|
Post by Toto Gamboa on Jun 10, 2011 4:35:10 GMT
Paddyfield Pipit Canon 50D, EF 400mm f5.6L Shot @ f5.6, 1/1250", ISO200, Car Window as Support & some Photoshop rework!
|
|
|
Post by Toto Gamboa on May 22, 2011 19:09:11 GMT
I was suppose to delete some junk shots when I noticed something under the car. This shot was when I got stranded overnight in mud in Candaba a few weeks back (May 7 2011) when it suddenly rained to strong while I was there. For a few years of doing bird photography, I have yet to encounter a snake, seeing it and photographing it. I dunno what species is this if it's venomous or not (it looks like a baby python) but my camera got it when I took some docu shots of the car in the dark (7:55pm) stuck in the muddy dirt roads of Candaba wetlands. I even tried scraping some mud from the tires in that same scene. It had probably escaped my flashlight's beam. Checking the time stamps of the frames I have with the snake, it was like it was there for whole 2 minutes without moving. It must be attracted to the heat of the vehicle? I guess am lucky enough that it did not get near me when I was busy trying to ease up my non-cooperating stomach a few minutes before this shot ;D
|
|
|
Post by Toto Gamboa on May 22, 2011 14:30:32 GMT
Ohhhhhh what a wonder. These are masterpieces!
|
|
|
Post by Toto Gamboa on May 22, 2011 14:27:38 GMT
You both are a team to beat Sylvia and Tonji. You have now redefined bird photography in the country. The bar of excellence just keep going higher and higher. Can't say anymore other than these are perfecet shots.
|
|
|
Post by Toto Gamboa on May 22, 2011 14:23:18 GMT
3rd shot! The fluffiest shot! Amazing!
|
|
|
Post by Toto Gamboa on May 22, 2011 14:21:27 GMT
Everything's perfect! Just perfect!
|
|
|
Post by Toto Gamboa on May 22, 2011 14:17:36 GMT
Lovely! Lovely!
|
|
|
Post by Toto Gamboa on May 22, 2011 14:15:33 GMT
Woooooooooow. THe first shot is a photo to beat! Superb to the max shot!
|
|
|
Post by Toto Gamboa on May 22, 2011 14:12:18 GMT
THat coucal shot is great!
|
|
|
Post by Toto Gamboa on May 22, 2011 14:12:04 GMT
Very nice set sir bob!
|
|
|
Post by Toto Gamboa on May 17, 2011 13:40:12 GMT
Mark, I think your smartbro is fine. the 1KB size difference must be those meta data that were stripped off the file but the entire image data is intact thus you see no difference So now we can say that there are still a part of smartbro that are not to quality degradation. THis is possible as each connection that we have could be routed to different locations in their networks.
|
|
|
Post by Toto Gamboa on May 17, 2011 13:13:38 GMT
BTW, can't seem to see any visual difference between the images on your post, though the secure version is a few KB larger than the non-secure version. On my IPS display, they look visually identical too, Toto. It should be that way mastah if your ISP is not tampering the file in transit. check the file sizes if both are the same too.
|
|
|
Post by Toto Gamboa on May 17, 2011 13:12:16 GMT
Hi Mark, the test you just run is basically composed of a single file hosted twice on the same page on my blog. the first image goes thru SSL (you would notice that the source URL is in https). the 2nd image is the normal http. by using SSL, once your browser request it for download from a host server, the file is encrypted in transit. the image only gets decrypted once it has completely downloaded to your browser. In an encrypted (secure )state, no one will be able tamper it on transit or the entire downloading is compromised. that is how SSL behaves. WIth the test, since I uploaded a single file only, you should be able to see no difference in file size and visual quality (unless something tampered the file). The second image you see is unsecured so that gave the ISP the opportunity to hijack the image, run it thru some quality and size reduction server, then it showed the file back to you on a degraded state. ISPs defintely are doing this to save on bandwidth. So you really dont have control with the quality of your photos via unsecured line. In my Smartbro wireless, the 232KB got reduced to around 33KB. That is a lot of pixels lost that I can't see. Globe visibility is even worst. It reduced my file to around 12KB. You would see Mastah Romy's photos in their pixelized form Bottomline here is that, we dont get an assurance that our photos are viewed in its purest/original form as we intended. The degree of degradation can vary depending on how much bytes an ISP wants to reduce to save on bandwidth. We can only ensure our photos' integrity if we can defeat those image size reducers employed by the ISPs. one of the ways is via SSL as shown in the test I provided. There may be some other ways but this is the simplest I have thought. THe only problem is that, our usual image hosting sites dont offer this. I hosted the photos in our company's webhost.
|
|
|
Post by Toto Gamboa on May 17, 2011 8:57:56 GMT
Shameless plug here. But photographers like us have been so particular with how our photos show up in other's LCD screen that we invest with stuff like monitor calibrators but unknown to many, some of our ISPs do something we photographers don't like. Test if your ISP is one of those. However, the real issue is that we dont know if all our viewers out there see all the pixels that we see. To know more on how I plan to avoid this problem, check out my blog on this item: totogamboa.com/2011/05/17/check-if-your-internet-service-provider-degrades-photo-quality/Hope this helps!
|
|
|
Post by Toto Gamboa on May 16, 2011 3:19:03 GMT
Woooooooooooow. This couple is really making a difference!
|
|
|
Post by Toto Gamboa on May 6, 2011 15:44:40 GMT
Very much worthy of being photo of the week! Maraming salamat sir!
|
|
|
Post by Toto Gamboa on May 6, 2011 15:43:09 GMT
Haaaaaaang Lupeeet! Killer shots sir Bob! The first two are unbeatable!
|
|
|
Post by Toto Gamboa on May 6, 2011 15:40:53 GMT
Nice!
|
|
|
Post by Toto Gamboa on May 6, 2011 15:40:03 GMT
Bountiful! great shots!
|
|
|
Post by Toto Gamboa on May 6, 2011 15:35:40 GMT
wooooooooow! hot shots!
|
|