# It all came together...Finally



## JAred (Feb 8, 2006)

Here's a shot of the living room. Painted all last weekend and fixed all the holes, hung some new Ansel Adams Photos and some new furniture tables ect..


----------



## Arthur (Feb 8, 2006)

Very nice!


----------



## Dr Bigwood (Feb 8, 2006)

Hey!  Looks great!


----------



## the_guad (Feb 8, 2006)

That's a really nice setup Jared.  I can definitely imagine passing out in that leather chair after a long day of work in front of a raging fire.


----------



## webbie (Feb 8, 2006)

Jared said:
			
		

> Here's a shot of the living room. Painted all last weekend and fixed all the holes, hung some new Ansel Adams Photos and some new furniture tables ect..



Nice photos.....but if I can complain.....

It would be great to see then (photos) in about twice the size (unless you are taking with a cell phone, which cannot do it in most cases).


----------



## CrazyAboutOrchids (Feb 9, 2006)

I think it's absolutely wonderful! I love the color selection, the wood and elather furniture and the pics. Ansel Adams was always a favorite! 

From a woman's perspective, get some valences on those windows. And to disguise your switch plates, paint them the same color as your walls and then complete them with a few coats of a clear, matte (don't go shiny - it defeats the purpose) poly spray. Use a q-tip after you reinstall them on the wall to paint over the screw tops.


----------



## JAred (Feb 9, 2006)

Craig, Yeh about the photos I only have a two megapixel camera thats realy old. It does look Like cell phone pictures!


Sandy, We thought about painting the wall covers but the latex paint comes off realy easy. I never thought to spray some clear on them to protect the paint. Thats I great Idea, thanks for the tip. Their up so high  to miss the foundation in our tri level. I meant to fill the antenna hookup one and get rid of it but the thought slipped my mind after filling and sanding just about everying in the room. The color choices were picked by my mom....ya I know sounds childish buts she does that for I living so I thought I'd trust her judgement. turns out I like it a lot! Nice to have an interior designer in the family.

Thanks for comments everyone! we realy like it alot it does'nt feel like we live in a hotel anymore.


----------



## webbie (Feb 9, 2006)

Jared said:
			
		

> Craig, Yeh about the photos I only have a two megapixel camera thats realy old. It does look Like cell phone pictures!



Two megapixels is more than enough (I teach digital photography!)

It's just that you are either taking the picture in the lowest mode - 320x240, or that you are saving or converting to that before upload...

I'd suggest twice that size - like 640 x 480, which is still only 1/3 of a megapixel!

That will let us salivate longer on your pics.


----------



## JAred (Feb 9, 2006)

ya it's set at 340 or whatever But that way I don't have resize to post. I try to learn my corel photo paint but I am very unskilled at it. So....................  I just figured that out! Thanks craig!


----------



## JAred (Feb 9, 2006)

Criag, 
I'm not very good at this digital photo thing. I better get My act together if I think I want to be Sign Designer!  Trust me I'm much better with  vector art files. So craig how about some hearth.com Stickers? I can make some bumper stickers and send them your way. I could cut some from scraps I would just need some vector art files. How bout it?


----------



## webbie (Feb 9, 2006)

Jared said:
			
		

> ya it's set at 340 or whatever But that way I don't have resize to post. I try to learn my corel photo paint but I am very unskilled at it. So....................  I just figured that out! Thanks craig!



That looks better....or bigger at least!

Here's the deal - take the pics in either the full 2 meg or the next size down (1.2-1.4 meg)....

When you resize you will get the best results by using percentages - like cutting the 1.2 meg file by 50% - in other words, in 1/2. Arbitrary resizes can lose a little quality.

If you have a choice in your dialog, change to 72 DPI and then also the final size or percent.

I'm sure Corel can do this and much more....but I use Adobe Photoshop Elements usually....or
If you are PC, download Picassa (free) and it will organize all your images and also export them in any size - google makes that program, so you know it is good!

Lastly, you can adjust the "levels" in photoshop and usually "sharpen". This is a way to make lower res photos look pretty sharp....

Uploaded with this, 1/2 size of your last one with a little sharpening, and also one of dogs to show a good size and normal quality of mid-sized file photo.

Some of my digital photo learning links at: https://www.hearth.com/hcc/

Look especially at the examples of resolution vs. screen size (lesson 2)....


----------



## HarryBack (Feb 9, 2006)

nice, jared......

and thanks craig, for the link.....been playing with cigital pictures for awhile now, cant imagine ever using film! Although many of the "pros" say that there is nothing like film for depth, subtlye shading, etc, not to mention the arcane science of film developing! I bet in 5 years, film is history, like 8 track tapes.


----------



## webbie (Feb 9, 2006)

Jared said:
			
		

> I would just need some vector art files. How bout it?



I'll put something together! Then I'll just have to plaster them all around parking lots....

(Note, file might not be all vector, but hi-rex bitmaps should do fine also)....

Sorry for the greek, other dear readers....be glad to explain.....

Vector files are made up of perfect lines, arks, etc. expressed as math -so they are virtually perfect no matter how big you blow them up.....for instance, building blueprints would be like this....

Bitmaps are more like paint by numbers - or just a bunch of dots colored in, and therefore can get "jaggies" when you enlarge them. All digital photos are bitmaps. Things like fonts (in your printer) are usually vector...

Never expected to learn graphics in the hearth forum, did you (speaking to newbies here).


----------



## webbie (Feb 9, 2006)

HarryBack said:
			
		

> nice, jared......
> 
> and thanks craig, for the link.....been playing with cigital pictures for awhile now, cant imagine ever using film! Although many of the "pros" say that there is nothing like film for depth, subtlye shading, etc, not to mention the arcane science of film developing! I bet in 5 years, film is history, like 8 track tapes.



Just for fun, guess which dog is the female and which is the male? No cheating if you already know (from past pics)


----------



## webbie (Feb 9, 2006)

HarryBack said:
			
		

> nice, jared......
> 
> and thanks craig, for the link.....been playing with cigital pictures for awhile now, cant imagine ever using film! Although many of the "pros" say that there is nothing like film for depth, subtlye shading, etc, not to mention the arcane science of film developing! I bet in 5 years, film is history, like 8 track tapes.



Ahh, but you found one of my trick questions - which is better, film or digital?

Well, the answer is film! At last until you have 15+ megapixels. Film is continuous tone, while digital is just dots, each with its own color....

But, the advantages of digital for us everyday picture snappers make film obselete.


----------



## JAred (Feb 9, 2006)

excellent job on the photo craig<

You should use it on the web site instead of my half finished destryoed hearth picture I have in the woodstove section of the web site pictures.https://www.hearth.com/gallery/pics/woodcoal/index.html 

And besides that picture could convey some no no's on installs...like my carpet right in front of the door!


----------



## JAred (Feb 9, 2006)

Thanks again for the good links. for some reason I thought res. was the same as size in pixels and also did not relize that compter screens only need so many pixels to look good unlike paper prints.


----------



## webbie (Feb 9, 2006)

Jared said:
			
		

> Thanks again for the good links. for some reason I thought res. was the same as size in pixels and also did not relize that compter screens only need so many pixels to look good unlike paper prints.



That's the exact ticket!

Computer screens are limited and extra pixels actually make it look worse, let alone the large file sizes. As you can imagine, the screen then has to adjust and make up all the colors to try to fit the round peg into the square pixels.

So give the screen what it wants......for our purposes, usually about 5-600 pixels wide by whatever (after crop).....

Took me a long time to get it myself. People ask how I learned all this stuff and I tell them I kept reading computer magazines - at first I only understood the words "the" and "and", but each time I read I understood a little more. Then, by fiddling with the computer and reading more it finally came together....like the proverbial light bulb going off in the head.

So, now you should be happy knowing your 2 megapixels will do the job for any online work.


----------



## CrazyAboutOrchids (Feb 9, 2006)

One more helpful hint on painting your switchplate covers. If you are worried about paint peeling, lightly scuff the surface with some fine sandpaper before painting. (Be sure to remove all dust before painting). I normally do 2 - 3 coats of paint and then 2 - 3 coats of clear poly, sprayed very lightly or it will run. Once you start painting switch covers to blend in, you'll never want to go back to the ivory or white ones on your walls. Funny how something small can do something so big for a room. I do really love your room! Enjoy it!


----------



## skday (Mar 4, 2006)

I LOVE the slate. I am considering replacing the tile on our surround with slate, and I want to put slate in our kitchen for the floor, so thanks for the great pic.


----------



## begreen (Mar 5, 2006)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> HarryBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, not quite correct. Film is also a lot of dots, aka film grain. Almost all commercial photography has gone digital because of the increased gamut and color range. (the range between shadow and highlights). I was a professional color printer for many years and the steps that one would take to get every last bit of detail out of shadows and highlights could be really arduous. With a tough shot, it could take all day if internegatives were required and many attempts before the results looked just right. Now this can be done in minutes. Film also has a lot of built-in bias and film + printing chemistry varies a lot from day to day, week to week. It's hard to exactly match a color chemistry based print a month later. The prints one is capable of doing today on an under $1000 printer can be quite superior to the work that was achievable with type C and R prints only 2 decades ago. Longevity of these prints may be another matter. That is one of the main reason for keeping up traditional methods of silver, carbon, platinum, azo-dye printing etc.. but it also is the unique look that each method imparts to the print. 

The megapixel size is not all that relevant or more appropriately it has more to do with the final print size then image quality. In other words, a good CMOS sensor at 8 mpxls. can make a very good 16 x 20 print, especially if shot in camera RAW or DNG format. With higher bits per pixel, this is just getting better. FWIW, typical 2 1/4 backs are now in the 17-22 mpxl. range 16bit HDR. 

For more info on film vs digital, try a site like the Luminous Landscape where some pretty extensive tests have been performed.


----------



## Xena (Mar 5, 2006)

Great job. Looks fantastic!  Where did you buy the Ansel Adams pics?
I've been shopping for a set locally but haven't had any luck
so I will have to order online.


----------

