Photography in the workshop (for the inept)

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Just like cameras, Neil gives his requirements in Megapixcels not Megabytes

So 3MP or better for articles and 6MP or better if you want a bit more pocket money and bragging rights to get your photo on the front cover.

Memory wise 3MP is about 1MB. I’m currently using the phone’s default 8MP which varies a bit but average would be 3MB. Assuming its a JPEG, other compressions will differ.

So Howard is sending about th eminimum requirement and as Bernard says better won’t hurt.

[BazyleParticipant @bazyle]

I just had a look at the Gallery to see what range of pictures there is on the site. I was immediately struck by those of Dean Clarke 2 for his Big Boy Diesel. Perhaps he would give some advice on how he achieves this quality.

[old martParticipant @oldmart]

Both of your photos are perfectly acceptable for forum use, I normally set the maximum pixels to below 3Mp as some sites don’t like large files and viewed on a computer screen the difference will not be noticeable.

[bernard towersParticipant @bernardtowers37738]

I think this sites limit is 8mp

[Clive FosterParticipant @clivefoster55965]

What about file format?

My iPhone natively shunts pictures over to the computer in HEIC, aka “very big”. One I did earlier today that will end up on a Facebook chat, after suitable editing, was 5712 x 4284 pixels. Near enough 24.5 MP.

For on-line things I generally edit things down in Apple Preview so the longest side is 1000 pixels, giving a maximum of 1 MP, in what Mr Apple calls best jpg choosing the generic RGB profile from the list of thinks I don’t, and don’t want to, understand. Cutting HEIC resolution down can do funny things for the colour balance by the time it gets online.

Same sort of size generally works well enough for my printing as I don’t have high resolution printers. Mostly words and diagrams for me.

Clive

[old martParticipant @oldmart]

I’m viewing this forum on a 27″ monitor with a resolution of 2526 x 1440 pixels, that’s under 3.64 Mp, and sitting 2 feet away from the screen. With printers, it is said that resolutions of more than 300 dots per inch is just wasteful. Same with scanning, it’s easy to scan at 500 megabytes per A4 sheet, that will resolve every paper fibre, unless you are a pixel popper that is. Full HD is under 2.1 mega pixels.

[Grindstone CowboyParticipant @grindstonecowboy]

Clive – you can avoid the HEIC issue altogether if you want. Just go into Settings -> Camera -> Formats and choose Most Compatible.

Hope this helps.

Rob

[BazyleParticipant @bazyle]

Often the cameras aren’t what they claim to be and have rather fewer actual pixels than claimed but are manufacturing data by interpolation between real points. We  get used to the file size of Jpeg compressed pictures forgetting the native data is far larger. Jpeg does a wonderful job of processing but does lose some of the detailed resolution so some professionals like to keep the huge original image. Digital video is even more cavalier about ditching detail but makes our hundreds of TV channels a reality.

[Howard LewisParticipant @howardlewis46836]

Submitting a 8 Mb file (which would result in a BIG image if projected at 300 dpi) to a magazine, will merely mean that someone there will have to resize it to produce a small image to go on the page for publication.

A 4″ x 3″ picture, at 300 dpi is 1200 x 900 is 1080000, so just over 1 Mb if each dot is one pixel

Not many pictures in ME/ MEW are larger than 4 x 3. Possibly only cover pictures would need larger files

If you MUST have a big file, use cut reversal film in a 10″ x 8″ camera and scan the resulting transparency. I have difficulty imagining how many pixels that will give, or the cost!

My camera is apparently capable of 10 Mb but I usually use not the raw image but a JPEG one of about 4 -5 Mb.

If submitting for publication, 1 Mb seems to suffice.

Perhaps Neil, as Editor would care to comment?

Howard

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

I have not submitted photographs for magazine publication but don’t have too many problems using a relatively modest digital “bridge” camera on a tripod, appropriate zoom setting, Auto exposure, timer on.

No flash. Just daylight / room light and let the camera know best.

For smaller, portable objects I prefer to use daylight outdoors, placing the object on a neutral surface such as white painted plywood (an old cupboard door) or sheet of matt., off-white card – e.g. from a cereal packet.

It doesn’t take long either.

 

Three examples, with my own pros and cons of composition rather than camera limitations. Photographs are more often degraded by composition faults than camera settings.

 

1) This used plentiful daylight in the early-evening a few weeks ago, part of recording repairs to that superheater. I waited until the early-evening sun was shining as much into the North-facing door as it would that day. The white primer on the saddle is mainly to aid marking-out for a new slot cover but also gives useful photography contrast. Obviously that cannot be used everywhere!  Late-19C – early-20C engineering manufacturers commonly photographed their wares for publicity, in grey primer as that gave good contrast for the monochrome images.

The sunlight illuminates the important area without the glinting on the gloss-black being intrusive.

The peculiar white thing is an old soap-dispenser pump I’d used for draining the side-tank, and I failed to spot it so remove it for the photograph.

 

2) This also uses daylight outdoors but suffers from bad posing. The cylinder covers are the subject, not the stand, and I should have placed them on a white board or something. ( Oh – they are of different materials, cast-iron and mild-steel!)

3) While indoors: The sheet of paper helps contrast and reduces clutter, as the background would otherwise be the wrinkly black rubber sheet covering the mill’s vertical slideways. No flash, just ambient light and let the camera set itself. I forget if this was in daylight as well as the l.e.d. flourescent strip-light on the low ceiling, or the strip-light only. The window is behind us as we view that scene.

I should have moved that chuck key, hooked into a little tool-shelf. And found paper not splattered with arithmetic. (At least it shows I still know my two-times table and sharing sums.)

Oops! Spot the over-run mark on the work!

[Author]

Posts