Sony A7x lounge

joonrhee wrote in post #18051314
Wow guys, I really love both shots! Very inspiring!

Thank you!

xpfloyd wrote in post #18051585
I maybe didnt make what I meant clear. My 1280 wide image when viewed in photoshop at 100% only takes up a small portion of the viewing space. The same file when viewed on a web browser is much bigger. I have to zoom photoshop to 200% to match the size. This has never been an issue until today. With the last image I posted the 200% or web browser version actually looks pixelated in the background. Im wondering if its due to the sharpness of the sensor combined with the sharpness of the lens thats making it more obvious?

Basically the web browser is identifying that I have a retina display and choosing to display my 1280 wide file at 2560 pixels. If I save the file at 2560 though it realises the file is large enough already and displays it at 100% instead of 200% and the pixelation is gone. Only problem is I cant post 1280 wide versions from flickr if I start with a 2560 file. My 1280 file looks fine on my phone as its not being stretched to 200%.

Trying to work out how to avoid this

Eddie, I export all my images at 2048 on the long end and sRGB to Flickr and 500px. When I share from either site to here I just select the 1024 option in the drop down. Works fine. I guess I haven't tried to view that 2048 exported jpeg back into PS to see if I get that pixelated look you're seeing.

digital_AM wrote in post #18051595
Eddie, I export all my images at 2048 on the long end and sRGB to Flickr and 500px. When I share from either site to here I just select the 1024 option in the drop down. Works fine. I guess I haven't tried to view that 2048 exported jpeg back into PS to see if I get that pixelated look you're seeing.

This is what I do as well.

I will note to Eddie's original comment. It's a bit different when you're on a retina display because you're in essence, working at double the resolution, but scaling up.
So your 1280 image is going to pixelate because it's being scaled up to essentially "look as if it were 2500px long".
I think that may be your problem.

digital_AM wrote in post #18051595
Eddie, I export all my images at 2048 on the long end and sRGB to Flickr and 500px. When I share from either site to here I just select the 1024 option in the drop down. Works fine. I guess I haven't tried to view that 2048 exported jpeg back into PS to see if I get that pixelated look you're seeing.

The pixelated view only happens if your JPEG is too small and stretched to 200% by the browser. Your 2048 version won't be stretched so will be fine. I think I need to change my workflow and start saving larger version joegs and just choosing the 1024 option otherwise my images will look degraded to anyone viewing on a Retina display

xpfloyd wrote in post #18051600
The pixelated view only happens if your JPEG is too small and stretched to 200% by the browser. Your 2048 version won't be stretched so will be fine. I think I need to change my workflow and start saving larger version joegs and just choosing the 1024 option otherwise my images will look degraded to anyone viewing on a Retina display

This.

Not sure how I'm only realising this now. Had my Mac for over 18 months I think

The plot thickens. What resolution should I choose? 2048 or 2880 to match my MacBook https://www.tekrevue.c​om/retina-display-comparison/

Doesn't matter. It's more about providing your macbook with a high resolution image, so it looks good. You were basically giving it low-rez images.
i think anything north of 2048 (which is what I use as my default) should look much better.
Of course with the Sony sensor, your original images are at 5000+ pixels on the long end, so you can go pretty big if you want. You could export 1:1 and it would look even better.

xpfloyd wrote in post #18051553
This location has lots of potential. Just didnt have the light on this day

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/HDi7​BY Glen Etive by xpfloyd, on Flickr

Gorgeous scenery well captured and processed!

For you Batis folks...considering renting one for my upcoming Vancouver trip...18mm or 25mm

xpfloyd wrote in post #18051553
This location has lots of potential. Just didnt have the light on this day

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/HDi7​BY Glen Etive by xpfloyd, on Flickr

Geez bad light over there is better than anything I've got over here. Nice work Eddie.

TRhoads wrote in post #18051716
For you Batis folks...considering renting one for my upcoming Vancouver trip...18mm or 25mm

I'd pick the 25. (I own both). As it's more versatile.
But then again, it depends what other FLs you're taking on the trip. If you have 24-70 covered, then the 18 gives you a wider option.

mystik610 wrote in post #18051723
Geez bad light over there is better than anything I've got over here. Nice work Eddie.

Seriously. I could do wonders with this "bad light" and this scenery.

Forgot to mention, great shot Eddie. Such a cool scene with all the elements coming together.

Travis, I say go for the 18 but for my own selfish reason. I would love to see samples from you.

On another topic, does anyone here still tone-map their images? I used to back when tone-map based HDR was popular. If done right, it can produce great results. We all do HDR which is heightened or high dynamic range. That's when we adjust highlight and shadows LR or ACR or any other editing program. But tone-mapping is different and it gets a bad rep for the extremely over saturated images with halos and black clouds you see on the web. Just curious.

I have no idea what tone-mapping is. I have heard of it though. LOL.