All Forum Comments
Photoshop is good. Should be tutorials on Youtube.
--
--
Comment by Algernon posted on Stacking software at 21/10/2017 - 16:42
swarf wrote:
If you're a Pro I don't see it as an issue
Phil
Suppose your on location with a client using a laptop without internet access? Are you buggered If you're a Pro I don't see it as an issue
Phil
It's similar to renting a house after 25 years you have nothing to show wheras if took out a mortgage you would have a house. Once you stop paying for PS monthly your left with nothing
ACDSee once brilliant, before it went bloatware is supposed to be getting better.
I still use ACDSee 3.1 as a viewer.... nothing beats it. It's 17 years old
--
Comment by Algernon posted on Adobe Lightroom - Now Subscription Only at 21/10/2017 - 16:05
MrB wrote:
Philip
10 is the maximum quality 11 and 12 just produce bloated files see....McGregNi wrote:
For printing I output a full sized jpeg and max quality (12) .... This generally produces a file around 7-10mb from the K7, again plenty enough for large prints using online services.
Presumably you are producing around 14 megapixel images (assuming uncropped) from the K-7 so, just as a point of interest, how large do you go, Nigel? (So far, I haven't printed bigger than A3.)For printing I output a full sized jpeg and max quality (12) .... This generally produces a file around 7-10mb from the K7, again plenty enough for large prints using online services.
Philip
https://petapixel.com/2011/08/26/a-higher-quality-setting-in-photoshop-sometimes...
"the quality values go from 1-12 instead of the standard 1-10. They say it’s because the maximum value people are expected to use is 10. For the values 11 and 12 (included for “experimental reasons”), you don’t actually get much noticeable change in image quality, but file size balloons like crazy!"
--
Comment by Algernon posted on Re-sizing at 21/10/2017 - 11:25
pschlute wrote:
Then buy a 1024 wide Monitor Algernon wrote:
Well worth saving a set at 1024 pixels wide so that they can be seen on most monitors without the viewing program needing to re-size them.
--
But that is not much use to someone with a 1920x1080 monitor. I like to see pictures fill the screen.Well worth saving a set at 1024 pixels wide so that they can be seen on most monitors without the viewing program needing to re-size them.
--
--
Comment by Algernon posted on Re-sizing at 21/10/2017 - 11:21
Well worth saving a set at 1024 pixels wide so that they can be seen on most monitors without the viewing program needing to re-size them. Windows own built in viewer makes a mess of resizing. Viewers should also sharpen the image they reduce but rarely do.
Photographers are rarely interested in what photographs look like..... Photography nowdays is all about buying equipment and ticking comparison lists
Resize Magic is very good and can do batches. The standalone version is small and FREE ...
http://www.fsoft.it/Imaging/en/Default.htm
--
Photographers are rarely interested in what photographs look like..... Photography nowdays is all about buying equipment and ticking comparison lists
Resize Magic is very good and can do batches. The standalone version is small and FREE ...
http://www.fsoft.it/Imaging/en/Default.htm
--
Comment by Algernon posted on Re-sizing at 21/10/2017 - 08:39
smile_j wrote:
Hello guys! I am looking for a nice place to visit around New Year's Eve where I can make some great pictures. I would appreciate if you could suggest a proper destination!
Manchester looks like a place to avoid Full of people who can't take their Ale! Hello guys! I am looking for a nice place to visit around New Year's Eve where I can make some great pictures. I would appreciate if you could suggest a proper destination!
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/gallery/new-...
On a positive note.... It looks like an equal opportunities city
--
Comment by Algernon posted on Another pointless thread at 20/10/2017 - 16:53
--