fieldherping.eu

Mario Schweiger wrote:For sure, it has nothing to do - like YOU call it - STUPID detail of file size reduction.

"Stupid" had nothing to do with this webpage and/or it's technicalities. Everyone of us reduces his/her photos
to less than 500 kB in order to post them here. Everyone of us does it him/herself, as best one knows. I do it manually, picture by picture, which takes quite a lot of time and effort. I dont know what the others do. But
most of the pictures posted here are sharp. However, let me repeat that "... it's not exceptional that some really brilliant photographers sometimes post pictures like that in this forum. It must be some trivial technicallity...
But which one?!" THEIR fuzzy pictures have nothing to do with any problem either you or Thomas had with YOUR cameras, on this particular fieldtrip of yours - it has to be something else, something more general. I have no idea what. Does anybody?

The following picture is reduced to 1203 X 900, and only 287 kB. It's fairly sharp, I would say.


If you look at my "avatar" here, it's really small, 150 X 136, but still looks quite sharp...

The following one is 500 X 374 and, with the really puny 74.59 kB, still tolerably sharp:

Great collection of snakes...I think the Austrian team is so familiar with that area that they know exactly which stone they have to turn to find a snake

Mario Schweiger wrote:and especially for Peter

yes - quatuors are cool!

Peter Oefinger wrote:Great collection of snakes...I think the Austrian team is so familiar with that area that they know exactly which stone they have to turn to find a snake

sorry, but I have been the 2nd time on Cres island (beside 2 or 3 camping holidays during my childhood). last time in 2008 for a half day (from Krk island), showing my Swiss friends the famous village Valun (from the television soap "Der Sonne entgegen").

and the others also only 2 or 3 times ?

some pics more.....................

panorama pic (~ 270°) of the Merag pond.
Pelophylax ridibundus, Natrix natrix ("all" morphs: persa, natrix, helvetica and a uniform grey one - without markings), Elaphe quatuorlineata,...). with the herpers - from the left: Hannes Hill, Michael Duda, Thomas Bader (just missed the 4lineata)

open picture in new link to see it more large

The red-blue-green Podarcis is amazing. Btw how did you catch the Emys?

Michal Szkudlarek wrote:The red-blue-green Podarcis is amazing.

But Michal, it's just a normal Podarcis melisellensis male... OK, a handsome one indeed, but still
quite a "normal" one.
And regarding the Emys orbicularis, Thomas has already confessed:

Thomas Bader wrote:And for this one I flooded my mobile phone and my GPS...

Thomas, Thomas, why you? Hannes should/could have done it without flooding anything...

Berislav Horvatic wrote:

Mario Schweiger wrote:For sure, it has nothing to do - like YOU call it - STUPID detail of file size reduction.

"Stupid" had nothing to do with this webpage and/or it's technicalities. Everyone of us reduces his/her photos
to less than 500 kB in order to post them here. Everyone of us does it him/herself, as best one knows. I do it manually, picture by picture, which takes quite a lot of time and effort. I dont know what the others do. But
most of the pictures posted here are sharp. However, let me repeat that "... it's not exceptional that some really brilliant photographers sometimes post pictures like that in this forum. It must be some trivial technicallity...
But which one?!" THEIR fuzzy pictures have nothing to do with any problem either you or Thomas had with YOUR cameras, on this particular fieldtrip of yours - it has to be something else, something more general. I have no idea what. Does anybody?

Though there are definitely better places in this forum to discuss technical matters I post my reply in this thread for obvious reasons.
I think Mario is right, jpeg compression usually does not impact image sharpness. In extreme cases it produces visible artifacts best seen in color gradients or high contrast areas. And the board limitation of image size (in terms of pixel dimensions) also adds to image sharpness, as downsampling almost always improves perceived sharpness. As far as one can tell without examining EXIF-Data of the images there seems to be a problem with the camera gear. The visible softness in these images is usually produced by bad (misaligned) lenses or too much noise reduction applied by the camera - or the raw converter. Supertelephoto-lenses like 18-300mm tend to be soft at their long end wide open, and give the exact look of the images seen here.

Lol. Great finds Mario!

I think Mario is right, jpeg compression usually does not impact image sharpness.

But I've never mentioned any JPEG COMPRESSION (meaning transforming anything else to a jpeg file),
what I meant is the mere REDUCTION of a cca. 6 MB original JPEG file to a less than 500 kB JPEG file,
which can be done in many ways, some better than the others...

The visible softness in these images is usually produced by bad (misaligned) lenses or too much noise reduction
applied by the camera - or the raw converter. Supertelephoto-lenses like 18-300mm tend to be soft at their long
end wide open, and give the exact look of the images seen here.

Yes, BUT:
Mario had a problem of his own (with his HARDWARE, as he says) and Thomas (maybe) a quite different problem,
(with the SOFTWARE, as he says), yet the results seem to me to be the same...
And as I said, in this forum you may sometimes encounter a whole report by a good photographer that is "too soft"
(at least to my taste). Not just some of the pictures, under some special (unfavourable?) conditions, but dozens of
them, all of them. How should one explain that? Do some people just like it that way, or do they miss something,
or what?