My final wedding

also the fact that they were all hosted on the same hosting site, and you do in fact have a couple sharp ones in there also leads me to believe its not photobucket.

I highly doubt photobucket picks and chooses which images it wants to completely ruin the quality of. just sayin...

Edit: me and the mod posted at the same time, but i still stand by what i said.

OneEyedJack wrote in post #11615618
also the fact that they were all hosted on the same hosting site, and you do in fact have a couple sharp ones in there also leads me to believe its not photobucket.

I highly doubt photobucket picks and chooses which images it wants to completely ruin the quality of. just sayin...

Edit: me and the mod posted at the same time, but i still stand by what i said.

You are entitled to you opinion but you already stated it and once is more than enough.

OneEyedJack wrote in post #11615618
also the fact that they were all hosted on the same hosting site, and you do in fact have a couple sharp ones in there also leads me to believe its not photobucket.

I highly doubt photobucket picks and chooses which images it wants to completely ruin the quality of. just sayin...

Edit: me and the mod posted at the same time, but i still stand by what i said.

And you'd be wrong!!!!

Excuse me, but im pretty sure the mod told us to stop, so stop.

OneEyedJack wrote in post #11615727
Excuse me, but im pretty sure the mod told us to stop, so stop.

Heres the key that something else must be going on and I said this before. If you look at the exif on the F/L bride shot you will see that it was shot with a 35mm lens at f/9 and she was about 8 ft away. DoF would be about 11 ft. So if I focused on the brides face, which I did, 11 ft of DoF means everything from her face to about 3 1/2 toward the camera will be in focus and about 7 1/2 ft behind her would be sharp. The hand/ring shot is also softer than the final.

Then simply use a different hosting site. Im not saying "oh you have to go rehost these and show me the sharp ones" that would be silly, im just saying i dont understand why you would keep those images up if the quality isnt great. There are many better hosting sites you can use that will better display your work.

I personally wouldnt post those on a forum if i seen that the quality went down that much. I would rehost them somewhere else then post

Yeah...the images are OOF, but if the OP say's it the host site, then let it rest! If it isn't, who cares?? Give the OP the benefit of the doubt for God sakes!! Some people can be so brutal and judgmental!!

Daship wrote in post #11616864
I use PB and they do degrade the image, but not that much. Obviously we all know why this is you "LAST" wedding. The results speak for themselves. Put up or shut up. Re-post the sharp ones or give it up.

Is this really necessary?

Don't blame Photobucket. It works fine if you set it up right. PB sizing problem discussed in this thread:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=905428

OneEyedJack wrote in post #11615618
also the fact that they were all hosted on the same hosting site, and you do in fact have a couple sharp ones in there also leads me to believe its not photobucket.

I highly doubt photobucket picks and chooses which images it wants to completely ruin the quality of. just sayin...
.

Agreed - that was what I said earlier on.

This is the last I'm going to say on the matter. I shoot commercial advertising almost everyday. I have to have images that showDoF from my a couple feet out to infinity in some shots. In others its only an eyelash or a pupil. I know what good focus is and looks like.

A few years back I posted a shot that several people insisted was soft. That same shot is on pg 88 of the POTN Volume 2 book. Its clearly not soft. And the thing is not all visual statements need to be 100% sharp all the time. In the old days we would spend a lot of $ on Hasselblad softar filters to soften some portraits because the lenses and format rendered images that were to sharp for some applications.

Intent is what should first be weighed when looking at a photo. Is image sharpness 100% necessary. Does it help or hurt the image in it is soft or shows motion or is it maybe important to the image for it to be soft or to show motion or both. A copy job for instance should in most cases be ultra sharp. Maybe a moving car or runner should show motion and maybe in a portrait only the eyes should be sharp. Maybe not.

It all depends on what you are trying to visually communicate. Having said that I would never deliver OOF images to a client unless that was the look I was going for period. End of story.... Oh and did I say this was my LAST wedding

Also wanted to add that a couple years back I was in a large group show at a gallery in an area college and I exhibited a diptych that consisted of two 36 X 54 horizontal inch images that were flush mounted on masonite and the two images had about two feet in separation and went from just above the floor to almost the ceiling. The images were big and I used genuine fractals to up size so there was very little loss in quality. When the images were posted here I got a good deal of those are soft comments. The images were not soft even at 36 X 54.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #11615531
Lets put it this way. If you look at the exif on the F/L bride shot you will see that it was shot with a 35mm lens at f/9 and she was about 8 ft away. DoF would be about 11 ft. Photobucket doesn't feed the family and pixel peeping on websites that have compressed JPGs is kinda ridiculous anyway. As long as what I deliver to the client is sharp I could really care less what photobucket does.

err... the table in the background is sharper than the bride... i'm just saying...

did photobucket do that too?

sctbiggs wrote in post #11617417
err... the table in the background is sharper than the bride... i'm just saying...

You can see the texture in the fabric on the buttons on the back of her dress on the original. Count her eye lashes even. Just sayin and DoF even has the edge of the back side of her dress (nearest to camera) tack sharp. So the image I'm giving her is sharp from the that edge of her train to just beyond the table.

This thread is going to get locked, so ill try to get in before it does.

Why are we wasting our tine arguing about it being soft. It was brought up, the op says its compression which is completely viable, and that should be the end of it. Same thing we do with selective color on this board - someone posts it, we say we don't like it, and its done. People don't need to keep harping on about it.

If this thread is still open later I'll give some c&c when I'm not on my iPad.

Red Tie Photography wrote in post #11617936
This thread is going to get locked, so ill try to get in before it does.

Why are we wasting our tine arguing about it being soft. It was brought up, the op says its compression which is completely viable, and that should be the end of it. Same thing we do with selective color on this board - someone posts it, we say we don't like it, and its done. People don't need to keep harping on about it.

If this thread is still open later I'll give some c&c when I'm not on my iPad.

Now thats better

Thanks Red Tie....

Can't wait to here your crit.