How-to make decent photographs for forum posts/articles/publications?

[tunk]

Big Clive just made a video about making photos of (small) PCBs:

[Peabody]

Yes, and notice that Big Clive does this with a cell phone - a Moto6 Play (very much a "budget" phone).  None of that DSLR rubbish.

[DrG]

Crop Your Photos

Which makes more sense for a post?

This,



or this (same photo cropped)?



You probably have some software on your machine (or even your phone) that can crop photos, but you can do it online - search for "crop photos online"

[EPAIII]

I have not posted much to this forum yet, but I have been posting photos to other forums for over ten years. Here are some things that I have learned:

1. USE a tripod or other support for your camera. Digital cameras often use longer exposures so any movement will result in a blur.

2. Many inexpensive digital cameras have a time delay function to allow the camera user to get into the photo. Another excellent use for these time delays is to avoid the camera shake (even if it is on a tripod) that can result from the small motion of your finger pressing the shutter release button. I almost always use a two second delay when taking photos. That gives me time to get my hands off the camera and for the camera to stop shaking.

As for flash, I use it when needed and avoid it when I can. I am making my first post here in a few minutes and the photo was made with a flash. But the flash was needed and did not cause any glaring hot spots in the image.

[Zucca]

Nice macro photo discussions

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/best-lens-for-macro-electronic-components/

[RoGeorge]

That's nice!

In terms of minimizing the pics for web, I'm using 'convert' (from the 'imagemagic' package, often preinstalled), a command line tool for Linux, good to strip the extra info and to resize the original jpegs to half (1024px wide), then compress them a little better.

The camera is an ancient Minolta DiMAGE Z1, 3MP, better than a DSLR for close up pics.  In general, cameras with a smaller area sensor give better depth of field for closeup/macro shots than a camera with a big sensor.  DoF is bigger when the sensor is smaller (small in size, not in pixels) and this is so because of physics/math, it's not just an artistic bias.

The set of parameters that worked best for me, by turning a 1.5MB (2048x1536 px) .jpg into a 30-50kB (1024x768 px) .jpg, about 30 times smaller while the quality is preserved well enough for web posting:

Code: [Select]

convert "PICT3090.JPG" -strip -matte -resize 1024 -quality 50% -sampling-factor "2x2, 1x1, 1x1" "PICT3090_s.JPG"
Same pic as in the attachment, but resized + compressed 50% using Gimp has about 80k, looks slightly better but the quality difference is noticeable only when compared side by side, otherwise the smaller one prepared with 'convert' would be just as good:



For a comparison, the original is PICT3090.JPG, 1.5MB.

[magic]

The camera is an ancient Minolta DiMAGE Z1, 3MP, better than a DSLR for close up pics.  In general, cameras with a smaller area sensor give better depth of field for closeup/macro shots than a camera with a big sensor.  DoF is bigger when the sensor is smaller (small in size, not in pixels) and this is so because of physics/math, it's not just an artistic bias.

Are you sure that sensor size comes into equation and not just your numerical aperture and the size of the minimum feature you want to resolve?



The rule goes the opposite way: a compact can't match a large sensor camera for shallow DoF and diffraction-limited resolution (which is a different matter altogether, unrelated to anything above, but equally important), because the focal length and the F-number of a lens required for such feat become impractically low.

That being said, a 6x crop compact stopped down to f/8 has the same NA as full frame at f/48, so you may struggle to find a lens capable of that. But at just 2x crop on 4/3 systems there are lenses that go down to f/22.

[RoGeorge]

IDK, see these comparative pics (not mine):
https://petapixel.com/2019/07/12/does-sensor-size-affect-depth-of-field-the-definitive-answer/

[magic]

Well, you said that it matters

The pics show once again that stopping down FF to f/5.6 produces similar effect to MFT f/2.8, as expected.
MFT f/16 would be matched by FF f/32 and FF f/16 by MFT f/8, but these variants are not shown.

[RoGeorge]

Sorry, it was you who used the word "matter", not me.   
What I was talking about is visible in that comparison article linked above.

For any pair of two pics taken with the same f-stop and the same framing, but with different sensor size, look at the middle plank, and then look at the last plank:
- the middle planks are perfectly in focus no matter the sensor size
- the last plank however, is sharper for the pic taken with the smaller size sensor

If it were to compare with an even smaller than a 3/4 sensor, like a webcam sensor or a phone camera, then the smaller sensors will show the last plank even more sharper, almost as sharp as the middle plank.

For me that's a fact, visible in the pics, won't gonna argue about.

[magic]

It's an irrelevant fact because large cameras can work with a wider range of f-stops so there is no point comparing images taken at the same f-stop as a point & shoot.

MFT at f/16 has more DoF than any phone camera on the market today. And less resolution too. Well, unless you can find one with a VGA sensor or similar

[RoGeorge]

So, you admit that for the same framing and the same f-stop, the smaller sensor pics show more Depth of Field. 

Just that now you are trying to declare that irrelevant (after you first question if the sensor size matters).

Then you try to find an escape by suggesting f/16.  F/16 is the last pair of pics in that link, and the smaller sensor still won at DoF. 


For me a point&shoot is better for taking pics in the lab.  When compared with my Nikon D90 DSLR, the point and shoot Minolta DiMAGE Z1 has the DoF advantage of a smaller sensor, is less bulky, and most of all can take macro shots from as close as ~3cm.  No macro rings needed, no inverted objective, no lens changing, just point and shoot, no cropping, and can take macro shots like these straight out of the camera:







Did I won? 

[magic]

This gimmick lens can produce similar shots.
https://www.venuslens.net/product/laowa-15mm-f/

Cost and size are the only factors in favor of a P&S, have always been.
There is no performance advantage.

[RAPo]

Great thread ! 

Yeah, flash is a big no no 
....

Indeed, but what aperture/shutter time should you use? I got a Philips PM3230, in the manual was a handy reference table

[EPAIII]

I have a problem with inserting uploaded photos in the text of my messages. I can upload them OK, but nothing that I do seems to allow me to insert them inside the text. I normally use Firefox but for this message I am using Chrome as a test. Here, I hope, is a screen that I just copied to illustrate this: {Edit 4/21/23: New attempt to post the screen shot here}



{Edit 4/21/23: Wow, that worked. Now let me see if I can do that any easier way down below.}

The PREVIEW button also does not work so I need to POST this message to see if that worked.

So I am back and the image did up-load, but all I see in the text above is the phrase "attachimg = 1" inside of square brackets []. In Firefox the message inside the square brackets is just "attach = 1" or other numbers if I try to insert multiple photos.

But I see that others can have either full sized images or thumbnails inside the text. And I have no trouble doing that on other internet BBs. What am I missing here?

TIA for any help on this.

Edit: Experiment



And a third image which I must upload now, after the others were inserted:



This experiment is to see if I can post an image in the text.

[RoGeorge]

Those features you are seeking does not work any more, a broken forum plugin, or so.

To embed pics you'll have to publish the post first, with the pics attached.  Do not use the embed feature, it is broken.  Then once you published your text+attachments, click on the published pic to make it big, then copy its address (usually by right click "copy image link" or so, depending on the browser).  Then edit your post, and insert the image link where you wanted it to be in your text.  Put the link between img tags.  Then publish again.

The above workaround is for attachments only, external pics will appear as expected from the first time, once they are put between "img" tags (the button to insert pictures will write the img tags for you).

[BravoV]

The forum's attachment feature has problem, the cure is use the 2nd slot upward, never use the 1st attachment slot.

Yes, this below image was attached to this post started on 2nd slot, and use IMG feature.

Click image to enlarge.

[RoGeorge]

Nope, the "Inline full-size image" on slot 2 (no drag and drop, just browse for the pics to attach, a rotary mirror) and the "Inline expandable thumbnail" [ Specified attachment is not available ], a Lithium super capacitor, not working.

[tautech]

I have a problem with inserting uploaded photos in the text of my messages. I can upload them OK, but nothing that I do seems to allow me to insert them inside the text. I normally use Firefox but for this message I am using Chrome as a test. Here, I hope, is a screen that I just copied to illustrate this:

(Attachment Link)

The PREVIEW button also does not work so I need to POST this message to see if that worked.

So I am back and the image did up-load, but all I see in the text above is the phrase "attachimg = 1" inside of square brackets []. In Firefox the message inside the square brackets is just "attach = 1" or other numbers if I try to insert multiple photos.

But I see that others can have either full sized images or thumbnails inside the text. And I have no trouble doing that on other internet BBs. What am I missing here?

TIA for any help on this.

Manually attached files of the permitted type and size using the manual way and BravoV outlines.
To insert attachments within a post you must use the [_i_m_g_]attachment URL[_/_i_m_g_] flags with all _ removed so it looks like img and /img inside brackets. Sometimes I don't even use the Insert Image (2nd row top left) and just type in the img flags inside brackets.

I use place holders in complex posts to help get images into the correct location but always include just one set of img flags for which the first thing you do when editing a post is to Copy/Paste into every location you intend to insert a image. The SMF forum auto removes more than just 1 img flag.

All this is best done in Edit mode, that is the Modify within the post (bottom right paper and pencil icon) that only the OP can see and NOT the Modify at the top of the post.
The reason being is the post Modify retains access to the attachment URL's and their filenames for which URL's have been assigned when you posted. These you simple Copy/Paste within the img flags and then Save the edit to have your images wherever you like within a post.

Here's your attachment embedded full size where if you Quote this reply you can examine the syntax used with the img flags whereas inspecting BravoV's post you can see he's added size constraints to his image.



Once you have your head around this it's quite straightforward and simple. Use the post Preview to check you have it all correct before final posting.
Have fun.

[EPAIII]

OK,

Everybody that responded, THANKS A LOT! I seem to have it down, at least for me and my browser.

1. Put the image tags in the message where you want the photos to appear.
2. Choose how you want the image to show (full size, expandable thumbnail, etc.)
3. Upload the photos but don't worry about getting them to show.
4. Post/publish the post. No images will appear in it. But they will be at the bottom.
5. Change the image at the bottom to full size if that is how you want it in the text.
6. Right click and choose Copy Image Link.
7. Choose either of the Modify icons, top or bottom.
8. Paste the link into the image tags where you want it.
9. Repeat for additional images.

In #7 above, I prefer the top Modify button because it brings up all the editing buttons at the top of the screen. And I can still insert the copied image link.

One more thing to test: When using multiple images, paste multiple image links into a word processor (Word) so I don't have to open and close the Modify window multiple times. I think that would/should work.

Yea, simple! Oh well, at least it works. I need to go make some posts with images to get it impressed on my ageing memory cells.

I still get nothing when I try the Preview button. Probably my browser or Pop-Up Blocker or something. I can live with that now that I have a procedure that should work.

PS: While I used the Chrome browser in my first post, above, for all the experimental posting today I used Firefox.

Again, thanks to everybody who responded. I do appreciate it.

[tautech]

I still get nothing when I try the Preview button. Probably my browser or Pop-Up Blocker or something. I can live with that now that I have a procedure that should work.

Mostly correct above ^^^ and we learn better if we make a few mistakes.

Preview appears above the post text entry box. 
Scroll up to see it.

[chinoy]

Proper lighting (Google ring light or Ring Lamps). These are special LED Lamps that work perfect for good lighting. No ugly tupperware boxes or strips of LED held on with gaffer tape.

Proper Cropping. (Remove all the stuff you don't need).

Proper Apps (Your default camera and its settings will not cut it. Chk out apps like Magnifier and Microscope.)
If you want to take it past Magnifier and Microscope type apps. Then pickup a cheap HD USB Microscope. I got the Andostar. For under 50$ you get a HD Microscope.

[tridac]

Have been using a Lumix FZ18, then FZ38 for a decade or more. Years out of date now, but has good autofocus, even at macro, perfect exposure, image stabilisation and much more  Usb plugged in, automounts and appears as a disk drive in windows explorer, making file copying trivial. No apps needed. Best of all, s/h examples can be found at givaway prices on the usual site. Natural light is the best if possible, no flash, but more care needed to avoid reflections with an artificail light source...