Backyard Series #29

Michigan Michael · Post by **Michigan Michael** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:32 pm

Taken at the Detroit Zoo (which is pretty much in "my backyard").

JoanYoung · Post by **JoanYoung** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:33 pm

A very beautiful image Michael.

beetleman · Post by **beetleman** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:34 am

A very beautiful picture Michael. It is very pleasing to look at. I like the horizontal leafs in the background, they seem to go great with the vertical shape of the butterfly and none of the colors distract from the great butterfly IMO.

jaharris1001 · Post by **jaharris1001** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 5:16 pm

very nice image Michael, I like how its framed, nice bokeh, nice lighting on the butterfly, soft colors in the backround, nice image

Michigan Michael · Post by **Michigan Michael** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:13 am

Joan, Doug and Jim,
thank you all very much.

Michael

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 6:03 am

Very nice there Michael, I too like the background and the diversity in lines which compliment the butterfly.

I notice some compression artifacts too, those maybe could be software issues, I don't know. They are annoying and I too get them on certain images. I have done a bit of reading up on them and their cause but it gets over my head the more I read into it.

Michigan Michael · Post by **Michigan Michael** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:47 am

Ken Ramos wrote: I notice some compression artifacts too, those maybe could be software issues, I don't know.

Ah, yes, the dreaded compression artifacts!
I'm fairly new to the computer-aspect of photography and still trying to work out the "delicate balance" between quality and size restrictions.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 12:27 pm

For posting here in the forums, there's a simple rule that I find works pretty well: use the full 200 KB allowed for each image.

At the moment, the image posted here is only 110 KB.

In every software package I know, there is some sort of adjustable quality setting that has the side effect of setting the file size. Often the software predicts how big the file will be, and sometimes it offers a preview that shows what the compressed image will look like.

Save with the highest quality setting that predicts less than 200 KB. Then check to see what it actually did -- sometimes the file ends up larger than predicted. If the file is over 200 KB, save the file again with the quality setting pushed down a notch. If the software you're using doesn't make predictions, well, a bit of experimentation gets the answer pretty quick too.

Hope this helps...

--Rik

Michigan Michael · Post by **Michigan Michael** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Rik, thanks for the info.
I have tried your suggestions here:

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 9:08 pm

Wow! This file is only 20% bigger than the other one, but the compression artifacts are just ... gone.

Not only is there no checkerboarding around the antennae, but the background bokeh is even better because some subtle mottling went away. Take a look at the bright horizontal leaf at top, for example. It's nice to see that, but I sure wasn't expecting it.

Thanks for posting the new version!

--Rik

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:05 am

Wonderful!!! Size does matter after all.

Michigan Michael · Post by **Michigan Michael** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 7:16 am

Well, I guess that you CAN teach an old dog new tricks!

I do have a question, however. On my computer this photo has a file size of 192KB. BUT as posted here, it has a file size of only 130 KB. Why the discrepancy?

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:31 am

Michigan Michael wrote:Why the discrepancy?

Good question -- I don't have a clue! The upload software software was already set up when I got the admin job, and I've never taken a close look at it. But I sure will.

Thanks for mentioning the discrepency!

--Rik

MacroLuv · Post by **MacroLuv** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:43 am

Very nice.

And second one looks much less noisy now.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:57 am

Michigan Michael wrote:Why the discrepancy?

Michael, I can't reproduce the effect, and I can't find anything in the code that would explain it. The uploaded image is altered and re-saved if the original is too big, or rotation was requested, or the forum is configured to add a watermark (which it isn't). Otherwise it's just copied, byte for byte equal.

I tested with a file that the Properties dialog shows as 188,924 bytes on my computer. Sure enough, after using the "Upload picture" button, what ended up on photomacrography2.net was exactly the same: 188,924. Likewise for another file of size 199,806.

Check again please. If you continue to get changes in image size, contact me offline so we can set up a test case and get this one figured out.

Thanks,
--Rik