View Full Version : Autumn in Central Park

November 3rd, 2004, 09:20 PM
For those who were unable to see the show this year, plenty of photos of Central Park at its best.

The Eldorado on CPW

More photos (http://www.pbase.com/zippythechimp/autumn_2004)

November 3rd, 2004, 10:05 PM
Were you there last Sunday? If so we might have passed each other, or maybe even got into each others shots. I also have a bunch of pictures of Central Park, in most of the same locations that I took on Sunday.

November 3rd, 2004, 11:19 PM
Looking down 5th ave is so awesome. Urban/Oasis. Great shots, I love the one AOL/TWC.

November 3rd, 2004, 11:42 PM
I was there on Sunday, mostly south of 77th St. The others were taken on Monday.

November 4th, 2004, 02:56 AM
:shock: 8) :D Those are exactly the kind of photos I was looking for. Great photos. You have the BEST photo collection of NY :!: Thanks for the photos :)

BTW, do you have these photos in a 1024x768 resolution ?

November 4th, 2004, 12:06 PM
I was there on Sunday too.....what a gorgeous day.




November 4th, 2004, 02:47 PM
Nice photos !

November 5th, 2004, 12:52 AM
Those are some gorgeous photos... wow. Great camera and great photographer. The park and Bloomberg look fantastic.

November 8th, 2004, 09:17 AM
BTW, do you have these photos in a 1024x768 resolution ?
I have originals in both RAW and JPEG formats. They average 3000 x 2000 resolution and 5 meg file size. I don't post them because:
1. They are too big for monitor viewing.
2. They eat disk space.
3. They encourage theft. A print at "magazine quality" would be 10 x 6.5 inches. A comparable print from the files I upload would be 2 x 3 inches, useless commercially, although people still steal them.

My guestbook has a message that one of my photos was stolen by
http://www.pbase.com/chuckuindy. I not only found the Times Sq photo (which I like), but a Woolworth photo (not particularly good). Also, his guestbook was full of irate messages, including the owner of this really nice Chrysler http://www.pbase.com/keiththomson/image/14585780. All the photos and messages were deleted, except one overlooked comment:

Now you are left with only the mediocre pictures. What exactly was it with you and taking other peoples images?

I am thinking about uploading one original photo at a time into a password protected gallery, maybe leave it online for a week, and provide the password by PM. I haven't worked it out yet.

November 8th, 2004, 03:42 PM
:shock: Wow - 3000 x 2000. I don't think I've ever seen an image in that quality on my copmuter. That's too much, all I want is 1024x768. It just the screen resolution of my copmuter. Of course, I don't expect you to put a 5 MB file on the internet but how much will a 1024x768 be? Anyway, as you say, you have other reasons why not to put it online. I think that the password gallery idea is nice. If you do it please tell me.
BTW, you are a great photographer 8)

November 9th, 2004, 05:58 PM
ZippytheChimp, I'm sorry to hear that people have stolen images from your web site. I really enjoy the collections you have posted in your Pbase galleries. They present a remarkable point of view of NYC and environs that can not be easily experienced otherwise. Through web surfing, I was able to open doors to worlds otherwise closed to me, places within Jordan, China, Cambodia, and Patagonia. Perhaps all of us should pledge to keep our eyes open for images we suspect have been pirated.

At this very moment I am advising someone who wishes to post unique, artistic photographic images on the web. Your tale fills me with much caution as I try to help my friend.

December 7th, 2004, 06:18 PM
I am thinking about uploading one original photo at a time into a password protected gallery, maybe leave it online for a week, and provide the password by PM. I haven't worked it out yet.

I've seen a password protected gallery in your images gallery - is this the one you talked about?

December 8th, 2004, 11:39 AM
I've seen a password protected gallery in your images gallery - is this the one you talked about?

It's nice to see the page getting all this traffic.

Fioco: There are methods to minimize theft.
Disabling right-clicking is marginally useful, but can be easily bypassed.

Digital watermarks prove ownership, are not noticeable, and survive edits.

Stamping images with copyrights, or a tanslucent "SAMPLE" across the image make them useless for theft, but that is an unpleasant solution.

I've found that the best way to make photos undesirable for theft is to post 800x600 low res (250 KB) images. They are perfect for viewing, but yield low quality prints - prints for sale are the main reason for theft.

People that steal these low quality photos usually display them, and take credit for them. More than anything, I feel sorry for them.

Sometimes I get messages on the webpage requesting max resolution images. My standard response:

"Do you have poor eyesight, or poor cash flow?" :P

December 8th, 2004, 12:10 PM
Even if they have a poor eyesight they might have glasses :lol:
Well, I was wondering if you are going to "share" those photos - you said that you might give the password by PM so I thought.... After all, not everyone is a thief :)

December 8th, 2004, 02:29 PM
ZippytheChimp, your response was very helpful. A gallery in the Catskills already displays my friend's work. An image 800 x 600 would certainly give the web visitor a good overview of the composition. If he still wants to display a highly detailed image, then I guess it's best to use one that he doesn't mind being stolen. He may actually go that route just to give people the opportunity to experience the depth and detail found only in the originals. Thanks! You've been very helpful.

December 9th, 2004, 05:06 PM
They would make some nice prints.

I have a question for you zip, do you recommend any print shops that would be able to take these and print them out HQ? Also, what about framing?

I have some shots/panoramics I would like to print/hang on the wall, but the problem is, I do not know the right way to do it....

Any help would be appreciated!

December 9th, 2004, 05:43 PM
It depends on what you want to do.

I have further information on the webpage, but you have to go to the thread in Photo Shoot & Travel.

You can't go wrong with a professional photo imaging service. I have not used one myself, but I know people who have, with great results.

I friend og mine had a small portrait of her daughter that she was planning to have enlarged (via the negative). She stopped at a photo image store, and they took the wallet size and made several 8x10s that were so good she forgot about using the negative.

But film photos have a lot more information than most digital files. How good a job the lab does will depend on the size of your image file.
What are the pixel dimensions and size?

December 9th, 2004, 09:06 PM
Zip, I have a 4 megapixel cam, will that do good taking pics in NYC? (Such as from promenades in BK and QNS) I havnt tried it yet (Just got it)

December 9th, 2004, 09:32 PM
That's plenty. My older photos were taken with a 2 mpix. Like a film camera, the lens, shutter, autofocus, etc, will also effect how they turn out.

Image dimensions are about 2400 x 1800. You can make high quality prints (300 PPI) at 8 x 6 inches.

December 9th, 2004, 09:35 PM
GREAT! :D I cant wait to go back on the circle line full island cruise!

December 10th, 2004, 11:41 AM
I try to use 1600x1200 at slight compression.

I have printed out single shots on 11x17 with minimal pixelation on the printer here at work, so I think I have found a limit for the size.

My panoramics are sometimes taken with a LOT of shots (and sometimes with the 1600 being the vertical axis for a horizontal pan).

If you want, I could mail you a couple (not too many) and see what you think.

(Camera is tha Canon PS40.... Has worked well for me so far....)

December 10th, 2004, 01:34 PM
2 mpix. Your average file size should be around 1.5 meg.
I'll assume the out of camera resolution is 72 PPI.

You get print size by dividing the pixel dimensions by the resolution. If you printed a 1600x1200 image at 72 PPI, the dimensions would be 22.2 x 16.6 inches. Many people make the mistake of downsizing photos for printing the same way they are downsized for web display - by reducing the pixel dimensions. That removes data. A photo displayed on this forum at 800x600 has a total of 480k pixels. If the original is 1600x1200, the resampling program discards about 1.5 million pixels.

For photo printing, the pixel density is increased, which does not remove data. The greater the density, the smaller the print, and the finer the detail.

Your 17x11 prints were probably done at a resolution of 96 PPI. In my opinion, this is not enough to justify the expense of a professional photo image service.

The benchmark range I use is between 200 and 300 PPI. A print at 300 is sometimes referred to as "magazine quality."

For a 1600x1200 image:
(dividing those dimensions by resolution)
200 PPI - print size 8 x 6
300 PPI - print size 5.3 x 4

My Olympus is the same size as the Canon. I have used 160 PPI, making prints 10 x 7.5 on an HP Photosmart. The quality is good, but I don't think it would be worth having it done professionally.

That's just my subjective opinion. A pro would have a better printer than mine, and the results would be better, but he will still be limited by the amount of data.

I would take the file to an image service, and get their advice.

December 10th, 2004, 02:49 PM
Sounds good, but do you have any listing services that you know of that would have these guys addys?

Any personal referrals/recommendations?

Also, how has your luck been with framing these puppies?

December 12th, 2004, 08:10 PM
I have no experience with any printing services. I'll ask around, but everyone I know makes their own prints.

Framing is the same as any paper artwork, like a lithograph. The mat makes a big difference. It should be bevel cut, acid free, and the inside opening should be slightly larger than the image - about 1/4 inch on each side - to reveal some of the border. Fasten the print to the back of the mat with framing tape, but only on top. If you tape it all around, it can't float with temp and humidity changes.

Pearl Paint (http://pearlpaint.com/) has all you need.

December 13th, 2004, 03:13 PM
So if you do it yourself, do you have any preferences for mid-range printers?

I heard the Epson, what was it C330? C660? The one with the 13" roll, was a pretty good one.....

December 13th, 2004, 03:58 PM
I have had my printer for a few years, and have not followed any advancements, but I'm thinking of an upgrade early next year. A friend of mine has a Canon which uses separate cartridges for each color - the theory is that you don't waste ink if only one color is running low.

There are two good digital camera sites I use for product reviews. Both have discussion forums.


Steve'sDigicams is an excellent site. He has an extensive list of product reviews, and they are very thorough.


Click on Printer Reviews.

The forum has a section on Printers.

December 13th, 2004, 04:59 PM

As a back-at-ya, www.dpreview.com is pretty good too.

I just have not been keeping tabs with it recently........

Thanks again!

TLOZ Link5
December 13th, 2004, 08:47 PM
As the song with the lyric about Central Park in fall goes, Danke Shoen.