Not necessarily my best, but Cityscape at Night....

[griffljg]

It was probably my best of the night.

I got my OM-1 back from repair last week and, as our local camera club has an "After Dark" challenge, I decided to go into the city to test the camera and take some night time shots. I took a mini-tripod with me, but just couldn't be bothered to use it and so all the photos were hand-held. I am still busy processing the photos, but I quite liked this one.

The Brisbane CBD taken from South Bank.

This image was processed by first passing the raw file through DxO PureRAW 4 for noise reduction (ISO 12,800) and lens correction purposes, before importing the resulting DNG file into Capture One Pro for further editing / processing.

Brisbane CBD by Laurence Griffiths, on Flickr

[shakyHands]

The lower parts of the sky look a little pixelated - like its using 8 bit colour. Is that just the display on this site?

[shakyHands]

It looks better on flickr!

[griffljg]

Thanks for that.

[griffljg]

I think it's just this site. That's why I included the Flickr link.

[griffljg]

Does this look any better? - I have just provided the Flickr link.

Brisbane CBD by Laurence Griffiths, on Flickr

[shakyHands]

@griffjg Yes the colour gradient in the sky looks much smoother

[griffljg]

A slightly different crop on the next one:

Brisbane CBD at night by Laurence Griffiths, on Flickr

[MJ224]

I think the forum does sometimes degrade the photo a little, maybe something to do with its image processing. I wonder if the pixel count choice affects it ?

However, I find your image is technically good anyway, and the composition etc is spot on. Great photo Larry...

[griffljg]

Thanks Mark.

[blackfox]

Super shots Larry ,very impressive on flickr

[griffljg]

Thanks Jeff. I wish I could find out how to get my photos to display correctly on this forum.

[Ian]

I'm trying to do this for you, here, Larry - see:

https://www.e-group.uk.net/forum/forum/site-news-and-information/tutorials-informative-classic-threads/984970-image-display-quality-on-the-forum

For a 1600 pixel longest side image the file size needs to be about a megabyte or slightly more.

[Dave in Wales]

I find it's hit and miss.

If they are not to my satisfaction when uploaded here, then I revert to Flickr.

Somehow that tends to improve them, in my eyes anyway.

[Bikie John]

I like them. In the first shot I find the bright foliage top left a bit of a distraction, and it doesn't help the framing. Likewise in the second on the mid-right we have a little bit of a brightly lit tower right on the edge which is a bit distracting so I would be tempted to demolish it. Or crop the image if I can't get planning permission for that

John

[Ian]

It looks better on flickr!

The file size on the forum is too small - it's only 200K Was that the file size of the file originally uploaded here?

Ian

[griffljg]

The file originally uploaded was 434kB at 83% quality. At 100% quality, the file size is 1.3MB. Both are with 1600 pixels along the long edge. ie horizontally

[Ian]

I have started a new thread on the subject of file attachment display quality on the forum here:

https://www.e-group.uk.net/forum/forum/site-news-and-information/tutorials-informative-classic-threads/984970-image-display-quality-on-the-forum

Ian

[griffljg]

Thank you Ian. I would really like to be able to sort this issue out. One of the really great things about Olympus / OM System photographic equipment is the amazing definition and sharpness you can get out of their lenses, particularly the PRO lenses.

[griffljg]

Here's one uploaded at full resolution (5030x2432 pixels) and 85% quality. It is 3.6MB in size.

[griffljg]

This one was generated at full resolution (5030x2432 pixels) and 100% quality. The uploaded file was 11.9MB.

[Ian]

This is much better. My personal method is to resize on export to the size I want to display it at (1600 wide for landscape or 1200 tall for portrait), and aim for a file size of around 1,000MB (slightly less for portrait). In Lightroom, using 80 or 85% JPEG quality on export is near enough. By exporting at the size you want to display it means the forum software doesn't need to reprocess your image by resizing it. It's best to resize yourself.

[griffljg]

I see that the "tonality" is better, but the definition is still better in the one displayed via Flickr.

I'll try to export at 1600 wide and then adjust the JPEG quality to get a file size of about 1MB. - I think that is what you meant with the 1,000MB.

[Ian]

The size limit here is 1600 pixels. You need to view at 1:1 for the best viewing quality. Flickr appears to display larger than that, so you will see more detail. 1600 pixels was the best size for when we predominantly had FHD displays (1920x1080). Many of us now have 4K displays (3840 x 2160), so it may be time to increase the maximum size.

[griffljg]

This version is exported at 1600 along the long side with 98% JPEG quality, which gives a file size of 1MB.