Wetlook World ForumCurrent time: Sat 27/04/24 14:23:47 GMT |
Message # 18246.1.2.1.2.1 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LARGEST wetlook pics available? Date: Thu 15/09/05 10:53:36 GMT Name: AnthonyX Email: anthonyx@jowc.net |
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
|
Unfortunately, true "raw" output is a feature not available on my camera - I think that's the sort of thing you only see when you cross over from consumer to pro or at least "pro-sumer". Closest I can get to raw out of my camera is highest resolution (presumably 1 for 1 with chip pixels) and "minimally" compressed, but always jpeg encoded.
I do realize that no jpeg image is "raw". The point I was trying to make was related to a question of the jpeg encoding itself - that there should be a consistent relationship between file size and clarity/detail (in other words efficiency), regardless of what did the jpeg encoding.
|
In reply to Message (18246.1.2.1.2) Re: Re: Re: Re: LARGEST wetlook pics available?
By Graham (Styx) - Thu 15/09/05 10:38:52 GMT You're not looking at the RAW image. You would be unable to view such an image in a web browser. A RAW image is the information taken directly from the camera chip and has had no encoding or compression done on it. The RAW image needs to be read and encoded by filters in Photoshop. From a Canon camera, a RAW photo has a ".crw" extension and there's an accompanying ".thm" file (which is a small JPG thumbnail of it). What you've seen is a JPEG that's derived from the RAW photo after colour-balancing and adjustment (but no cropping in this case). The original RAW photo was around 8-10Mb if memory serves me right. |
In reply to Message (18246.1.2.1) Re: Re: Re: LARGEST wetlook pics available?
By AnthonyX - anthonyx@jowc.net Thu 15/09/05 08:59:54 GMT Graham, this is interesting.
Your raw 3k x 4.5k pixel image is only 1.6MB, yet "raw" "super-fine" jpeg images from my camera at less than half the resolution are at least as large (typically around 2MB). I didn't think there could be any significant variation in jpeg algorithms, but it does appear to be the case. It seems that for a given degree of detail in the stored image, different jpeg implementations can have significantly different levels of efficiency.
|
In reply to Message (18246.1.2) Re: Re: LARGEST wetlook pics available?
By Graham (Styx) - Thu 15/09/05 07:47:10 GMT That's the photo "as is". There's nothing more to see (such as the skirt) in that sample shot. The shots are RAW from the camera. We then crop, edit, add any enhancement and then publish - normally at 1200 pixels. The entire photoset is #207 on StyxWetWorld, shot by me while in Florida. We don't show them this large as it's not practical. But, taking them large, allows for cropping and editing. And we hand-crop/edit every photo individually for the site. |
In reply to Message (18246.1) Re: LARGEST wetlook pics available?
By soggybottom - Thu 15/09/05 07:14:51 GMT It looks like a great shot. Can you imagine the detail? Wish it was a little further back and show the skirt. I imagine that he just forgot to resize the photo before submitting. I'll run it through PS and reduce it to see what it is. |
In reply to Message (18246) LARGEST wetlook pics available?
By Detlef - dummedrecksau@gmx.de Thu 15/09/05 07:04:50 GMT Well it's kind of a fetish in my fetish. I love large pictures. I leave out most small ones I find. The larger the better. And as I know how to handle pics in ACDSee I can scale it the way I want it and zoom at the interesting parts just like using a digital camera and having that girl standing right in front of me... I wanna FEEL and TOUCH every wet spot.
Graham sent me the largest wetlook picture I've ever seen: http://www.styxfreeworld.com/pics/styxww-large.jpg
Anyone got a larger one? What do you think about large pictures?
|
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help with running costs:
(you can change amount)
|
[ This page took 0.093 seconds to generate ]