Shopsmith Forums

dusty wrote:Thank you, Admin. This looks great.

Are there any other subtle changes that have been made and not yet noticed?

We moved to new hardware a few weeks ago (you may remember when the site experienced a bit of down time). With larger, modern drives opening up the size on images seemed to make sense.

I don't recall anything significant changed, although I did go through the settings as part of the system move.

Tweaked
[ATTACH]25207[/ATTACH]

Original
[ATTACH]25208[/ATTACH]

Are you using 'portrait' mode?

The focused portion contains more detail than the original pix shows.

I admit to over tweaking(evident in the distant out of focus range), but did so to illustrate the sawdust detail and table groove info was indeed in the pix.

Portrait mode softens things so as to create a more 'flattering' image.

Perhaps your camera does so by default.

My camera(missing) does so to a far less extent so many of my posted pix have been 'tweaked'.


Truth be revealed methinks much of the quality of Ed's pix are the result of Canon's Quality objectives(as well as Ed's).



'Tweaking' done with Irfanview 'sharpen' function.

JPG40504 wrote:
Are you using 'portrait' mode?

The focused portion contains more detail than the original pix shows.

I don't think I am using portrait mode. I'll spend some time browsing through the manual to see if I can find anything about that.

The camera that I have is an inexpensive Olympus Stylus 710.

I need to clarify something.

The 'sharpen' function in Irfanview works well with sharply defined edges. It accentuates them.

Natural sharp edges are what makes portrait work difficult with a good camera as it reveals blemishes.

One way to smudge the photo is to be slightly out of focus.

The 'sharpen' function does not work well on out of focus images.

Sharpen doesn't add detail it only makes it look better to your eye.

If it has it you might want to try unsharp mask.

I always take my photos at the highest resolution possible and only reduce the size if I need to for some reason. Upload restrictions for example. I never ever modify the original. Don't for get backups.

JPG40504 wrote: Are you using 'portrait' mode?

An update (correction if you will).

I do have a portrait option on my camera. In fact, I have all sorts of options that I never use (didn't realize they were available). I guess you would consider me a "point and click" type.

Photography has never been a strong suit for me. I have years and years worth of 35mm slides to prove that.

I have noticed that if the kids stop by and see that I have the slide projector out they immediately inform us that they can't stay long. They were just in the area and stopped to say hi.

I have become aware, due to this forum, that I have a more sophisticated camera than I realized. I also became aware that this new set of options is not going to significantly change anything.

The following were each shot using a different camera option (to include "portrait mode").

[ATTACH]25212[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]25213[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]25214[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]25215[/ATTACH]

Assuming that the old restriction of 800 x 600 was to preserve hard disk storage space, I could never figure out why I couldn't upload a 600 x 800 image when the pix was taller than it was wide. Is that still the case with the new hardware?

mountainbreeze wrote:Assuming that the old restriction of 800 x 600 was to preserve hard disk storage space, I could never figure out why I couldn't upload a 600 x 800 image when the pix was taller than it was wide. Is that still the case with the new hardware?

You could not load 600x800 because the 800 is larger than the 600 in 800x600.

Yes, you CAN NOT load 768x1024 under the new criteria but you can do 1024x768.

dusty wrote:You could not load 600x800 because the 800 is larger than the 600 in 800x600.

I understand that but to me, it seems like a silly restriction since they both require about the same amount of storage space.