biggest forums in Australia I believe, so they'll only get bigger when they open it up.

The guy at OCAU found it on another forum, and the guy who took it posted a thread about it here. The original image posted is 947kB, taken with a Canon EOS 20D 1/5th ISO100, whatever that means. Apparently the moon really is that colour, but not as 'colour-saturated'.

That second photo is a poor quality reproduction of the original. I stuffed around with it to get it at 1.5MB with maximum pixels to see if it would upload to Imageshack. The original is 1.7MB but it's only 1500px wide.
You can find it, along with some other big (and cool) space shots on my blog, Spaced out!

I don't understand why some pics are heavy on the bandwidth, whilst being comparatively small in size. Here's one I've got in my Imageshack account that's only 442kB but it's 3032px wide and the resolution at full size is good:
http://img386.imageshack.us/my.php?i...83maindzl6.jpg
And that Lorikeet shot of yours is now 681kB, but it's only 1024x683px making it 699,392 pixels. whereas that moon shot is only 133kB, but it's 1600x1200 making it 1,920,000 pixels total, so it's less than a fifth of the weight, but near three times the size.

Edit: I blew up that moon shot to 5800x4350 so it's huge, and a bit blurry now. It came up as 1.47MB on my PC, but when uploaded to Imageshack they called it at just over 1.5MB:



You have an option to post thumbnails without the image info at the bottom, or you can post the full image, but that would be insane on a forum. It would stick way out the side, and the page would take ages to load for anyone viewing the thread. Anyone on dial up would be pretty peeved off with me if I did that.
I suppose it depends on what's in the image. I just blew up a blank page bigger than that shot, and it's less than a third of the weight. I'm not wasting my time and bandwidth uploading it though.

By the way, the 400mm 5.6L lens I want to get retails for $2319 and weighs in at a hefty 1.25kg .

The place where I bought the 100mm 2.8 macro sells the 400mm 5.6L for $1547. This lens is recommended as the lens for photographing birds in flight.

Bob

I don't understand why some pics are heavy on the bandwidth, whilst being comparatively small in size.

It depends on the detail of the picture, a highly detailed picture like Clubby's bird will use more data space than the same picture thats been blurred(detail removed... a jpeg trait).

Originally Posted by wheelinround

It printed very well A4 Epson 915 Photostylis Glossy Paper

Bob uncle rang regarding the photo said its a treat a BIG THANK YOU