RAF Waddington International Airshow

[forthbridge]

Other option is to open a gallery elsewhere, upload the same shot and see how it displays there. I see what you are saying about the 799 width, it is possible that a change is happening in the way the server the image is on is outputting the file (possibly filtered through their software) that's causing it - but if aspect is maintained, a 1 pixel reduction in width removes roughly 1500 pixels (If my maths are correct without a calc) in an 800*533 image (whitch would then be 799*532) - a fairly small fraction relatively speaking.

It's hard to compare with different shots and composition, but if you look at LF363, there would be severe looking jaggies between the exhaust and bodywork, if you look closely, just the camo dulls the step effect which can be seen - also on the tail of the lanc - again if it were black and white would be much more noticeable - plus the angle of the lines 'stepping' down each row of pixels.
The effect can be seen on the bottom of the Hawk cockpit on that last shot - again less contrast hiding it.

[petermcleland]

I'm viewing in 4:3 (1280x960) and have absolutely no jaggies on any of those pictures

Great pictures chaps, very skillfully taken. A question for the experts...Do any of you use Burst Mode when taking these sort of pictures? I'm keen to know whether it is best to Burst or Single with my 28mm to 504mm lens with IS. I have never used Burst Mode (it is supposed to take about 3 pics/sec).

EDIT...The properties of all the pictures on my screen show 800 pixels wide not 799 :think:

[TSR2]

I'm not seeing any Jaggies either. Currently on my work Laptop 1280 x 800. :think:

[DaveB]

No jaggies here either at 1152x864 :think:

Peter.. I've never used burst mode as I don't consider my camera was really up to it at the time (2.5fps or thereabouts which isn't fast enough in the grand scale of things). I can fill the buffer just hitting the 'fire' button so gawd knows what would happen on burst Try it and see what happens.. you might like it ;-)

ATB

DaveB :tab:

[forthbridge]

In IE and Firefox, the images display 799*535. Definite Jaggies. It may be an ISP/monitor thing.

Peter - burst mode is useful, but, unless pressed for time, it is not worthwhile in that type of shot - better to compose the shot and get the focus and exposure as good as possible first time. As it is not a moving target the scene is not changing, so all burst mode would do is give you a dozen copies of the same shot

[Tweek]

I never use burst/continuous shooting mode, not through technical issues, but down to the fact that I just don't like to use it. Seems a bit like hit and hope for me, and I prefer to take each shot as it's own, waiting for the right time to press the shutter, and focusing for each individual shot.

[TobyV]

In IE and Firefox, the images display 799*535. Definite Jaggies. It may be an ISP/monitor thing.

Peter - burst mode is useful, but, unless pressed for time, it is not worthwhile in that type of shot - better to compose the shot and get the focus and exposure as good as possible first time. As it is not a moving target the scene is not changing, so all burst mode would do is give you a dozen copies of the same shot

Sorry only just picked this up but when I scale an image from my camera too 800 pixels wide, it should be 800x533 pixels wide. So if your images are coming out at 535 pixels tall that could well be the source of the problem, that it simply isnt exactly 1.5:1 aspect ratio.

[petermcleland]

Chaps...thanks for the views on Burst Mode...I think I will just leave that alone then and concentrate on what I know :flying:

[Kevin Farnell]

[quote="Tweek]

I can see them very clearly along the stripes of the Pitts in this shot:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/k.farnell/BAC/BAC-04.jpg[/quote]

Thanks, Tweek. I hadn't really noticed them until you pointed it out. Most of the other shots look OK, so I'm not sure why that one looks bad. They were all shot as 15.4Mb Nikon Raw files.
I'll try reworking it with Photoshop Elements 6 or Rawshooter Essentials.
I'll also have a play with my anti-aliasing settings.

Cheers

Kevin

[forthbridge]

Sorry only just picked this up but when I scale an image from my camera too 800 pixels wide, it should be 800x533 pixels wide. So if your images are coming out at 535 pixels tall that could well be the source of the problem, that it simply isnt exactly 1.5:1 aspect ratio.

Hi Toby

Your shots are fine - they display at 800*533 - it's Kevins we were/are referring to with Jaggies. Your shots look fine - I did mention Jaggies visible in some of your shots if you look VERY closely but nothing out of the ordinary mate, meant more as an example. I really do think a lot of it is that you won't notice them until they belt you in the face so to speak.... and it just happens that the Pitts' lining is probably exacerbating the look....