-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
SharpByCoop Gallery of Customs
- Thread starter SharpByCoop
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 1,730
:thumbup:- Joined
- Aug 5, 2002
- Messages
- 126
Dead in your tracks? Wow! Before I even read your comment on this shot, my eyes were arrested by it and I heard myself exclaim"Holy f---k!!"
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2001
- Messages
- 12,345
Hi Duane,
Thanks for the props.
I have, for the last year or so, made my postable images 900-wide in landscape and 750-wide in portrait.
Most of the filesizes range in the 200-300kb area, which, if you have broadband, is no big deal. If you don't then you are waiting.....
But, I find that I am not letting the tail wag the dog. My livelihood depends upon clarity and the larger images show just that. (They come out of the camera at 3200-pixels wide uncropped).
Soon I will upconvert to 1024 wide for posting. It's time.
One problem is fitting all the image in the browser window. There is no getting around it in portrait mode, unless you size it down. The computer screen has menu bars above and below, and so the viewable area is really a comparatively narrow and wide space. Most new monitors are offering 'widescreen' which ascerbates this problem. Compare that to the wishes of Magazine publishers who print much of their work in portrait mode, making room for columns.
I love the look of a great portrait image, but it isn't as well-suited for the web.
And, having said all that, it is all dependent upon the viewer's screen resolution anyway.
I am using 1920x1200! :thumbup:
Coop
Thanks for the props.
I have, for the last year or so, made my postable images 900-wide in landscape and 750-wide in portrait. Most of the filesizes range in the 200-300kb area, which, if you have broadband, is no big deal. If you don't then you are waiting.....
But, I find that I am not letting the tail wag the dog. My livelihood depends upon clarity and the larger images show just that. (They come out of the camera at 3200-pixels wide uncropped).
Soon I will upconvert to 1024 wide for posting. It's time.
One problem is fitting all the image in the browser window. There is no getting around it in portrait mode, unless you size it down. The computer screen has menu bars above and below, and so the viewable area is really a comparatively narrow and wide space. Most new monitors are offering 'widescreen' which ascerbates this problem. Compare that to the wishes of Magazine publishers who print much of their work in portrait mode, making room for columns.
I love the look of a great portrait image, but it isn't as well-suited for the web.
And, having said all that, it is all dependent upon the viewer's screen resolution anyway.
I am using 1920x1200! :thumbup:Coop
Coop, I just got a new custom made lap top that I trade a folder for. (got to get it built pretty quick ) Anyway I love it , it has a 17" wide screen monitor that does take some getting use to and has a large key board with ten key on it, has all kinds of fancy stuff and is big and fast. I love it, but back to your images, I end up admiring your images from three different computers, my home computer has a 18" monitor, my work computer at the sheriff's office has a 19" monitor, and then this laptop has the 17" wide screen so I'm always getting a different view of your pics. Not sure what the resolution is on the home one & the one at work but this one is set at 1680x1050. I'm still trying to learn all of this computer stuff, I'm just kinda thick headed and it's having a hard time sinking in, then there's the fact that my memory fails me from time to time.
I tried to take some pics last night when I got home from work thinking if the whole house was dark, I could set up my photo box and things would be good, but when I uploaded the pics this morning I found that they were yellowed and fuzzy, I'm disgusted. I always want a to keep a picture of the knives I build for my records and I know they don't have to be perfect but I want them to be a lot better than they are, sometimes I get some good shots and then sometimes they're total crap. like last night. My photo box is like the first one you posted, I modeled mine after yours, as much as I can remember. I'll just have to go back through the threads and hope I can figure it back out. Thanks again for all the advise you post and those awesome images you post. You have truly been blessed with the talent to produce breath taking images. Later, Dwayne
) Anyway I love it , it has a 17" wide screen monitor that does take some getting use to and has a large key board with ten key on it, has all kinds of fancy stuff and is big and fast. I love it, but back to your images, I end up admiring your images from three different computers, my home computer has a 18" monitor, my work computer at the sheriff's office has a 19" monitor, and then this laptop has the 17" wide screen so I'm always getting a different view of your pics. Not sure what the resolution is on the home one & the one at work but this one is set at 1680x1050. I'm still trying to learn all of this computer stuff, I'm just kinda thick headed and it's having a hard time sinking in, then there's the fact that my memory fails me from time to time. I tried to take some pics last night when I got home from work thinking if the whole house was dark, I could set up my photo box and things would be good, but when I uploaded the pics this morning I found that they were yellowed and fuzzy, I'm disgusted. I always want a to keep a picture of the knives I build for my records and I know they don't have to be perfect but I want them to be a lot better than they are, sometimes I get some good shots and then sometimes they're total crap. like last night. My photo box is like the first one you posted, I modeled mine after yours, as much as I can remember. I'll just have to go back through the threads and hope I can figure it back out. Thanks again for all the advise you post and those awesome images you post. You have truly been blessed with the talent to produce breath taking images. Later, Dwayne
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2001
- Messages
- 12,345
Hi Dwayne,
OK, since you asked, this brings up a very common flaw. I'll bet that you shot both those images using the 'auto' white balance selection on your camera.
You would have gotten consistent results using a prescribed setting of, probably 'incandescent' or 'indoors' settings to get around the yellow cast of the 2800k (Kelvin color temp scale) indoor warm lights.
That said, I did a quick repair in Photoshop which allows for the correction. The first photo was lit properly and responded well.
Going a bit further, there is a tool in PS that uncovers the deepest shadows and makes it more like the eye sees it naturally. (Shadow/Highlight tool). You can now see the detail in the handle grips.
The second shot is simply a wreck....
Underexposed and the white balance was so far gone it still looks crummy.
My advice is for you to spend time re-reading the $75.00 No Frills - Home Studio thread and experiment in there. You can make it look even better with correct lighting, rather than post-processing adjustments.
Coop
OK, since you asked, this brings up a very common flaw. I'll bet that you shot both those images using the 'auto' white balance selection on your camera.
You would have gotten consistent results using a prescribed setting of, probably 'incandescent' or 'indoors' settings to get around the yellow cast of the 2800k (Kelvin color temp scale) indoor warm lights.
That said, I did a quick repair in Photoshop which allows for the correction. The first photo was lit properly and responded well.
Going a bit further, there is a tool in PS that uncovers the deepest shadows and makes it more like the eye sees it naturally. (Shadow/Highlight tool). You can now see the detail in the handle grips.
The second shot is simply a wreck....
Underexposed and the white balance was so far gone it still looks crummy.
My advice is for you to spend time re-reading the $75.00 No Frills - Home Studio thread and experiment in there. You can make it look even better with correct lighting, rather than post-processing adjustments.
Coop
Brian Jones
Moderator
- Joined
- Jan 17, 1999
- Messages
- 7,560
Coop, if you're into wilderness skills etc., it would be great if you joined us at the CT Wilderness Gathering in April! I live in Southbury now, but previously in Stamford a few years ago. Check my link for details. I get down to Norwalk a lot, too, so we should hang at some point and swap self-inflicted knife cut stories over beers sometime. Amazing pics!
- Joined
- Oct 1, 1999
- Messages
- 6,490
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2001
- Messages
- 12,345
Hi Phil,
Yeah, there is still 'warmth' in the metal on my redo. Perfection requires a reshoot with proper lighting. :thumbup:
Brian - PM sent. We'll hook up sometime!
Coop
Yeah, there is still 'warmth' in the metal on my redo. Perfection requires a reshoot with proper lighting. :thumbup:
Brian - PM sent. We'll hook up sometime!
Coop
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2001
- Messages
- 12,345
Something warm and sexay!
She fills all needs: Johnny's forged feather pattern blade, hard-working dual action CLACK factor, and elegant adorment with gold.
She's high maintenance, but worth it! 
:thumbup:
Coop
She fills all needs: Johnny's forged feather pattern blade, hard-working dual action CLACK factor, and elegant adorment with gold.
She's high maintenance, but worth it!
:thumbup:Coop
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2001
- Messages
- 12,345
Might as well submit this one, too.
Coop
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2001
- Messages
- 12,345
This thread has been buried for over a year and a half. Might be a few new members who would like to view.
Coop
Coop
