pot plant

Nikon D800 and Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 G2 lens

downloaded from a 75 MB RAW file to a 52 MB Jpeg file as a tryout. So may be a bit slow loading

Re: pot plant

It looks so different to my pot plant.

Re: pot plant

That's not a pot plant! This is a pot plant

Re: pot plant

That’s where I was going.
Mine are currently getting harvested.
Note: for some reason most of my pictures turn out sideways

Re: pot plant

A good photo with detail RS.

I'm not sure a large physical and file size is a factor when it comes to the quality of a photo shown on the Internet. I think it would still look the same if resized and optimised to around the more usual two or three hundred kilobytes.

Re: pot plant

I gave up waiting for it to load

Re: pot plant

That is the trouble with a photo with a file size of over 52 megabytes (physical size of 7360 x 4912 pixels).

Although the forum software cuts the size we see down to a width of 675 pixels, we still have to download full 52MB file in order to see the photo fully in our browsers. Not good for those on slower Internet connections.

Re: pot plant

You are right of course. Even on my fibre connection it was quite slow scrolling down the page as it loaded - looked like the old 300baud connections.

Personally I cut my photos down to a maximum of 1600 pixels and upload them to this site. They are then only about 500Kb in size, there is a considerable loss of quality in such a large reduction but I don't think that really matters.

Re: pot plant

If I'm resizing an image specifically for this site, it is cut it down to 675 pixels. The file size is mostly set to a little below 300KB. That usually means slightly less than the best quality on the jpeg quality scale.

Because of the loss of quality reducing the size of a photo can cause, I might also use a small degree of sharpening before uploading. Not enough for the photo to look artificial and probably only noticeable to me.

Re: pot plant

I did say it was a tryout.

However when presenting a photo surely the best quality is desirable? A 52 MB photo has got to be better than say a 4MB photo which downloads a lot quicker.

That photo I posted is a lot closer to what I see on my monitor, a smaller file will degrade a lot more over he internet depending on how it is sent.
try clicking on it to enlarge really makes it stand out quality wise, and the is even not with my best camera
full screen blows me away