Bob in St. Louis wrote:Neat pics of the Eagles. We get them occasionally here, as well as some large owls.
Unfortunately, too rare for my liking.
hurdy_gurdyman wrote:Bob,
What pixel size are your photos? The ones I posted (5100 x 7019) are almost twice the size my 10 mp Pentax can take (2592 x 3872). I shrunk them down to fit here.
Dave

Sorry Dave, you mean on the camera, of the Photobucket size?
Bob
How about both. Do you put your pics on photobucket without shrinking them? If so, try comparing the pixel size of the ones on your screen right out of the camera, and the ones on photobucket (right click on pic and then left click on properties to get the size). I'd bet the ones on photobucket have been greatly reduced. You'd only notice it if you zoomed in on a small part of the pic. Most online storage programs reduce the size so it don't take up as much storage space. This is fine for most things, but does prevent one from checking out fine detail when zooming in.
I did the close up on my Sunflower pic from the scanner, not online, then posted it. This shows how much detail is there when zooming in on a small area. I can assure you that your Nikon and my Pentax cannot put out this large of pixel count as the old medium format camera can, thus they can't do as big of a picture. Just no place online I know of that stores things that big. BTW, the print detail, contrast and tones, without anything digitally copied, is awesome.
At any rate, the point was to show how good photography could be with pre 1950's equipment. We have gained since then, as modest cost equipment has greatly improved, but it's impressive what could be done with top level equipment from back then.
Dave
