Submitting Photography
Last updated  May 2017
Click on any
picture to bring
up a larger
Can't tell you how many times I get a picture of "something" that someone wants me to suss out for them, only:

  1. Whatever it is, it  (hereinafter WI3) has been made up of a Jimalax-type cord in multiple colours which totally obscures any details (Sorry
    Lindsay!!) in the photographs.
  2. WI3 has been done in a bright polyester (or nylon or dacron) small line and then photographed with a direct flash which
    basically washes out any details:
  3. WI3 has been photographed with somewhat more sensitivity as to the lighting but has been shot against a stark black
    background (probably in the mistaken belief that the contrast will be beneficial to the eye... I assure you, in most cases it is
    NOT so,
  4. Conversely, WI3 is made of a light colour material and has been shot against a WHITE background.
  5. WI3 has been shot OUT-OF-FOCUS, probably one of the major sins for this sort of detective work and only excusable if you
    only had that "once-in-a-lifetime" chance to take the piccy.  Even then, you should be able to suss out the focusing on your
    equipment, innit?
  6  The picture is 'way too low-resolution to permit any forensic exploration.    

Now, don't get me wrong:  I use quite a lot of 1.4 and 1.8 mm polyester white cord (RWROPE.COM Bob Dollar) for belts, pouches,
lanyards and the like, indeed, I think - on reflection -  that these are my major sources these days, but for teaching I still prefer
something like
Marty COMBS' #15b cotton or his #12 cotton for specialized applications.  I do wish I could still find an equivalent to
Belfast Cord" for lanyards and the like as it produced a delicate, eminently photographable result which worked with just about any
background, but (a), it ain't made no' mo' and (b), I digress.

So what to do?

Easiest answer to (1) is to NOT use Jimalax-style cordage for small fancywork.  This stuff is great for Recon paddles, boathook
looms, working boat tillers and wheels, etc, where you want UTILITY rather than beauty.  Sorry, but IMO (And it's my bloody page,
innit?) the stuff is uglier than cat's vomit.

(2) Is easily fixed: use a "bounce" flash to get rid of the glare (or don't run the bloody result thru Photoshop's "sharpen" filter function)
and DON'T over-expose the photo.  A great white snake-like 'thing' don't tell me nothin' a'tall, a'tall. (See IRFANVIEW)

(3) and (4) are equally simple: DON'T FECKIN' USE A STARK BLACK OR WHITE BACKGROUND!  I use a piece of cardboard from a
box... Most of us have access to a cardboad carton of copy paper these days... Just use the inner side of the lid or any piece of
cardboard which is clean, flat(ish) and has a minimum of visible stiffening ridges.  The cardboard is usually a nicely neutral colour,
vaguely described as "Ecru", "Taupe", "Emulsified Bean Soup" (Love that stuff... Might explain the number of ex-wives?) or, just...

This stuff is great and I wish I'd sussed it long ago... As it is, I discovered it around 2006 and have used it (almost) religiously since.
The matte finish gives little if any "backbounce" to the flash, no matter the angle used and the contrast between the object and the
background really allows the details to be seen.  That said, ANY photograph made too close to the object will "glare out" the resultant
image, but "Ve haff vays off gettink harount dis!"

"IRFANVIEW".   This little gem needs a bit of learning to get the maximum benefit from it but it can do just about anything
except cook breakfast for your photos. While a donation would be appreciated by the author, it's all EMINENTLY free for the taking
and does NOT contain anything you'd not want your Mother to see you in on Sunday.  GREAT alternative to Photoshop for picture
manipulation (colour, composition, rotation, etc.)

OK:  (5) is a real hassle, especially when using "film" cameras, but there should be NO reason for a digital photo to be out of focus,
provided you have a "preview" function on the camera, and even less excuse if you've used a "semi-intelligent" phone to shoot the
bloody thing.  If necessary, rest the photographic device on something to steady it but
persist until you get a clear, crisp photo to
send.  I really can't get more specific than that, except to say, if your photo is out-of-focus or 'blurry', I don't want it.  Seriously.  I'm
seventy-bleedin'-two and what I have for eyesight is less than your average hive rat would consider adequate.  Do us a favour then?

Enter (6), the real "peck's bad boy" of the scenarii... Modern cameras, especially smartfone cameras will automatically reduce a
perfectly good 10MP picture to 175KB or less to make it more easily sent via email, but what works for the usual commerce of
pictures of the grandbabies for Grammar just don't effin' cut it for our purposes.  

Somewhere in the software for your particular unit there are settings for "email size", "resize", "original size" and the old standby
which I still love,
"Zipfile".   Send me a full size photo in ANY format:  jpg, jpeg, pdf, tiff, raw... (I really DON'T like png too much but I
can work with it).  Should you have one of the  sophisticated photo manipulators, I really think you'll be giving this section a miss, but
6" x 6" at 300dpi is an excellent choice, unfiltered.

Send as many as you'd like!   If you have a lot (more than six) you can send them all as a zipfile or as individual email attachments.  If
you'd like to put them into a "photo-cacher" such as photobucket, please do, but upload the full-size picture.

The stress on large, detailed photos is so that I can do the forensics of how, what, why myself and the more detail and info I have
visually, the easier that is. (Hive rats, remember?)
All content these pages ©2004-2010 Frayed Knot Arts.  All rights reserved.  Reproduction or use prohibited without prior written permission.
All content these pages ©2004-2010 Frayed Knot
Arts.  All rights reserved.  Reproduction or use
prohibited without prior written permission.
All content these pages ©2004-2010 Frayed Knot Arts.  All rights reserved.  Reproduction or use prohibited without prior written permission.
Example of bullet #1 above. Multi-color line,
as well as too small (dpi-wise) to really
permit investigation.   
Here's a picture of Mr. George KIMMELL of Northern N. Jersey...
and an example of bullet #6 above... Picture is far too small
(dpi-wise) and too dark to permit any forensic investigation.  Mr.
Kimmell hasn't replied to my emails since 20006, so I doubt
we'll get a resubmission unless the Maritime Museum sees this
page and contacts me..
Overexposure and size.