Today in Oshkosh [9/9] - "09 Another Mustang (wasn't this Dazzling Donna).JPG" yEnc (1/1)

In article ,
ck (Just Plane Noise) wrote:

=ybegin part=1 line=128 size=143599 name=09 Another Mustang (wasn't this
Dazzling Donna).JPG
=ypart begin=1 end=143599
[Image]

=yend size=143599 part=1 pcrc32=0d34329d

Say,

Are you resizing these pictures before posting? Those are some very
severe compression artifacts which destroy the image quality. And what
lens are you using? The U-2 pictures especially show a lot of purple
fringe.

And I'll bet you thought I was going to complain about yEnc! ;-)

--
One is always considered mad when one perfects something that others can
not grasp.*- Ed Wood

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:56:35 -0700, John Meyer
wrote:

In article ,
ck (Just Plane Noise) wrote:

=ybegin part=1 line=128 size=143599 name=09 Another Mustang (wasn't this
Dazzling Donna).JPG
=ypart begin=1 end=143599
[Image]

=yend size=143599 part=1 pcrc32=0d34329d

Say,

Are you resizing these pictures before posting? Those are some very
severe compression artifacts which destroy the image quality. And what
lens are you using? The U-2 pictures especially show a lot of purple
fringe.



They're not only being resized and compressed, but I also have to do
other stuff since many were backlit. The original image of the first
U2 pic was 3872 by 2592, and the purple fringe is evident in it when I
first cropped it to just the part of the image containing the U2
(about 16__ by 11__) , which I then resized to 1280 X 1024. The image
was then compressed for posting. Still, it actually looks a bit
better than the original in some respects.

The problems you're seeing may be more a matter of what the 75-300 mm
Sony (Minolta) lens can or can't do at full extension, with a
particularly poor light situation, instead of compression being at
fault.

Got any tips for improvement?

In article ,
Just Plane Noise wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:56:35 -0700, John Meyer
wrote:

In article ,
ck (Just Plane Noise) wrote:

=ybegin part=1 line=128 size=143599 name=09 Another Mustang (wasn't this
Dazzling Donna).JPG
=ypart begin=1 end=143599
[Image]

=yend size=143599 part=1 pcrc32=0d34329d

Say,

Are you resizing these pictures before posting? Those are some very
severe compression artifacts which destroy the image quality. And what
lens are you using? The U-2 pictures especially show a lot of purple
fringe.



They're not only being resized and compressed, but I also have to do
other stuff since many were backlit. The original image of the first
U2 pic was 3872 by 2592, and the purple fringe is evident in it when I
first cropped it to just the part of the image containing the U2
(about 16__ by 11__) , which I then resized to 1280 X 1024. The image
was then compressed for posting. Still, it actually looks a bit
better than the original in some respects.

The problems you're seeing may be more a matter of what the 75-300 mm
Sony (Minolta) lens can or can't do at full extension, with a
particularly poor light situation, instead of compression being at
fault.

Got any tips for improvement?

Yeah, the purple fringing is a lens thing. A lot of consumer zooms have
that problem. So I was curious about what lens. There are some software
solutions that can reduce the effect. Here's a method for Photoshop:
http://creativebits.org/photography/...urple_fringing

The rest of what I see comes from over-compressing the JPG. I'm not too
familiar with the Sony A100 and how it saves JPGs, assuming you're not
shooting RAW. The lighting conditions are obviously poor! You can
recover a lot more from a RAW file than from a JPEG which is already
compromised by nature. I would say to avoid processing your JPGs as much
as possible and to compress them less. Especially if you're posting in
yEnc you can get away with bigger files.

What a shame about that accident. Why risk a formation landing? What's
the point?

--
One is always considered mad when one perfects something that others can
not grasp. - Ed Wood

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:20:27 -0700, John Meyer
wrote:


Yeah, the purple fringing is a lens thing. A lot of consumer zooms have
that problem. So I was curious about what lens. There are some software
solutions that can reduce the effect. Here's a method for Photoshop:
http://creativebits.org/photography/...urple_fringing


Oddly enough, John, I just saw a comprehensive test of the Sony 75-300
online (Camera Laboratoes was the site, I think), and it showed no
fringing AT ALL at 300 mm, but some at other lengths. Hmmmm......

The rest of what I see comes from over-compressing the JPG. I'm not too
familiar with the Sony A100 and how it saves JPGs, assuming you're not
shooting RAW. The lighting conditions are obviously poor! You can
recover a lot more from a RAW file than from a JPEG which is already
compromised by nature.

The A100 saves JPEG, RAW, or JPEG + RAW (gotta get me one of them 8 GB
cards!).

I would say to avoid processing your JPGs as much
as possible and to compress them less. Especially if you're posting in
yEnc you can get away with bigger files.


Thanks for the tips, John.


What a shame about that accident. Why risk a formation landing? What's
the point?


I'm also wondering if part of the blame is with the lead plane for
touching down before the other, although that wouldn't explain a
head-to-tail collision since P51s can land side by side if need be on
Oshkosh's runways.