Zenon Char wrote:
Maybe that is what I'm doing wrong. What size do you send to flickr and then what do you select when linking. Original? In previous conversations I read that FM still resizes files from flickr but I could be wrong.
I send the original size to Flickr and then post the 1600x long edge version here so it looks decent on 4k monitors.
If you post the 1080x version here, it starts to look soft even on cell phones.
I still find that even though I upload Original to Flickr and link 1600 here that it is still better on Flickr. I find the FM Uploads and Flickr embeds aren't as good as they should be when viewed on 4K, 5K or 6K monitors. On lower res monitors like my old iMac they look pretty good.
arbitrage wrote:
I still find that even though I upload Original to Flickr and link 1600 here that it is still better on Flickr. I find the FM Uploads and Flickr embeds aren't as good as they should be when viewed on 4K, 5K or 6K monitors. On lower res monitors like my old iMac they look pretty good.
That's because Flickr is downscaling the original file when you view on flickr, so it's much sharper than just a 1600x version.
If FM was responsive, you could embed the original here and it would look as good as flickr without stretching off the page. The problem would be in image threads, each page would require about 800mb to load
RoamingScott wrote:
That's because Flickr is downscaling the original file when you view on flickr, so it's much sharper than just a 1600x version.
If FM was responsive, you could embed the original here and it would look as good as flickr without stretching off the page. The problem would be in image threads, each page would require about 800mb to load
I guess if I go into View All Sizes and view the 1600 one there it might look the same as using BBC code to embed the 1600 one on here. Will have to test that when back on my 5K monitor.
RoamingScott wrote:
That's because Flickr is downscaling the original file when you view on flickr, so it's much sharper than just a 1600x version.
Idiot here: I have a SmugMug account. When I copy/paste a link from their Share function, either as link or "embed", and post that, I end up seeing the raw html code instead of the image. How do people actually post the image? I presume that Flickr isn't all that different from Smugmug, given it's the same company...
Sorry for hijacking the thread, I'm just tired of posting ugly photos - at least technically
stanj wrote:
Idiot here: I have a SmugMug account. When I copy/paste a link from their Share function, either as link or "embed", and post that, I end up seeing the raw html code instead of the image. How do people actually post the image? I presume that Flickr isn't all that different from Smugmug, given it's the same company...
Sorry for hijacking the thread, I'm just tired of posting ugly photos - at least technically
Not sure if Smug offers different sizes/resolutions, but you'd need to simply right click the right image, copy the image location (should be a URL that ends in .jpg) and put that in image brackets over here.
stanj wrote:
Idiot here: I have a SmugMug account. When I copy/paste a link from their Share function, either as link or "embed", and post that, I end up seeing the raw html code instead of the image. How do people actually post the image? I presume that Flickr isn't all that different from Smugmug, given it's the same company...
Sorry for hijacking the thread, I'm just tired of posting ugly photos - at least technically
No this is great. I have been banging my head against the wall since getting a 5K monitor.
ketang wrote:
Here are a few images I took for a women's jacket company (the jackets have pockets!) using the RF 28-70. These were non-professional models and there was no stylist, but I think they turned out great all things considered. The R5's tracking was excellent and it worked well with my Godox lights:
If I shoot the same subjects, I will chose white background. The bricks dilute the scene and even may shift the subject. The white or grey or any off-white will keep the background abstract which what is required in such case.
Of course just my opinion, nothing wrong/right for subjective thing.
If I shoot the same subjects, I will chose white background. The bricks dilute the scene and even may shift the subject. The white or grey or any off-white will keep the background abstract which what is required in such case.
Of course just my opinion, nothing wrong/right for subjective thing.
Thanks for the feedback. The client wanted the brick in this case, but I think a studio approach like you describe would have been a nice complement.
ketang wrote:
Here are a few images I took for a women's jacket company (the jackets have pockets!) using the RF 28-70. These were non-professional models and there was no stylist, but I think they turned out great all things considered. The R5's tracking was excellent and it worked well with my Godox lights:
Single focus point and no tracking should look that good with a EOS R, 5D mk iv or 5DSR.
But I think the look of the skin color and fabrics is what I like best from this set of images. And if you did have tracking and it worked good for you too, that's good to hear likewise since you were relying on it.
If the models or you were swaying a little bit, apparently that should increase the number of shots you can save and choose from.
arbitrage wrote:
I still find that even though I upload Original to Flickr and link 1600 here that it is still better on Flickr. I find the FM Uploads and Flickr embeds aren't as good as they should be when viewed on 4K, 5K or 6K monitors. On lower res monitors like my old iMac they look pretty good.
I did a few tests. Actually uploaded full sizes jpegs to Flickr and tried 1600. Then I tried full size and this site resize it and it looked the best to me. More detail than I have seen so far.
