Bronte Beach Part 2

[joebranko]

I quite like this shot, except that the family at the edge of the water don't seem sharp and I am not sure why. I know that the lens is open quite wide and my depth of field is consequently not great but i am not sure if this is the problem.
Your comments are always appreciated.

[DanK]

An interesting capture. It's an appealing and interesting view.

I can't see the exif, but if you had the lens fairly wide open, that's probably the problem of sharpness.

I think I would choose either to lighten the people or to darken them enough to make it a silhouette. You're kind of stuck in the middle. Here are very sloppy versions just to illustrate:

[xpatUSA]

I quite like this shot, except that the family at the edge of the water don't seem sharp and I am not sure why. I know that the lens is open quite wide and my depth of field is consequently not great

Especially if the lens was not focused on the family, although it probably was? It does seem that an attempt was made to sharpen the image up, judging by the quite significant halos on the family members' outlines.

but I am not sure if this is the problem.

Another factor could be image size. It is only 799x525px and who knows what FlickR did to it while down-sampling your masterpiece - and who knows what CiC did to it either!

Sites like FlickR are one reason why I upload my own images to my own Website and link to them from here - leaving only CiC's image encoding to contend with ...

[Geoff F]

Yes I agree with the previous comments. The rather small original image looks OK to me, although on the dark side and Dan's versions look fine as far as I can tell.

[joebranko]

An interesting capture. It's an appealing and interesting view.

I can't see the exif, but if you had the lens fairly wide open, that's probably the problem of sharpness.

I think I would choose either to lighten the people or to darken them enough to make it a silhouette. You're kind of stuck in the middle. Here are very sloppy versions just to illustrate:

Thanks Dan.
The silhouette view is very interesting. I like it!

[joebranko]

Especially if the lens was not focused on the family, although it probably was? It does seem that an attempt was made to sharpen the image up, judging by the quite significant halos on the family members' outlines.



Another factor could be image size. It is only 799x525px and who knows what FlickR did to it while down-sampling your masterpiece - and who knows what CiC did to it either!

Sites like FlickR are one reason why I upload my own images to my own Website and link to them from here - leaving only CiC's image encoding to contend with ...

The lens was focussed on the people as you guessed.
What is the largest size we can use with CiC.?

[Stagecoach]

What is the largest size we can use with CiC.?

Joe, unless you are purposefully wanting people to view your image larger than screen size so they can pixel peep I would suggest posting at the maximum that would fill most peoples screens, 1920 px wide.

I generally post at around 1800 px wide.

[Manfred M]

The lens was focussed on the people as you guessed.
What is the largest size we can use with CiC.?

There is no size limit per se, Joe. As you are using an external host that CiC links to, you get to select whatever size you would like. The main issue with large images is going to be the length of time that it takes an image to download and to be displayed. Not everyone is going to have a blazingly fast internet connection, so something reasonable is along the lines of what Grahame has suggested. I personally go with 2048 pixels on the longest side as that allows people some ability to zoom in on the details.

[Geoff F]

Some photo hosting sites have a size limitation or auto resize larger images to fit their maximum size. In some cases, auto resizing software can lose detail and make changes to colours so it is best to work within those maximum size limits in your original upload.

As a compromise, with super slow broadband, I normally work to a size limit of 1200 pixels wide or 800 pixels high and 80% quality (Jpeg number 10)