It's a bird

by Vian Esterhuizen

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tag Info

New answers tagged

1

Photos are displayed at 2048px on their longest edge. Have a read on 500px support page for more details.


5

Because of the way color is created from single monochromatic luminance values created by each pixel of a CMOS sensor, the pixels on the edge are needed to allow interpolation of the Red, Green, and Blue values for the next row(s) of pixels in. To have enough information to compute RGB values for each pixel on the edge, you would need an additional row of ...


3

I'm not familiar with Photoshop Elements, but the "small" and "large" quality options are probably referring to file size, whereas the "can't print at that picture size because your image is too small" message is probably referring to pixel dimensions. To print a large canvas print, you need plenty of pixels, and the JPEG quality setting is not related. In ...


1

If you're lucky, you won't lose any quality, but you certainly won't gain any. The best thing to do is to re-process the RAW file. Whilst doing so, you can ask your wife if she wants is exactly the same or you could change the framing etc if desired. Bear in mind that canvas wraps can sometimes 'lose' part of the image near the edge, as it is wrapped around ...


2

What is the best resolution and quality for website The answer is that there are, and must be, several per image. Responsive design You should consider using a responsive web-design and using HTML5 and CSS3 to serve up a version of the image suited to the size and resolution of the viewing device. The optimum image for an iPhone is different to that ...


1

Here is one reference. The best resolution is an evolving standard. Not just in terms of sizes but also the depth and quality of images displayed change as new displays and devices are invented. When 2K and 4K monitors become common, current sizes will not be optimum. In any case, most common maximum sizes today are for wide screens pixel dimensions of ...


3

The best resolution for a normal website is exactly 1-to-1. IE you want to display an image at 200 pixel width, you should save it to 200 pixel width. forget DPI as its entirely irrelevant when displayed on screen. Quality (JPG) should be as low as possible without affecting the image quality too much, usually around 65-85% - of course it depends on the ...


0

A few cameras that have image stabilization built into the body can take a sequence of images with the sensor moved slightly in each one. The images are then combined to generate one image with higher resolution than the sensor can provide in a single frame. It's possible that phone-based cameras might do something similar using an accelerometer to detect ...


2

Yes, if the sensor is truly a 1600x1200 (two megapixel) device and the camera is artificially generating 5 megapixel images, then yes, one could say "extrapolated" — or, dishonest, pointless scammery, since this doesn't provide you with any real advantages. To be pedantic, we wouldn't say that the sensor is extrapolated. We would say that the 5mpix image is ...


2

It's picking up the embedded jpeg preview. Edit --> Preferences --> File Handling --> JPEG Preview --> Select 'Full Size' --> OK Then select photos --> right-click --> Metadata --> Update DNG Preview and Metadata. I tried this, and subsequent to it re-uploading (this was a DNG in a Google Drive folder) the dimensions are showing correctly and the quality ...


0

I just conducted an experiment and uploaded a DNG via the Google Photos Backup app using the Original setting. I then displayed the online info and it indeed says 1024x683 and 0.7MP but file size is correct. I then downloaded the image and displayed it's properties. It is 4752x3168. My assumption is that Google is misreading the exif data and the image is ...


0

I see several things to improve on in these images: light quality, motion blur, and f/stop The light on your subject is very diffused and non-directional. Find more directional light. In other words, light that casts some kind of shadow. You're not stopping down enough. Try f/8 or f/11 These images suffer from slight camera shake. Use a tripod. Also, if ...


0

Your first image is just out-of-focus a bit. All your images show shallow depth-of-field. Also, you are photographing flowers seemingly pretty much close-up. You also have low light. This makes focusing pretty hard by itself. Neither the kit lens, nor the 35 mm f/1.8 is macro-capable, so their performance degrades in this situation. Since you have not ...


0

No guarantees, but start with this. The first photo seems to be sharp nowhere but closest to in focus at lower middle on the flower bases (petals gone)(name escapes me). If you get that when focusing is as sharp as you can get and you have checked that this is so you "have problems". But the other photos suggest that this one was just not properly focused. ...


3

There's an obvious difference between "good" and "great" glass at 20mp, surely it's even more obvious at 50mp. The problem is regarding resolution as some binary thing—it resolves or it doesn't. The reality is that contrast at a given resolution is what really matters. The point at which it goes from 10% MTF* to 0% MTF—extinction resolution or maximum ...


6

The Sony A77 has a Digital 1.4x and a 2x “Smart Teleconverter Feature”. This feature crops the image with no image quality loss, albeit, at a smaller size cropped from the centre At full size of 24 Megapixels, you get 6000 x 4000 When you do a 1.4x Digital Tele-convert you get a 12 Megapixel image which equates to 4240 x 2832 at 2x Digital Tele-convert, ...



Top 50 recent answers are included