Again, I marvel at the number of kind people who try to help each other in the UHH family. Thank you all for your suggestions... I have gotten many excellent threads to follow and feel the solution is near.
TriX wrote:
Exactly. The cropped photo (which works) is 638x1172, While the uncropped one that doesn’t is 2855x4485 which is higher than the resolution of the TV. It would be interesting if you export a .jpg at exactly the TV’s resolution (2160x3840) and see if it displays.
Maybe there's something else at play here because the photo of the boat at the dock is 4999 X 3548 and it displays!
Ah well... I think I'm on the right track.
Thank you all for your help.
Eric
I see... thank you... so the size in MB isn't as important here as the dimensions. Looks good, I'll give that a try... thanks again.
Eric
Screamin Scott wrote:
Looking at the images, the cropped one is likely a smaller file size. Try limiting the file size on the uncropped one and see if that does the trick
Sorry I'm messing up... a lot... but here's another photo from the same batch that was view-able and it's 9.55 MB:
CHG... (haven't figured out how to include the message you sent) The closeup photo is the one that works, the other does not. Another UHH person said that perhaps size is a factor.
CHG... it's an LG OLED55B8PUA. I understand what you're saying, but not sure I have the knowledge to appreciate technical differences in photo data. You've given me some ideas that I will pursue... but hopefully I'll be able to attach (novice at UHH posting) a view-able pic and no show, and you'll be able to see what's up. Will work on that now...
Thanks for the reply Just Fred. They are all JPEGs and the resolution of the TV is 3840 X 2160... 2160p.
I post process photos, put them on a thumb drive (USB) and try to view them on my LG smart TV. Most will not show... only a few can be viewed. I'm wondering if this a function of the way I'm post processing and if so, is there any way to avoid it? What is causing this?
I use a Nikon D750, Canon SX50, and an iPhone 8 Plus camera, and PP with Photoshop CC.
Any suggestions?
Thanks,
Eric
#2... I'm kind of a reality type person... I've never seen water that looked like #1... for me, the beauty is with the reality, it doesn't need enhancement.
When I'm trying to shoot say, the Andromeda Galaxy with a 140mm lens, I find it difficult to find it in the night sky. At 140mm on a FF camera that's only about 14 degrees of horizontal FOV. I bought a red dot finderscope for under $20, attached it to the hot shoe, and did my best to sight it in. While I'm still experimenting with it, I believe I'm on to something (of course, since I've never had an original thought, I must have seen the idea somewhere).
I don't know how accurate it would be for terrestrial photography, but it does work to get me in the neighborhood for a shot in the night sky. It is visible during the daytime (but only to the shooter), so a person isn't as likely to get "return fire". :-)
djenrette wrote:
"macro" as far as I am concerned is just a small subject enlarged past what you expect it to be. Something like a discussion of macro photography.
:) You are correct, sir... seems like that occurs pretty often... but you sure can learn a lot on UHH if you can filter your way through it.
There is no way to prove that much of the negativism about Obama is because he is black; what a perfect storm for racists.
"Take the prisoner downstairs." Now that's truly condescending...
Wow, thank you all, and so quickly too. I am enlightened (not in the zen sense, of course), and that enlightenment has been a kind of Rosetta stone. It has helped me to break the PSE9 and other PP programs that work differently, chains. Now I have some sense of the difference in workflow, and will be able to slog on without bothering you good people... thanks again... Maybe one of these days I'll get up enough courage to post some photos to pick your brains further...