What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Digital Camera pic of the day (2 Viewers)

Back from another trip to Canada.. Unfortunately for me the weather sucked in the mornings and the evenings so not a lot of :pics: opportunities but here are few:

Evening fishing

Eagle flight

Rowe Lake falls

We also made a hike to an abandoned Gold Mine.. Probably only saw half of what was left behind so will definitely return.

Abandoned Rails

Abandoned Color

Abandoned Machinery

Abandoned Machinery BW

Left behind Rail car

and of course, can't have a Canada Picture show without at least one Walleye shot:

My 22" Walleye

 
'Cowboys#1 said:
Another one of the Toronto Skyline, this time from the Toronto Islands, just a quick 10 minute ferry ride from downtown!
Click to expand...
How do you like the 24-105mm? Been thinking about that one. I'm thinking it's better to suck it up and get a great lens, rather than trying to add 2 or 3 OK lenses.
 
So I thought this was amusing: A friend of mine who lives in a completely different part of the city randomly shot a photo that's uncannily similar to one I shot a few years back.

Mine

His

:tinfoilhat:

 
 
Last edited by a moderator:
 
'pantagrapher said:
So I thought this was amusing: A friend of mine who lives in a completely different part of the city randomly shot a photo that's uncannily similar to one I shot a few years back.

Mine

His

:tinfoilhat:
Click to expand...
That's awesome. I love looking through photos that are similar to ones that I have taken. Gives some new perspective and ideas to the craft.
 
'Borat said:
'[icon] said:
I just shoot with my iphone... but some snaps...

Dinner on my Patio with the GF
Click to expand...
What's that thing on your steak? :confused:
Click to expand...
A slice of Fresh Pineapple. I had improvised with a sort of pineapple puree reduction glaze on the Flat Iron Steak. Generally I'm not a fan of trying to "Sweeten" up red meat as the flavors are already fantastic... but I had a pineapple left over from a party and figured I'd try something different. It turned out fantastic. Really worked well with the nice strong flavor of the Flat Iron. :thumbup: Not something I'd do every day (hadn't done it since) but given the weather and ingredients on hand it was a fun experiment.
 
I don't understand resolution. My dinosaur of a camera shoots 2000 x 3000 at 240 dpi. I had to change those specs to match 72 dpi, but that made the image smaller. Is that right? I would think it'd go the other way, changing from 240 to 72 dpi should expand the image the way I think of it in my head. Anyone have any tips on how to best resize images?

 
'Sarnoff said:
I don't understand resolution. My dinosaur of a camera shoots 2000 x 3000 at 240 dpi. I had to change those specs to match 72 dpi, but that made the image smaller. Is that right? I would think it'd go the other way, changing from 240 to 72 dpi should expand the image the way I think of it in my head. Anyone have any tips on how to best resize images?
Click to expand...
The way this works is that image size (pixels or inches) are interconnected with dpi. In Photoshop, you have the option of changing the dpi without data loss. So given that, if you changed a 2000 pixel, 72dpi image to 150dpi, the pixel size would reduce. If you changed the pixel size to 3000 pixels, the dpi would reduce. DPI gets confusing sometimes because people automatically assume that a 72 dpi image is automatically low-rez. It isn't. A 72 dpi image that's 3000 pixels x 3000 pixels can be very sharp.

 
'jdoggydogg said:
'Sarnoff said:
I don't understand resolution. My dinosaur of a camera shoots 2000 x 3000 at 240 dpi. I had to change those specs to match 72 dpi, but that made the image smaller. Is that right? I would think it'd go the other way, changing from 240 to 72 dpi should expand the image the way I think of it in my head. Anyone have any tips on how to best resize images?
Click to expand...
The way this works is that image size (pixels or inches) are interconnected with dpi. In Photoshop, you have the option of changing the dpi without data loss. So given that, if you changed a 2000 pixel, 72dpi image to 150dpi, the pixel size would reduce. If you changed the pixel size to 3000 pixels, the dpi would reduce. DPI gets confusing sometimes because people automatically assume that a 72 dpi image is automatically low-rez. It isn't. A 72 dpi image that's 3000 pixels x 3000 pixels can be very sharp.
Click to expand...
I think that kind of makes sense. I had to resize my pictures to 72dpi and at least 2500px on the smallest size. Changing both at the same time in Photoshop seemed to work. But it's hard to tell on a monitor what that really looks like. I hope it's ok.Oh, and here's the "look at me" part, this is because some director of an organization that promotes photography in LA randomly found my work and wants to put me in a show they're doing in Hollywood in a couple of weeks. So if I can meet the tech specs this will be my first public exhibition.

 
'Sarnoff said:
'jdoggydogg said:
'Sarnoff said:
I don't understand resolution. My dinosaur of a camera shoots 2000 x 3000 at 240 dpi. I had to change those specs to match 72 dpi, but that made the image smaller. Is that right? I would think it'd go the other way, changing from 240 to 72 dpi should expand the image the way I think of it in my head. Anyone have any tips on how to best resize images?
Click to expand...
The way this works is that image size (pixels or inches) are interconnected with dpi. In Photoshop, you have the option of changing the dpi without data loss. So given that, if you changed a 2000 pixel, 72dpi image to 150dpi, the pixel size would reduce. If you changed the pixel size to 3000 pixels, the dpi would reduce. DPI gets confusing sometimes because people automatically assume that a 72 dpi image is automatically low-rez. It isn't. A 72 dpi image that's 3000 pixels x 3000 pixels can be very sharp.
Click to expand...
I think that kind of makes sense. I had to resize my pictures to 72dpi and at least 2500px on the smallest size. Changing both at the same time in Photoshop seemed to work. But it's hard to tell on a monitor what that really looks like. I hope it's ok.Oh, and here's the "look at me" part, this is because some director of an organization that promotes photography in LA randomly found my work and wants to put me in a show they're doing in Hollywood in a couple of weeks. So if I can meet the tech specs this will be my first public exhibition.
Click to expand...
That's awesome. Congrats.If you check and then un-check the buttons in the Photoshop re-size dialog box, that may help clarify how all this works. Also, if you're batch processing a lot of photos and, for example, they all need to be 300dpi, PS has some easy action scripts that can process an entire folder of photos.

 
'Sarnoff said:
'jdoggydogg said:
'Sarnoff said:
I don't understand resolution. My dinosaur of a camera shoots 2000 x 3000 at 240 dpi. I had to change those specs to match 72 dpi, but that made the image smaller. Is that right? I would think it'd go the other way, changing from 240 to 72 dpi should expand the image the way I think of it in my head. Anyone have any tips on how to best resize images?
Click to expand...
The way this works is that image size (pixels or inches) are interconnected with dpi. In Photoshop, you have the option of changing the dpi without data loss. So given that, if you changed a 2000 pixel, 72dpi image to 150dpi, the pixel size would reduce. If you changed the pixel size to 3000 pixels, the dpi would reduce. DPI gets confusing sometimes because people automatically assume that a 72 dpi image is automatically low-rez. It isn't. A 72 dpi image that's 3000 pixels x 3000 pixels can be very sharp.
Click to expand...
I think that kind of makes sense. I had to resize my pictures to 72dpi and at least 2500px on the smallest size. Changing both at the same time in Photoshop seemed to work. But it's hard to tell on a monitor what that really looks like. I hope it's ok.Oh, and here's the "look at me" part, this is because some director of an organization that promotes photography in LA randomly found my work and wants to put me in a show they're doing in Hollywood in a couple of weeks. So if I can meet the tech specs this will be my first public exhibition.
Click to expand...
Awesome! Like jdog said, resolution can take some tinkering to wrap your head around. But once it clicks, it will all make sense.In my own "look at me" news, I just got my D600 in the mail. Time to shoot like an adult, I guess.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Encyclopedia Brown
  • Poll Poll
Have You Ever Been On Jumbotron/Stadium Camera
2
Replies
57
Views
1K
Zegras11
Zegras11
FiredMartz
New Fad in SoCal....stopping 2 or 3 cars behind at a stoplight...
Replies
36
Views
1K
shuke
shuke
cosjobs
Safest / easiest way to get rid of old laptops
Replies
22
Views
633
ChiefD
ChiefD

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top