What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Any FBG photography guys? (1 Viewer)

wazoo11

Footballguy
I really want to learn more about taking good photos. Most of my professional photos don't look as good. What's a good starting point for researching this topic?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
When I first got into serious dslr, Bryan Peterson's "Understanding" series really helped me improve my work greatly.

It is not too technical, but explains many of the subtitles very well.

After that, it came down to taking a few thousand photos per week, and then throwing out most...leaving maybe 10 worthy of good wall prints.

In my experience, getting good results is a matter of volume. Over the years, my ratio of "keeps" has improved, but volume is still the key for me...

...and light, it is all really about understanding light...imo.

Also, I am not a full time pro...more part time semi-pro.

 
Having been married to a professional photographer, I feel confident on the following:

1- there's plenty of people out there with a "good eye" for photography.

2- photoshop will clean up a lot of details in a hurry if you learn how to really use it.

3- the biggest difference between the amateurs with a good eye and the pros is the ability to use multiple lights

 
Having been married to a professional photographer, I feel confident on the following:

1- there's plenty of people out there with a "good eye" for photography.

2- photoshop will clean up a lot of details in a hurry if you learn how to really use it.

3- the biggest difference between the amateurs with a good eye and the pros is the ability to use multiple lights
This. I'm not a pro. Took a couple of classes a few years back to try and improve my skills. More time is spent editing photos than taking photos. Which is probably why I'm not a pro. (that and the fact that it's difficult to make any money)

 
Lots of great replies here. :thumbup:

One thing I have a serious question about though: Photoshop.

I like to shop stuff for fun, especially mocking politics, but I try to avoid shopping anything that I plan to print larger than a post card 

Lightroom is my preferred processing tool. However, I will use special software for some things such HDR & panoramic effects. I like to keep my prints as close to original as possible. 

Perhaps that is why I throw out so much & rely so heavily on volume. :shrug:

Not a true criticism, I'm just trying to learn.

Also, thanks for the links snogger.  :)

 
Lots of great replies here. :thumbup:

One thing I have a serious question about though: Photoshop.

I like to shop stuff for fun, especially mocking politics, but I try to avoid shopping anything that I plan to print larger than a post card 

Lightroom is my preferred processing tool. However, I will use special software for some things such HDR & panoramic effects. I like to keep my prints as close to original as possible. 

Perhaps that is why I throw out so much & rely so heavily on volume. :shrug:

Not a true criticism, I'm just trying to learn.

Also, thanks for the links snogger.  :)
are you shooting in RAW format? no reason you should only be limiting your PS work to postcard size.

I'm not a photographer, but a professional graphic designer and manipulate a ton of work in PS that's bigger then that.

do you have a link to any of your work you care to share? Its easier to critique we can see it...we will be nice...not ...lol

 
Last edited by a moderator:
To go along with the Peterson book, he has an online school

https://bpsop.com/

Here is the class that goes with Understanding Exposure. I have taken it, well worth it

https://bpsop.com/understanding-exposure-and-your-dslr/

What I have found, is that if you really want great pictures, you have to spend some time in the processing. Not to say its a MUST, but it helps. SO knowing photoshop is just as important as the actual shot

 
are you shooting in RAW format? no reason you should only be limiting your PS work to postcard size.

I'm not a photographer, but a professional graphic designer and manipulate a ton of work in PS that's bigger then that.

do you have a link to any of your work you care to share? Its easier to critique we can see it...we will be nice...not ...lol
Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately, I don't have any of my serious work uploaded, just my fun shopped stuff, which is small...optimized for Web viewing:

http://b3.ifrm.com/9060/79/0/f7002282/AlternativeFacts.jpg

Is there a free hosting site that can handle large files?

And yes, RAW only for me. Maybe the reason that I don't use it for things larger than post card sized, is because of my limited skill in PS. Btw, in my linked pic above, I used PhotoImpact...from early 2000's. I use a different pc for working & fun. Did that on my fun PC...none of my update software is on it.

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated!  :)

 
I take pictures with my iPOD and I enjoy it. I know what its limitations are and use it accordingly. However, I'd like to step up to a good camera. Any recommendations?

 
Tom Servo said:
I take pictures with my iPOD and I enjoy it. I know what its limitations are and use it accordingly. However, I'd like to step up to a good camera. Any recommendations?
I went with a method that may seem backwards, I first decided what lenses I preferred and then decided what camera would best use them

I am a Canon lens fan...especially  (obviously) the L's and near L's.

Then I decided which format would best fit my preferred subject matter & price range.

For me, aps-c fit my budget & shooting style better than full frame. Of course, full frame still has many advantages over aps-c, and i am currently shopping for a good used Canon full frame.

My current primary camera is a Canon 7d. Imo, it was the best option for me as a serious amateur/low end semi pro.

Others may have better advice, but to begin with, I would focus most on quality lenses, and upgrade camera as needed.

Edit: Oh...very important, Canon makes some very high quality aps-c ONLY lenses.  GREAT value imo, but totally unusable at present on a full frame. This is very important to know when planning out the long term goals.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I went with a method that may seem backwards, I first decided what lenses I preferred and then decided what camera would best use them

I am a Canon lens fan...especially  (obviously) the L's and near L's.

Then I decided which format would best fit my preferred subject matter & price range.

For me, aps-c fit my budget & shooting style better than full frame. Of course, full frame still has many advantages over aps-c, and i am currently shopping for a good used Canon full frame.

My current primary camera is a Canon 7d. Imo, it was the best option for me as a serious amateur/low end semi pro.

Others may have better advice, but to begin with, I would focus most on quality lenses, and upgrade camera as needed.

Edit: Oh...very important, Canon makes some very high quality aps-c ONLY lenses.  GREAT value imo, but totally unusable at present on a full frame. This is very important to know when planning out the long term goals.
I don't understand any of what you said. :sad:

 
I don't understand any of what you said. :sad:
Doh, sorry mate. Posting from phone at work. I will try to find something better tonight. 

However, are you looking for a dslr, a camera with interchangeable lenses, or, are you looking for just a decent upgrade from an iPOD? 

Also, there are some non-dslrs with interchangeable lenses, but I know squat about them. I know next to nothing about non-dslr's, so I  may be of no use in this matter.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also, I want to add a clarification in regards to my Photoshop questions above:

I am NOT critical at all about the importance of processing. And, I know PS does great work in many aspects of processing that I currently do.

But, I just find Lightroom to be soooo much more time efficient in the truly necessary adjustments, that PS has been relegated (in my workflow) to only image manipulation, rather than pure processing. 

Am I more clearly expressing my opinion here?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just buy a Google pixel & download the Snapseed app.  
You have one? Like it, if so?

I'm still using a Galaxy Note 4. Was gonna upgrade to the 7, but decided I didn't want to burn my house down...and retain the option to board airplanes. 

The pixel intrigues me.

 
Tom Servo said:
I take pictures with my iPOD and I enjoy it. I know what its limitations are and use it accordingly. However, I'd like to step up to a good camera. Any recommendations?
I bought a mid range Nikon a couple of years ago. Used the excuse of taking my daughters senior pictures to get my wife to buy in. If I had to do over again, I would look at one of the mirror less cameras from Fuji or Nikon.

 
I went with a method that may seem backwards, I first decided what lenses I preferred and then decided what camera would best use them
Doesn't sound "backwards" to me at all. In fact even if it was backwards I'd say it isn't quite backwards enough.

- I always tell folks that ask me about equipment to start with their desired output first of all. Are they after postcard sized prints? Maybe looking to share photos on a website that will heavily compress their images anyway? Or are they trying to make a poster sized print or even bigger? 

- The hardware to produce the final images. It may be easiest and cheapest to pay a service although printers, even those that produce large size prints, are pretty inexpensive now. I may be in the minority of wanting to make prints at all so many people can skip this altogether.

- The software used to be a bigger consideration than it is now. There is just so much great software available at low price points. If anything people go overboard with the software now and overlook so much readily available software that is more powerful than they will ever need.

- Next consider the subject and it's location. If you want to shoot birds from your car window the equipment will be much, much different than a person that wants to take photos after they have hiked up to Machu Picchu to shoot landscape shots. Ever want to shoot underwater? That will narrow your search quickly if you do. 

- Consider the lighting of the subject. Will you have to light it? If so, just as fill flash? Do you have to visit the subject at a certain time of day/year? Do you have to be in a specific position to get the final output you are looking for? Lighting can be some of the best $ you invest in the final image and planning on the lighting the best time you spend toward producing the final image.

- Somewhere between the lighting and lens you should consider if that combination will require you to use either a tripod, monopod, or some other physical stabilizer. Be honest with yourself and only get what you will actually CARRY and USE, not what has the best specs. Sometimes it doesn't even have to be high priced "photography equipment" at all to do the job. Plenty of birders use a big bean bag to rest their huge telephoto birding/surfing lenses out the window of their car for instance. People use trees/buildings to brace their camera all the time but those aren't always available, but again you should have narrowed down your subject and the lighting considerations already.

- The lenses are the place where you will likely spend the most money(because you'll likely own them the longest) but are also the place where you can "save" the most money. A good monopod, even better technique, and you can have half a dozen quality used lenses for what one bleeding edge new lens with vibration compensation will cost you. My single biggest frustration in lenses is the pancake primes that I love to use aren't embraced by the public enough to get more and better options from the camera makers. 

- This one may seem nit-picky but the choice of sensor is so important I might consider that as separate from the feature-rich body that surrounds it. A full frame sensor definitely has it's strengths as it collects more light but it also has plenty of pitfalls associated with it as ALL the equipment is typically heavier and more expensive. A micro-4/3 sensor may seem overpriced but the telephoto lenses can be so much smaller and lighter(and in some cases cheaper) than the larger sensor alternatives. Traveling with large telephoto equipment can be a huge pain and even added expense in some cases. The size/weight of your equipment is one of those considerations that just compounds over time. If it feels SLIGHTLY heavier at the start of a trip it will really make a difference by the end of the trip imo. 

- And overall I completely agree with you... the camera body should be the absolute last consideration not because it's so much less important but because this is where the tech changes so quickly you will own several over time and you will likely replace the soonest. Some camera body features may seem like complete fluff but others are critical to some and not to others. Any video shot in anything less than 4k is going to look awful and dated very, very soon. Ever try to take a hummingbird shot if your camera "only" shoots 1/4000th of a second? The ability to shoot ~10 frames/second is a HUGE feature if you are trying to get a skateboard trick photo, and on the other side of the fence if you want to take time lapse photos the body features you choose is critical to get the best results. I think people pass over Pentax equipment all the time but if you need a weather sealed body and some used lenses on a budget they are the absolute best choice imo. There are so many people that want to take beach, snow, or photos humid conditions on vacation I can't believe Pentax dSLR's aren't more popular. Others will leave anything at home that doesn't slip into a jacket pocket so it has to be mirrorless with a pancake lens.

As always be wary of anything that is presented as the "best one-size-fits-all solution". That's why it's pretty important to figure out what I want to output, what subject I want to shoot, and the light that will be available very early on in the process when I choose equipment . 

 
Tom Servo said:
I take pictures with my iPOD and I enjoy it. I know what its limitations are and use it accordingly. However, I'd like to step up to a good camera. Any recommendations?
Do you typically carry a messenger bag/backpack with you or is the reason you taking pictures with your ipod because you have one with you in a jacket/pants pocket all the time?

What pictures would you like to take right now that an ipod doesn't do well? Are you looking for a zoom lens for instance? Or better low light photos?

 
Doesn't sound "backwards" to me at all. In fact even if it was backwards I'd say it isn't quite backwards enough.

(...AWESOME STUFF HERE...snipped for thread sanity)
In the current horror of the huge political thread (prolly near the top somewhere), we discussed the need for a button that is stronger/better than a "like".

 @Henry Ford  turned me on to the  "Stand up and get crunk" button.

:Stands_Pushes Button:

I'm so crunked now, I just fell back down! 

I'll try to reply later when consciousness returns!

:shock:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
2- photoshop will clean up a lot of details in a hurry if you learn how to really use it.
This is very true, but I just wanted to point out to people that there is a flood of amazing photo editing software out there that isn't as costly and potentially intimidating as Photoshop. Personally, I use Lightroom more often than Photoshop but in general I am trying to move away from Adobe products overall. Often times I feel like using Photoshop is like hanging a poster using 4 thumb tacks and sledge hammer.

I would recommend people try Paint.net, RawTherapee, PhotoScape, and/or GIMP and only if those don't fulfill their needs move onto the Adobe products. I will admit there are many more supporting videos/books/tutorials that will help you learn how to best use the Adobe products. 

Ultimately I would like to move toward cross platform tools like Fotor but it's just not quite enough, and all the other cross platform tools I've tried have some holes in them unfortunately. 

 
You have one? Like it, if so?

I'm still using a Galaxy Note 4. Was gonna upgrade to the 7, but decided I didn't want to burn my house down...and retain the option to board airplanes. 

The pixel intrigues me.
I came from a Note 4, and absolutely love the pixel.  The camera is phenomenal, the fingerprint scanner on the rear is a great feature as well.  I miss the S-pen sometimes, but that's the only thing.

 
I came from a Note 4, and absolutely love the pixel.  The camera is phenomenal, the fingerprint scanner on the rear is a great feature as well.  I miss the S-pen sometimes, but that's the only thing.
Awesome mate!

I'm lean'n stronger your way by the day.

Thanks Quez.

 
Do you typically carry a messenger bag/backpack with you or is the reason you taking pictures with your ipod because you have one with you in a jacket/pants pocket all the time?

What pictures would you like to take right now that an ipod doesn't do well? Are you looking for a zoom lens for instance? Or better low light photos?
Typically, I take pictures either when I'm out and about at work or on selected locations on weekends. My usual targets are stationary objects like bridges, tunnels, wildlife and the like. The fact that I have it in my pocket makes it convenient.

The only photos I would like to take that I can't now are long range vista photos. I bought a cheap clamp-on lens, but it doesn't work with my Otterbox case and it doesn't stay on when I take the Otterbox off. Plus, taking off the Otterbox gives it a feel that I'm not comfortable with.

 
Typically, I take pictures either when I'm out and about at work or on selected locations on weekends. My usual targets are stationary objects like bridges, tunnels, wildlife and the like. The fact that I have it in my pocket makes it convenient.

The only photos I would like to take that I can't now are long range vista photos. I bought a cheap clamp-on lens, but it doesn't work with my Otterbox case and it doesn't stay on when I take the Otterbox off. Plus, taking off the Otterbox gives it a feel that I'm not comfortable with.
If I were you I would look at the Canon G7X and the Sony RX100 III, but that's partially due to the fact they have been out for awhile and you can probably find a better deal on them. The sensor and lenses on those will really be a big step up despite their small size of the camera. The canon has the bigger zoom range, but the sony has substantially better stated battery life and an view finder which I personally have a tough time going without.

Additionally, because the cameras are so small you can use a pocket tripod that you can use on the top of your car or something and that could potentially make a huge difference in your final photos. They both shoot in RAW and you can layer images so you can pull details out of the shadows of bridge/tunnel shots like you never could before. 

Of course if you were interested in buying lenses and the like you could also go for an even bigger sensor with the Sony mirrorless cameras, even the older ones off ebay or something. For instance the Sony NEX-C3 is very small and light and has some pancake lenses that would still make it very pocketable. Sometimes those can be had for a very low price in nearly new condition.

 
If I were you I would look at the Canon G7X and the Sony RX100 III, but that's partially due to the fact they have been out for awhile and you can probably find a better deal on them. The sensor and lenses on those will really be a big step up despite their small size of the camera. The canon has the bigger zoom range, but the sony has substantially better stated battery life and an view finder which I personally have a tough time going without.

Additionally, because the cameras are so small you can use a pocket tripod that you can use on the top of your car or something and that could potentially make a huge difference in your final photos. They both shoot in RAW and you can layer images so you can pull details out of the shadows of bridge/tunnel shots like you never could before. 

Of course if you were interested in buying lenses and the like you could also go for an even bigger sensor with the Sony mirrorless cameras, even the older ones off ebay or something. For instance the Sony NEX-C3 is very small and light and has some pancake lenses that would still make it very pocketable. Sometimes those can be had for a very low price in nearly new condition.
What does it mean to shoot in RAW? What are pancake lenses?

 
Ill take a camera recommendation if someone is willing. Looking to step up from a point and shoot that I have that isn't cutting it, but am still looking for simple but with potential. Something smaller I can fit in a jacket pocket. Will be mostly using this for kids sports/activities, vacations, family stuff, etc. also needs to have good video. 

 
What does it mean to shoot in RAW? What are pancake lenses?
RAW files are just processed less than the normal JPEG files, but because they are unprocessed you can manipulate them more. They are larger files however because they haven't been compressed yet.

Pancake lenses are just short, snub nosed lenses so they fit in your pocket easily. Often they are prime lenses but there are a few pancake zoom lenses as well. 

 
Ill take a camera recommendation if someone is willing. Looking to step up from a point and shoot that I have that isn't cutting it, but am still looking for simple but with potential. Something smaller I can fit in a jacket pocket. Will be mostly using this for kids sports/activities, vacations, family stuff, etc. also needs to have good video. 
It's pretty tough to find a camera that fits in your pocket and can shoot sports. 

A good, small camera for video would be one of the Panasonic micro-4/3 cameras. Really watch the size/weight though because some models are about the size of a dSLR.

Best small camera with potential would be the sony's with the APS-C sensor sizes. I sound like a broken record but Sony is one of the best values out there unless you want a big camera.

Smallest telephoto lens camera for sports shooting would probably be the Nikon 1 line. It's not clear if Nikon is continuing this line so you might be able to get a screaming deal on these if you don't mind refurb/used but I wouldn't sink major money into that system.

 
I just stumbled across this video on youtube and felt it was a pretty good guide for people when choosing a camera as we get into better weather and vacation season starts...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5bAse7baAA

While the information is a little dated(couple of years old) I always advise people wait for a year to actually get a broad range of reviews of equipment rather than buying anything less than a year old anyway. The reason I thought it was well done is it pointed out different aspects that are done very well by certain manufacturers. Some have better bodies, some have better sensors, some have a better view finder, etc. 

All of these things are weighted differently to each of us. Cameras are of such high quality now the way a brand of camera handles something specific that is especially important to you may be the best way to choose a camera. And since the video is a couple of years old the cameras and systems discussed are no longer bleeding edge and can be had for reasonable prices or even used/refurbished now. Be a little careful of Samsung NX however as the line has been discontinued(much to my chagrin).

 
I agree he's controversial but I'm not sure why he's such a lightning rod. Either in a positive or negative way, really. 

What makes him a favorite source of information?
He is a classic affiliate marketer. He floods his site with useful, relevant content, and then uses affiliate links. This wouldn't be so bad, but there's almost no way he can review all the stuff he does without a massive expense, or without places giving him gear (which he states he doesn't get). He has a small disclaimer buried on his about page that says the site is mostly fiction. I believe that.

I have no doubt he's a good photographer that knows what he is doing - it allows him to look at specs and write a pretty convincing "review", but I wouldn't take it as gospel. That said, I still enjoy his site (he does have some good tips on shooting), and have bought gear through his links.    

As far as the OP's original question, volume is your friend with any camera setup. I have a nice DSLR and good lenses, and seem to be somewhat decent at lighting/angle/feel, and I still trash 80-90% of what I shoot.   

 
He is a classic affiliate marketer. He floods his site with useful, relevant content, and then uses affiliate links. This wouldn't be so bad, but there's almost no way he can review all the stuff he does without a massive expense, or without places giving him gear (which he states he doesn't get). He has a small disclaimer buried on his about page that says the site is mostly fiction. I believe that.

I have no doubt he's a good photographer that knows what he is doing - it allows him to look at specs and write a pretty convincing "review", but I wouldn't take it as gospel. That said, I still enjoy his site (he does have some good tips on shooting), and have bought gear through his links.      
Hmmmmmm, I didn't realize the bold part. I suppose I had always assumed companies gave him loaner gear to review that he later returned but if he has a bias based on a relationship with a manufacturer I haven't noticed it. Doesn't he shoot Canon full-frame, and Nikon crop-frame, Olympus waterproof, Sony pocketable, Leica for film, and he was on the Fuji mirrorless bandwagon far before anyone else. 

He does have an informative sight but I just thought his popularity stemmed from the fact he was trying to be more a bit more accessible than most of the other voices in amateur photography. Beginners love to hear that they should just shoot jpg and shouldn't worry about tripods(and I wouldn't disagree with those in certain situations). If I have a quibble about his site it's the fact some of the content looks very dated, imo. To me he doesn't fit the profile of an affiliate marketer because he pushes too much "old" stuff. Or just the right amount of old stuff, since I wouldn't buy anything that came out less than a year ago. I think his sight is definitely a good starting spot for folks and he avoids being buried in one "camp" or anther in terms of manufacturers.

Just out of curiosity what is your favorite site/youtube for photography information/discussion? After being a fan of dpreview for the longest time I now find I enjoy youtube channels. They seem more willing to call out bad gear as bad gear than the big websites, and I appreciate the candid approach. 

 
You have one? Like it, if so?

I'm still using a Galaxy Note 4. Was gonna upgrade to the 7, but decided I didn't want to burn my house down...and retain the option to board airplanes. 

The pixel intrigues me.
Love my Pixel, but ultimately it's just a phone.

It does support Camera2 API (or whatever) so you can take DNG (RAW) pics, which is nice.

 
Man of Constant Sorrow said:
Thanks Chaka. I appreciate the feed back.

I hope to have one by summer.  :thumbup:
The main reason I wanted the Pixel was the 128 GB of internal memory (or RAM or ROM or whatever it is that stores apps), which I think is ultimately the most important factor if you experiment with a lot of apps.  Pretty much every smart phone has similar specs for processor speeds and what not so those are very minor drivers, but app storage space is critical.  My previous phone had 16 GB so I was constantly managing my apps, with 128 it's going to be a long while before I worry about whether or not I can add an app or not.

I also think the Google VR headset is pretty interesting, although it's quite limited for content the price point is great and it's a good starter if you want to explore VR but don't want to drop $300-$2,000 for a still developing medium.

 
I have a question and I'm not even sure if it's going to make sense.

If a Canon EOS 5D took a picture which is 18mb in size, what does that roughly translate to in terms of resolution?

 
I have a question and I'm not even sure if it's going to make sense.

If a Canon EOS 5D took a picture which is 18mb in size, what does that roughly translate to in terms of resolution?
Are you asking because you would like to know what size you can print the image?

An 18mp image is 5184x3456 pixels. That's the resolution.

If you are asking because you are interested in print sizes this is a pretty good quick and easy tool that explains prints at different dpi....

https://toolstud.io/photo/megapixel.php?width=5184&height=3456&compare=video&calculate=print#calculate


Print sizes



dpi


max dim (m)


max surface


max dim (imp)


max surface


10 dpi billboard


13.2m x 8.8m


= 116m2

43.2 ft x 28.8 ft


= 1244 sq ft


72 dpi newspaper


182.9cm x 121.9cm


= 2.23m2

72" x 48"


= 24 sq ft


96 dpi MOO.com minimum


137.2cm x 91.4cm


= 1.25m2

54" x 36"


= 13.5 sq ft


150 dpi magazine


87.8cm x 58.5cm


= 0.51m2

34.6" x 23"


= 796 sq in


300 dpi inkjet printer


43.9cm x 29.3cm


= 1284cm2

17.3" x 11.5"


= 199 sq in


600 dpi laser printer


21.9cm x 14.6cm


= 321.1cm2

8.6" x 5.8"


= 49.8 sq in


1200 dpi high-end printer


11cm x 7.3cm


= 80.27cm2

4.3" x 2.9"


= 12.4 sq in

 
Hey all photogs here ... what site do you prefer for hosting your serious photographs? I have been using https://imgur.com/ for snapshots from my phone, but I have never desired to upload my dslr shots until now. In the past, I focused primarily on wall prints and felt that online viewing was sub-optimal for these because of monitor differences and hi-res viewing issues. I have decided that I will no longer let "perfect" be the enemy of the "good" ... thus, I am looking for the best way to share these photos online.

I am concerned about unauthorized use of my photos, but I would like to share the best possible version here without making it a hassle for viewers. How do you all deal with this this?

Further, not only am I searching for the best hosting site, I am also looking to learn more about the subtleties of developing for online viewing versus print. With prints, I knew my printer well enough to get the results that I wanted, and once completed, I knew that everyone was seeing the same thing. Online results are potentially variable, as everyone has a different monitor. What approach do you take to address this relativity?

At present, I have uploaded a few shots to imgur as a test. I started from my original RAW files & have only developed them with Lightroom for now. I will do further work once I figure out the best way to present them. Linking to them presents my first challenge ...

1) Actor's Theater in Louisville : Share link - Direct link

The share link and direct link allow different viewing options. I prefer the direct link view, but imgur "albums" make it tough for the viewer to get there unless they right click and open in a new tab - which is not obvious. And, when posting a series, I would prefer to have one link to it rather than multiple links. Here is an example:

2) Fire Painting: Album link

This includes a set of photos, but limits how they can be viewed easily. They auto-size it for display, and a click will make it fit the screen (not 1:1 res) - and allows no zooming or other resolutions. A direct link will allow a full 1:1 ... but it is not easy to find unless I provide it or the viewer knows enough to right click. And, zoom is still not available - just a best fit to screen and 1:1.

So - what are the ways you handle this?

Should I adjust my own picture resolution to fit online needs? I like the abilty to zoom in and out to notice different things in one photo, but is that trying to do too much for online? In my wall prints, it is just a matter of viewing distance - so - I have never really had to think about this.

Anyways, all thoughts are welcome and appreciated.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey all photogs here ... what site do you prefer for hosting your serious photographs? I have been using https://imgur.com/ for snapshots from my phone, but I have never desired to upload my dslr shots until now. In the past, I focused primarily on wall prints and felt that online viewing was sub-optimal for these because of monitor differences and hi-res viewing issues. I have decided that I will no longer let "perfect" be the enemy of the "good" ... thus, I am looking for the best way to share these photos online.

I am concerned about unauthorized use of my photos, but I would like to share the best possible version here without making it a hassle for viewers. How do you all deal with this this?

Further, not only am I searching for the best hosting site, I am also looking to learn more about the subtleties of developing for online viewing versus print. With prints, I knew my printer well enough to get the results that I wanted, and once completed, I knew that everyone was seeing the same thing. Online results are potentially variable, as everyone has a different monitor. What approach do you take to address this relativity?

At present, I have uploaded a few shots to imgur as a test. I started from my original RAW files & have only developed them with Lightroom for now. I will do further work once I figure out the best way to present them. Linking to them presents my first challenge ...

1) Actor's Theater in Louisville : Share link - Direct link

The share link and direct link allow different viewing options. I prefer the direct link view, but imgur "albums" make it tough for the viewer to get there unless they right click and open in a new tab - which is not obvious. And, when posting a series, I would prefer to have one link to it rather than multiple links. Here is an example:

2) Fire Painting: Album link

This includes a set of photos, but limits how they can be viewed easily. They auto-size it for display, and a click will make it fit the screen (not 1:1 res) - and allows no zooming or other resolutions. A direct link will allow a full 1:1 ... but it is not easy to find unless I provide it or the viewer knows enough to right click. And, zoom is still not available - just a best fit to screen and 1:1.

So - what are the way you handle this?

Should I adjust my own picture resolution to fit online needs? I like the abilty to zoom in and out to notice different things in one photo, but is that trying to do too much for online? In my wall prints, it is just a matter of viewing distance - so - I have never really had to think about this.

Anyways, all thoughts are welcome and appreciated.
I use Flickr, as it seems to put the photos a bit more front and center with less clutter, and image quality is pretty good.  I think they cut down on free space recently, but I think it is still around 1,000 pictures (which is fine as long as not looking for a cloud photo backup site -- I use Google photos for that).  I'm not sure if it is the best, but what I use.

 
I use Flickr, as it seems to put the photos a bit more front and center with less clutter, and image quality is pretty good.  I think they cut down on free space recently, but I think it is still around 1,000 pictures (which is fine as long as not looking for a cloud photo backup site -- I use Google photos for that).  I'm not sure if it is the best, but what I use.
Thanks Don.

I tried to create a free Flickr account, and it would not allow new members. A paid version is available I believe; I plan to do more research on it.

Also, I have more than 1000 photos to upload - eventually.

I backup everything on my own hard drives, so I do not need cloud backup - but I would use it also if it was available.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top