Taken from information on the website, which was later corrected, no doubt.

Frankly, if the build is finished then, and it is due to be rolled out, there would be no need for all the staff. They would have known that, so I’m not so sure it is newsworthy at all.

Looks okay to me:

Oh, I guess they must have laid runways, taxiways and hard standings when Wolverhampton Pendeford closed and it took over as Wolverhampton’s airpot?

I have been playing/learning more with PS so I have tried re-editing one of my original shots.

Is this a better edit than the original in message post #1?

To be honest Wardie, and for what it’s worth, the first version was better, because you resized it down to about 800x – this one is too big, so all the imperfections in it are easily visible and you have to scroll to see some parts of the image.

What you’ve also done is to reduce the file size. Jpegs use a lossy compression algorithm, so you tend to lose detail the smaller the file is, if you couple that with a physically larger picture you can see that detail is going to be lost.

You also tighened the crop, so there was even less information to work with.

Having said that, you and Glenn have posted some smashers here.

First Airshow I ever went to was at Halfpenny Green, back in the late 60’s – doesn’t seem to have changed much 😀

Thanks for the memory.

Well, the TCON-17 is generally considered better and is slightly cheaper, which is why I mentioned it.

Only you can decide whether or not to continue any longer with the 602 – if it’s working okay you might find it a useful 2nd camera in future, along with anything else you might consider.

I have an S5600, which I upgraded from an S5000 – I still have the S5000, and may now use that sans teleconverter in future.

There are two myths surrounding displaying images on the web – first is that DOTS per inch are important, and second that ANY resolution is important.

You are wasting your time scanning at 72ppi (its pixels per inch, not dots per inch anyway – the latter is a measure of printer ink drop size) for web use, as well as at 300ppi for print. For the web, just use the 300ppi scan, downsized to whatever image width/height you want – i.e pixels across/down.

When displaying on the web, image resolution is irrelevent as the display of the on-screen image is dictated solely by the number of pixels in the image, not the resolution. For example, if your screen resolution is 1600 pixels across and your image is 1024 pixels across, the image will occupy approximately 10/16ths of the width of the screen, irrespective of the resolution of the image and irrespective of the size of the screen. Likewise, if your screen resolution is set to 1024 pixels across and your image is 1600 pixels across, you will see approximately 10/16ths of the image on your screen again irrespective of the image resolution or the screen size. There isn’t even any file size advantage – an image that is 1024 pixels across at 72ppi will have the same file size as an image that is 1024 pixels across at 300ppi.

Andy

With regards to file size – 1 pixel does not = 1 unit of memory. The amount of memory required will depend upon colour depth and a number of other variables too – so yes, file size is important.

Displaying on a monitor is not always why you might make an image available on the web – a higher resolution will allow you to download and print an image in a variety of sizes, and resolution in that sense is a measure of clarity.