All cropped and re-sized from a 3MP Nikon 885. Enjoy.

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...romcottage.jpg

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Ice.jpg

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...PeggysCove.jpg

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...y/Tidesout.jpg

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...y/TopTruck.jpg

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...batoy/Wood.jpg

On Dec 28, 10:14*pm, Robatoy wrote:
All cropped and re-sized from a 3MP Nikon 885. Enjoy.

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...romcottage.jpg



With a bit of Photoshopping, the 'Fromcottage' shot turns into my
desktop:

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...FundyManip.jpg

Robatoy said:

All cropped and re-sized from a 3MP Nikon 885. Enjoy.

Nice detail - even modded. Looks like Maine.
As for the cottage view, you suck.


Greg G.

Robatoy said:

All cropped and re-sized from a 3MP Nikon 885. Enjoy.

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...PeggysCove.jpg

Oh, yeah. How do you like the way JPEG compression foobars gradients.
Its one major shortcoming. I now have a crappy $100 HP with adjustable
yet non-defeatable compression - no raw mode. Even though it has far
more "megapixels" than its older and nicer predecessor (which fell
into a streamside 4 ft deep eddy hole carved into rock in the Sierra
Nevada's, along with an ex-girlfriend), the quality is far worse.
I regret not having the old camera in my hand at the time, primarily
so that I could have preserved the look on her face. (Yeah, I know -
I'm a *******.)


Greg G.

On Dec 28, 10:52*pm, Greg wrote:
Robatoy said:

All cropped and re-sized from a 3MP Nikon 885. Enjoy.
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...PeggysCove.jpg

Oh, yeah. *How do you like the way JPEG compression foobars gradients.
Its one major shortcoming. I now have a crappy $100 HP with adjustable
yet non-defeatable compression - no raw mode. Even though it has far
more "megapixels" than its older and nicer predecessor (which fell
into a streamside 4 ft deep eddy hole carved into rock in the Sierra
Nevada's, along with an ex-girlfriend), the quality is far worse.
I regret not having the old camera in my hand at the time, primarily
so that I could have preserved the look on her face. (Yeah, I know -
I'm a *******.)

Greg G.

LOL... indeed JPEG isn't the best compression scheme (TIF/Z is), the
original doesn't suffer the banding in the gradient... but then peeps
would be ****ed because of the biggie file size.

On Dec 28, 10:06*pm, Robatoy wrote:


LOL... indeed JPEG isn't the best compression scheme (TIF/Z is), the original doesn't suffer the banding in the gradient... but then peeps would be ****ed because of the biggie file size

Got that one right. Certainly a pet peeve of mine. I can't stand and
won't download pics I get that are 3,4,5 mb each. The almost always
come from one of my friends that is too lazy for a resize.

As far as computer viewing goes, just about any resizing or
compression protocol works fine, and they are everywhere. I have one
free program that offers 9 different methods just for resizing.

I would rather look at the pics at some reasonalle size and ask for
the files I want.

Slow morning here. Kind of a mini rant.

Robert

Robatoy wrote:

All cropped and re-sized from a 3MP Nikon 885. Enjoy.

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...romcottage.jpg

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Ice.jpg

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...PeggysCove.jpg

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...y/Tidesout.jpg

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...y/TopTruck.jpg

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...batoy/Wood.jpg


Very nice, you have a good eye.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Robatoy,


Ok, they are nice images. I downloaded this one into PS:

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...batoy/Wood.jpg

and found that it is a 300 pixels per inch and it is 3x2 inches.

What would happen if you blew it up to 8x10 at the same density?
I did and the image deteriorates kinda fast.

The point is if you had 3x2 image and it was 1200 PPI (which
you could not do with a 3 megapixel camera), and you
blew it up to 8x10 and made it 120 PPI, you probably wouldn't
see that much degradation.

I just took an image I had at 240 ppi, cropped a 2x3 image, made it
120 ppi and there is little degradation at 8x10. A bit fuzzy, but less
so.
All because I had more pixels to play with.

Nice shots, tho.

MJ Wallace

On Dec 29, 1:32*am, "
wrote:
Robatoy,

Ok, they are nice images. I downloaded this one into PS:

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...batoy/Wood.jpg

and found that it is a 300 pixels per inch and it is 3x2 inches.

The original was 8" x 10" at 200 DPI.. a 9 MB file. Good enough for a
print of that size.
I had reduced the image size to speed up the upload to the host.

Nice shots, tho.

Thank you.

MJ Wallace