Nice Photos.

The above picture was just a random one (Waterton Lake) that I used to see if I could get this sort of imaging thing to work. One day I might get the hang of it.

Cheers

Don

Ok, another one to see if I can add some text before posting.

Wonder Pass taken on the way out from Assiniboine.

Cheers

Don

Lovely pics Don. Unfortunately we don't really do mountains around here...

Oh dear, I've mainly got mountains in my pics.

My pictures are more snap-shots than the professional looking photos posted here by others, but they do give a passing impression of some of the places I have been priviliged to visit, hopefully they won't discourage others from visiting.

Cheers

Don 

I meant round here as in my neck of the woods, Cambridgeshire...Not The Forum...

Nice pics Don. Waterton Lake looks like a great place to visit!

I realize that some people here aren't into that kind of thing  but for some of us it's hard to take a photo without some mountain getting in the way!

By the way, it's a small Naim world. A friend of mine from Vancouver is enjoying a CD player that was once Mogul's....

Ah ha! Now I understand, thanks.

Yes, even Berkshire/Hampshire/Wiltshire, where I spend most of my time in the UK has a few hills.

Cheers

Don

Sandy, Jamie,

Both your pictures look incredibly sharp and detailed, whereas mine look more grained/pixellated.

Both of mine were taken with a Canon EOS100 on either Kodachrome or Fuji with a 28-105mm zoom EF lens fitted with a polorising filter, then scanned onto a CD by the film processing company. The CD copy in each case is about 2MB and one or two similar sized pictures I have printed at A0 size using a Laser printer without any evidence of pixellation.

More recently I have been using a Leica D4 Lux, simly because I can stuff it into a shirt pocket and take snapshots on the hoof. Again, the JPEG images are about 1 or 2 Meg

When I made the link from the Forum to the Imageshack repository, I selected the "Direct Link" size option of about 450x350 pixels - in line with Richard's recommendation in the FAQ section.

So my question to the experts (for the avoidance of doubt, that's you) is - it the fundamental photography that needs to improve (be honest), do I need to "Photoshop" the initial results, or do I simply need to provide a link with more resolution ?

I will try to post a couple more samples today, including one that I know enlarges to A0.

Many thanks in advance for any advice you feel able to offer - even if its "abandon all hope"

Cheers

Don

Another attempt, this time Tofino on the west coast of Vancouver Island.

Cheers

Don

* oops

Try again with Floe Lake

Cheers

Don

Well, there's lots of links in the chain from camera to forum there! Do you know where in the chain you see your graining first? E.G.  Is it on prints/slides, the digital copy on CD, on your PC at all, or only posting on forum? I would imagine that the point you first see the graining will lead you to your source.

If only on forum, could be Imageshack I guess, assuming you don't see the graining/pixelation on the original images on your PC?

I still use film, though less often now and I have found that, unless you pay lots of money, CD transfers are often pretty poorly done, especially if you've used a fast film. Again if original image OK on your PC, that points to imageshack.

Nothing wrong with the DLux either! It's an excellent camera. As for the number of MP's, I sometimes use an ancient 2MP Olympus with virtually antique smartmedia cards and that's fine too.

Both Sandy and I use flickr as a host. Now, it doesn't matter what size we choose to paste into reply box, the forum software re-sizes them to the small sizes seen in the posts. Quality here ain't much either but you can at least click on them which takes you to flickr and the wealth of size and viewing options offered there.

Most of my pictures, regardless of source (camera, slides, print film, digital), print at A4 without any sign of grain. I have printed a few at A0, again without any sign of grain and I occasionally project them onto a 50" Kuro plasma where they look technically (as opposed to artistically) superb - all providing I have used my tripod.

I copied many of the digital versions into my laptop (with external back up) and the four experimental pictures I posted were saved in Imageshack at different resolutions from '15" screen'

to 'original size'. These all seemed ok when viewed in Imageshack but I now realise that their native resolution does vary from c.650kb to c.2mb so perhaps the pixellation is inherant to some degree that I haven't previously noticed.

However, It seems like its the final transfer to the Forum where things really deteriorate.

I'll see if I can register with Flickr and get better results.

Many thanks

Don

Jamie's correct Don. Imageshack is fine for posting album covers on the forum but Flickr is better for good quality photos. If you have a Flickr account then you can pick up the HTML and load it through the HTML tag on the Post Reply toolbox in the top right hand corner.

Happy snapping.

Steve

Today I said goodbye to my trusted Nikon D300s and last few lenses - traded them up for an A99. After taking a Sony A65 on a testdrive in South Africa earlier this year, I've become completely sold on the excellent live view implementation (when freedom of movement is limited), instant manual focus magnification in the view finder, lack of mirror slap and much higher focus accuracy (if not focus coverage). I'm going to miss my 85 and 300 primes, and will use a 70-300 G for the immediate future, until I bump across a Minolta 300 or 400 in good condition.

Cheers,

EJ

If you grab the BBCode from Flickr, you just paste it straight into the "Post Reply window on this forum. No need to click the HTML button.

Don,a "try Flickr"from me too.Try it soon, as I'm interested in watching further pics from you with those beautiful places.Also,your lake's pic seems to be nice to me though.Can't see the problem:its quality is the same of other posted here.Have a try to Flickr anyway.

Cheers.

Another vote for Flickr from me too.

Flickr is great fun, you get to see a lot of really great photos and also pick up some very useful hints and tips.

Best site on that there internet IMO.

I've just seen it on Flickr.Looks very very good Kev.

Proposal for the many great photographers on this thread.

Why not start a new thread for 2013, the "not so nice photos"

Still posting your great quality images, but of less attractive parts of life, instead of all the great scenics, hy not show some depravity, or othe "poor" images?

Would beequally worth viewing?

Paul

"why not show some depravity"

Tony, I think he means you...