I decided not to post another lamp photo and to cut the series short. I'm not sure that I'm getting anywhere with them, and I have better photos waiting in the queue.
I did not adjust the saturation on this photograph, and for a RAW image, that means it's actually lower than than a straight jpeg would have been straight out of the camera. What makes it stand out so much and look saturated is the contrast adjustment, which wonderfully enhances the color.
I have included wallpaper for the main reason of making a high resolution image available. As soon as my redesign is complete, my photos will appear at between 700-800px wide. They will be quite a bit larger in file size, but I believe the quality to be worth it. Any input in this area is appreciated.
Wallpaper:
800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x1024 | 1600x1200
categories: macro nature
March 4th, 2005 at 3:42 AM
i really liked the first lamp photo....
anyway, great colour.
perhaps if the focus was on the vanes of the leaf it would be better?
as for 800px wide.... when willl you run out of 2gb?
will you start deleting less popular photos from the other end of the archive...?
March 4th, 2005 at 5:29 AM
The focus is on the hole in the leaf, which is the ideal situation. I don't understand what you mean by the focus being on the veins. The focus is on the veins, and more importantly, on the damaged part where the light shines through; ie, the focal point.
At 800px wide the photos will be approximately 150-250k, which translates into about 70MB/year...and with 2400MB, I will run out in about 34 years, give or take a few. I already have about 1.3 gigs used, with all my videos and stuff, so if I don't delete any of those it will be about 16 years.
...in which time computers will move to being many hundreds of gigaherz with many terabyte hard drives, cameras wil be hundreds of MP, and I will probably do just a few re-designs and resolution changes...lol...or maybe ditch photography alltogether...for holographic images, or something. :P Also, I will seemingly never run out, because in the future, hosting companies will offer increasingly larger amounts of space. :)
In short, technology will outrun itself in the next year or two. I am more concerned about the wallpaper, which is 100-300k apiece (about 1 meg per photo), but even then in many years.
I do not plan to delete any photos. I may start a totally new site and cut this one off, but I don't have any plans of removing photos.
Hope that answered any questions you had, and perhaps some you didn't. ;)
March 4th, 2005 at 7:05 AM
Very nice, Ryan. And with the page as it is -- the thumbnail with the red light -- there's a benefit from the mutual display.
RE the lamp: if you think what you still have is inferior to other offerings, yet still good enough to share, you might consider a gallery or suite page, so people can readily see them all and make comparisons.
March 4th, 2005 at 9:17 AM
the focus definitly seems to be just this side a bit from the middle vein, but nevermind, its a very good photo.
March 4th, 2005 at 3:22 PM
Lol, Philip, your too picky ;);)
As far as the size goes, I think having them 800 pix wide is a great idea. 600 wide is just toooo small to really see the detail of the photo. . .and your only seeing like 1/26 of the actual pixels :D
800x600 is much better.
I like the leaf!
March 4th, 2005 at 6:23 PM
Thanks again for the positive comment, Mark.
On a side note: since DSLR's aspect ratio is 2x3, not 3x4, the photos will actually be 800x533. :)
March 4th, 2005 at 6:39 PM
Ah yes, I keep forgetting its 2x3 :P
oh well, 800x533 is still better ;)
March 4th, 2005 at 7:56 PM
Good color