Alison Raynor’s Magic Garden
Today we’re going to do some more of Alison Raynor’s shots from Amazing Australia. How could a place called Toogoolawah not be magical? I’m getting very bored talking about myself, so I’m giving my ego a holiday. It needs a rest. I will have a few comments to make concerning photography and the the care and feeding of images.
Let’s start with this sunset shot at Mt. Beppo. This probably won’t be hanging on any gallery walls, but it has some interesting features. The first thing which I noticed was the colour of the sky in the upper part of the image. It is most unusual. I tried not to mess with it, so it is pretty faithful to the original, I think. The horizon is slightly tilted. In this shot, it works fine for me. It’s not quite an angled line, which is a good compositional tool, but it isn’t straight either. It teases the eyes just a little, like a picture hanging crooked on the wall. I like the fence post standing right in the middle. The eyes keep coming back to it. There are two trees, but they are very different. This provides some contrasting elements:
All in all, it’s a pleasant, simple shot which speaks with a small, comforting voice. Ali emailed it to me at 1280 x 960 pixels and the file size was about 140K. That is about the minimum size in pixels and the tightest compression which works well for a photography oriented site such as MPBM. You can click on it to enlarge and have a nice viewing experience.
This is another very pretty image. It reminds me of the succulent plants which we called “Hens and Chickens” as children. Ali can tell us what it is, I’m certain:
I got this one in an email also. It came in at 516 x 639 pixels and the file size was 65K. Now we are getting into the range of too few pixels for pleasant “click me” viewing. If you do click to enlarge you will be able to begin to see some jaggie edges and the level of detail has dropped off. It’s fine to view on the page, but when you blow it up, it suffers. According to your browser and your display resolution, it may also not fill your screen.
I hasten to add that I haven’t talked to Ali about any of this yet, so I hope she can forgive me for jumping the gun. Ali shoots lovely images. I want them to keep coming – just a little bigger.
When I first saw this one I thought that someone had woven a spider web out of string. It is a near perfect coating of morning dew. The web is being dragged down by the weight of the water:
This one came in at 480 x 640 pixels and about 70K. It is too small for blown-up viewing. Also, if you do enlarge it you can begin to see chunky little out-of-place bits, especially around the edges of the web, which are produced when the image is compressed down to a too-small file size. You might have to zoom in a little to see this. In Firefox you can hold the CTRL key down and press the “+” or “-” key to zoom in or out. These chunky bits are called compression artefacts. Once they are there, you can’t get rid of them. All you can do is go back to your original file and save it again with less compression, and possibly more pixels. There is no free lunch. This is why I always save a copy of an image which I have edited at the full resolution that it was shot. I use a different file name for the “save as”, but keep the image number in it, so that I have both the camera image and the edited image. I might want to start all over on the editing for a different effect. I don’t want to waste all of my editing work by downsizing the image and compressing it too much. I can then make smaller versions for special purposes as I need them.
Again I’ll note that Ali did not know that I was going to put these up on MPBM, though she should suspect that I’m likely to, because nearly everything that she sends, I like. I’ll also say that I’m a little jealous of that spider web. I don’t have any which are nearly so good.
This is another very interesting spider web shot, because of its depth of field (pretty much in focus from near to far). I really like the washed out colours and the way the building and tree seem to float behind the web. The jumbled twigs in the sky are a nice touch:
This one was about the same size and compression as the previous one. If you click to enlarge, you will see that it also suffers when blown up. It is the same problem, not enough pixels and too much compression. The fewer pixels you start with, the more the image will suffer from too much compression.
This is a very sweet, loud image. It tickles my fancy. It breaks a few compositional rules, but it still pops! 
It came in at 1280 x 960 pixels and 213K. Though a little short on my usual standard of 1600 pixels on the longest dimension, it still looks very nice enlarged. Also the larger file size means that the compression was not too great, so there are no nasty compression artefacts. Very pretty indeed, but you don’t want to stare at it for too long. If you do, you will no longer be in Kansas!
I like this Snake in the Garden shot. It is so hard to get close enough to snakes to get great shots such as this one. For one thing, I’m never quite certain what might like to bite me and what the consequences of that might be. This one doesn’t look dangerous, but neither does Britney Spears. Still, I would keep my distance from her:
This one came in at 640 x 480 and 48K. That’s too small and too compressed. If you click to enlarge, you will see another type of compression artefact. Look in the lighter areas especially and you will notice some little squares of colour which don’t blend in with each other. This is because the compression program is breaking the image into little blocks to try to make the image smaller. As you enlarge the image, you can see the blocks.
So, what’s the message? Well, if you would like to send to me some of your tasty images for a guest shot (and I can’t imagine why you would not), just follow this simple formula. Resize your final, perfect image down (remembering to keep a copy at full size) to 1600 pixels on the longest edge. Then, when you are saving, set your compression to make a file no smaller than about 200K. The resulting file will look beautiful on a full screen view.
I can but hope that Ali will forgive me for using her very pretty shots as examples. If I had received them at larger sizes I would have not had the chance for this little excursion into the bone-crushingly boring details of image sizing and compression. So, thank you Ali.
By the way, I cannot resist, at the slightest opportunity, to poke fun at rabid Britney Spears fans. My post Britney Spears Will Make Me Famous attracted more comments than any other on MPBM. There were many more acid remarks left which I did not allow into the comments. I received no death threats, but there were some which made me glad that I was half a world away from the sender.
Related posts:
- Nothing But Skies I slaved all day yesterday on images for our 2010 The Skies of Paradise Calendar....
- Guest Shooter Alison Raynor – Fiddling With Her Images Thanks to Alison Raynor for sending me a couple of beautiful images of Sunrise at Mt. Beppo in Queensland not far from where she lives in Toogoolawah....
- A Little Garden Magic My garden was a pleasant place this morning. the light was subdued. This pumpkin flower, as big as my hand, stood out as brightly as the sun: It rained just before dawn – not unusual this time of year – and this reproductive gear of a hibiscus flower was dripping...
- Ali’s Roos – Guest Shooter Alison Raynor Hans had only one request. He said that we could go if we promised him that he could go to Australia and see kangaroos in the wild....
- More Mount Beppo – Guest Shooter Alison Raynor Old farmers here have a saying: "An uneven number of black cockatoos overhead tells that there will be rain." Is that just another crazy "old cockies tail"....
- Aussie Flag Over Bribie Island – Guest Alison Raynor A few days ago Alison Raynor sent to me some long-promised skydiving shots. Toogoolawah up in Queensland in Australia is an action centre for skydiving....
- More Eel Garden Goodies More images from the Saturday dive near Pig Island at The Eel Garden. I didn't blow a sinus, which is a minor miracle....
You are right MadDog, Ali takes a beautiful photograph, and the web shots are amazing! I only dream of taking such beautiful web shots, but mine are never as good as these ones. I thought I had the perfect opportunity one morning at Kokoda, but no… not even close.
And I would get closer to the snake before getting close to Brittney. I’d trust a snake first.
Hi Steve. I always like getting Ali’s images. She has great eyes for interesting shots. Lighting is everything when shooting webs. Sometimes it’s just not possible to get the right angle.
Regrading BS and her ilk, isn’t it sad how poorly some people handle fame and fortune? You would think it might bring out the best. Often is seems the opposite is what happens.
Loved all the pics! Count me as another fan of the spiderweb! Although I am a sucker for lovely water droplets on the succulents as well!
I think I am with you on the snake proximity issue. We had a mouse in the house today…chased in by the cat. If there had been a video of us trying to catch it- with the accompanying jumps and screams- it would have made Funniest Home Videos. We put it out on the front lawn and I was trying to take pictures of it. Well, my son kept running up behind it, making it run towards me….another funny moment as I made a dyno move of 2 feet up and 3 feet over. All to avoid a creature that was maybe 3 inches long! (said son is 13 and knew perfectly well what he was doing!!)
BTW, what camera does Ali use?
kristy, inside my shed at the moment is a fairly decent sized carpet python. You could perhaps borrow him to help to reduce your mice population if you want! The only problem is, the snake is big enough to want to eat your cat rather than the little mouse…
sb.
Steve, you just gave me the heeby-jeebies!
Jan, does the 1280 (or higher) pixels apply to old B & W photos from film cameras including ancient Kodak Brownie Box. With a digital camera you have far more scope. I’m just learning how to use a Canon EOS 20D and the mind boggles with the array of buttons and wheels to apply for a professional like shot. My old Pentax Spotmatic (from Chin H. Meen) was a lot simpler.
I tried scanning at 1280 x 960 but the resolution looked out of focus? I refer to the pics of Madang I sent you a few months ago.
ciao.
Hey Jan, thankyou for encouraging us all to do more with our eyes and our cameras. You are an inspiration.
I am always so honored to make a spot on PBM because I love to take photos, but know nothing about photography….it’s all an experiment for me and so very rewarding when someone like you and fellow readers of your blog enjoy and can learn from the product.
Photography is such a huge learning curve and although my camera is nothing special, is the most amazing toy and I carry like most women carry a purse….everywhere!
In my knowledge of photography I only feel qualified to give one hint and that is to use your “fearless setting” at all times.
Out here in Toogoolawah-land, I am still on “dial up” and it is VERY tedious to send full size images…(sorry I was impatient and sent you smaller ones. )
It’s good however that you could use them as lessons for us to gleen valuable knowledge about pixels and sharing etc etc. I just wish I understood all of what you explained?
So glad you like the spiders webs Kristy and Steve.. -I had the perfect subjects that morning and confess to taking about 100 shots to get those 2 ) As for the snake… remember the “fearless setting”
Kristy, I have an older Canon Power Shot 550. A tiny little thing, made for general happy snappers…which I am. (But hey, it’s a “Canon” so it will always take a nice photo yeah! )
It also has a fantastic and fun Macro setting -my fave.
Thanks again Jan for all the sharing.
PS -I am saving up fo a G11
Hey, I just saw the Britany Spears post….How Hillarious! Did Sheba bite you for making such fun of her? The head does not do justice to the tongue!
Very funny, Steve. The snake is probably safer, even if it’s venomous. Ali’s shots are great. She really keeps her eyes wide open.
Kristy, spider webs are cool. It amazes me that most of our big spiders build a new one every day. For mice in your house, I recommend a two metre python. Thanks for the funny story.
Kristy, I don’t know what Ali uses. It must be a good one. Why don’t you ask her?
Kristy, pay attention to Steve.
Peter, I’d try setting your scanner for 600 dots per inch resolution. Scanning old B&W images is tricky. It’s best if you can start out with plenty of resolution, then do your tone corrections and clean-up before you do the final sharpening and resizing to the web shot dimensions. For old B&W images 1280 on the longest side is probably enough. Try Googling “scanning old photos” or something like that. I’m sure that many people have published tips. I did work on those shots you sent, but that was just as Eunie was getting sick, so I lost track of what I had done. If get some better scans of them, I’d like to use them. Send me what you get along with a description of each and I’ll see if I can put together a post.
I had a Pentax Spotmatic a long time ago – a great camera. Your EOS seems like rocket science compared to the Pentax, I’m sure. I tell people, “Read the manual”, but most don’t. If you read about one feature and then practice using that feature until it’s familiar and you know what settings it is forcing your camera to use, that works better than trying to read the whole manual at once.
Nice to hear from you, Ali. You might want to have a look at the new G12, as it is supposed to have better low-light performance and several other new features.
I think that far too much is made of the technicalities of photography. All that is needed is an understanding of the relationship between shutter speed, lens aperture and film speed. These three items are related to each other. This was true in the beginnings of photography and is still true today, though we now call film speed ISO. If one changes, one or both of the others must change for the image to be properly exposed. They also have effects on what is in focus and what is not (depth of field) and blur (camera or subject movement causing motion blur). The aperture effects depth of field and the shutter speed controls (or allows) blur. There are a multitude of web sites that explain all this very well.
More important are the rules of good composition. There are also excellent sites which go into those with great examples.
Ali, you show us that someone does not have to understand all of that to take excellent pictures. All of the technical knowledge in the world can’t make up for lack of imagination.
Glad that you enjoyed that, Ali.