The buds on our lilacs are opening. And I have a new macro lens! Can’t decide which of these I like better.

 › photos     2008-04-19 19:21   ...0 comments

Halloween was a great success here. I’m sure we had well over 50 kids, the best costumes going to a listerine bottle and some rolaids or something.

Here’s our pumpkins for the year.

 › photos     2007-11-01 09:11   ...1 comment

I’m trying to come to terms with the fact that my new camera has so many more pixels than the old one.

At first you might think that that was nothing but a good thing. After all, I can make bigger prints should I want to. That 11x17 print that I loved and framed would be so much sharper if taken by my new camera. That is a cool thing.

The problem is that my monitor has stayed the same size.

The fact is that I review my pictures onscreen. I look at them there, and seldom if ever print any of them. How should I deal with the fact that, when resized, the monitor is throwing out heaps of data to fit the picture on the screen? My pictures are 3888 x 2592 pixels which is 10 077 696 pixels in the image. The screen is 1024 x 768 pixels which is 786 432 pixels. There are almost 13 times more pixels in the image than there are on the screen. That’s 12 pixels thrown away for each pixel displayed. How am I supposed to decide if it’s a good image?

Of course, the true answer is that a good image is made first from a good photograph. Good composition, good exposure, appropriate depth of field, etc. Capturing something worthwhile should always be the first goal of taking photographs. Resizing an image doesn’t affect any of this, so there is no need to worry about assessing these factors in a resized image.

There are other concerns, though, that should be taken into account. How about: is the image in focus?

What I have been doing to answer the focus question is called pixel peeping. This means that I open the photo in a picture viewing program and zoom it to 100%. I am now looking at all 10 million pixels, one pixel on the screen = one pixel in the image. Now I can see the full picture, right? No data lost, right? I can now judge whether the picture is a good one, right? I simply scroll around and look at areas of detail, right? This seemed to make a lot of sense at first, but it has led me to feel disappointed with my equipment because the pictures never look really good at 100%. I decided to do some math to see what I’m really looking at when I zoom to 100%, and decide what level of zoom I really should be looking at.

The basic idea is to figure out what “size” of print I’m looking at when I zoom to view a part of the image at 100%. My screen (11½ inches wide and 1024 pixels across) has about 90 pixels per inch (ppi) and when zoomed to 100% this represents 90 dpi as well. With simple arithmetic we discover that my 3888 pixel image is 44 inches across at this magnification. Repeating the calculations for height we have a total size of 44 x 29”. That’s the equivalent of magnifying a 6 x 8” print over five times. I don’t think most of us look at our printed photos that way.

So, how much should I zoom in, if 100% is not the goal. The answer I’ve come up with for myself is to trust that the computer will be as good at throwing away data as my eye is able to blend the microscopic dots in a printed image. An image is typically printed at 150-300 dpi, with image quality being considered to increase as the printer packs in the dots more tightly.

At 150 dpi my image is 26 inches wide. At 300 dpi my image is 13 inches wide. It seems as though I need to zoom in on the computer so that I will be looking at a picture at that same scale. For my image size and monitor, a 60% zoom will be “actual size” of a 150 dpi print (90 ppi monitor divided by 150 dpi print = 0.6). For my image size and monitor, a 30% zoom will be “actual size” of a 300 dpi print (90 ppi monitor divided by 300 dpi print = 0.3).

I believe most computer resize algorithms work best when reducing size by factors of 2, viewing the image at 50% is probably the highest magnification I’ll ever look at, giving me “actual size” of a print made at 180 dpi. This is just about as low as I’d like to go for a large enlargement of one of my pictures. Such a print would be 14½ x 21”. An image that looked sharp at that size would be very sharp indeed. And thinking back to film days I think you would agree that few pictures would have been good enough to print that big.

A more reasonable choice would be to look at the image at 30% zoom. This would equate to a print at 300 dpi, which is a magazine quality print. An image viewed at this resolution is 8½ x 13. This is the size of a reasonably big home enlargement, certainly an appropriate size to be judging an amateur photo at. From now on I’ll look at photos at that level on an everyday picture.

Try my Image Zoom Calculator for yourself

 › photos     2007-09-02 14:18   ...2 comments

Is it just me or does this shot look like a frame from a QT movie?

 › photos     2007-08-22 23:49   ...0 comments

My fabulous birthday present this year (from several contributors — thank you all!) was a new camera. And what better surroundings to enjoy it than my annual cottage birthday party? Here’s a sampling of shots (generally humanless to protect the innocent).

Here’s a shout out to all who made it and helped me celebrate in style (and posed over and over and over…)

Michele with focus-assist halo

Your man is 33 this year

Basket of Cherries (firework)

 › photos     2007-08-08 00:07   ...1 comment

Lots of tulip pics this year, and I thought I’d just post one since I’ve got a minute.

 › photos     2007-05-25 00:30   ...0 comments

Here’s a meme that sounds like fun.

Ask me to take pictures of any aspect of my life that you’re interested in or curious about. It can be anything from my favorite shirt to my cell phone. Leave your requests as a comment to this entry, and I’ll snap the pictures and post them as soon as I can.

Note that in my case “as soon as I can” could be in quite a while, but I think this might be a cool way to get new photo ideas. (But not everyone should make them impossible mkay?)

 › photos     2007-02-01 16:08   ...3 comments

A cool site that tells you how to build a lighting studio for macro photography for well under $10. Looks cool… I want to try it.

 › photos     2007-01-10 18:37   ...0 comments

Since we’re writing about meeting Keltie recently I thought I’d post photos from the day I met Keltie. It was at the distillery district and it was, in fact, a lovely day.

 › photos › nablopomo     2006-11-16 19:57   ...3 comments

And yes, I did miss yesterday so I guess my nablopomo efforts aren’t entirely successful. Perhaps I’ll post twice one day soon to make up for it.

We’re having a nice weekend with Jen’s parents.

 › photos › nablopomo     2006-11-12 11:22   ...1 comment