[Chucksue]

Top of radio veneer is stained. 
I’m having a hard time posting pictures. It says that they are too big???
Well the picture of the top of the radio came through. The finish is pealing and it is stained. I’m

[morzh]

1. You have just successfully put it here, what's the problem now?
2. Yes there is a size limit. It will tell you (forgot, like 3 MB or so, see the message when it is rejected).
3. When you see the message, take the photo that is in excess of the allowed limit, open it in, say "Paint" (if in Windows) and reduce the size by some apprfopriate number. If you are 2 times over, reduce it (linear size) to 60-70%, square of which will give you 50% or so size reduction.
4. Re-post.

[Chucksue]

I post using my phone. All I can do is crop the picture.

[DaleHCook]

I post using my phone. All I can do is crop the picture.

For many applications a phone is not a camera, due in part to limited image editing capabilities. If you do not own an actual camera I suggest exporting the phone images to a computer where they can be edited.

[morzh]

I tried a phone on a couple of occasions. I realized that, while it is possible, it is like riding a bike to a grocery shop during a snowstorm: physically possible but highly inconvenient and downright unpleasant.

Most hobbyist websites ar geared towards computers.

[RodB]

Maybe you can tell your phone to use a lower pixel density.

[RodB]

Yeah, I would sand it smooth to the wood removing stains and scratches, don't get too aggressive, finish with 150 then 220, spray with a clear lacquer, see how it looks. Either add a toner and coats of clear or several more coats of clear. Looking good.

[DaleHCook]

I tried a phone on a couple of occasions.

I use the "camera" in my phone very rarely, for things like snapping an item in a brick-and-mortar flea market which I want to research on a computer before possibly purchasing it.

[morzh]

Dale,


I have to admit, the rear cam on my recently (1 year ago) acquired Google Pixel 9 Pro phone is superb. Just really, really good. Until then the phone cams were lacking, though my wife's Samsung's (at the time an expensive model, some 8 years or so ago) camera took very good quality pictures. My phones all had problems.
Now I can only say praises.

Yes, I still take my Canon 5D Mark II (full size sensor, 24x36mm, 25 Mpixels) on hikes and trips that, I think, could result in some good pictures. But, as hard it is to admit, the phone cams got really good.

This is a pic of one of my cats' head, shot from afar, with not so good lighting and some 6x zoom on my Pixel 9 Pro. Somehow on my phone igt looks a tad better, but still...
   

And this is 2 weeks ago photo of my Holly tree.
   

[DaleHCook]

I have to admit, the rear cam on my recently (1 year ago) acquired Google Pixel 9 Pro phone is superb.

Camera quality is not the problem (my Samsung Galaxy A14 5G has a 50 mp rear cam). The problem is twofold:

1) A general lack of phone image editing apps that can resize images on a phone.
2) Phone uses who do not understand the need to resize images before posting them on forums or mailing lists.

I have been a serious amateur photographer for more than 50 years, starting with a 35mm SLR in 1969. I now use a Pentax K70 DSLR (24 mp, APSC sensor). I have a lot of money (a camera can be a money pit) invested in the body, five lenses, a quality tripod, 37 filters, 10 filter cases, four custom-modified vintage flashes, a tabletop studio, and a boatload of accessories. I need to be able to do a number of things that simply cannot be done with a camera phone, such as my current project to create archival quality images of gravestones (I am a member of the Association for Gravestone Studies).

It is impossible to create the images that I want on a cell phone - the hardware needed to sdo so is simply not available for a cell phone.

[RodB]

Dale, are you a member of the Find-A-Grave group that photographs headstones for findagrave.com?

[DaleHCook]

Rod -

I am not. The vast majority of the photos on Find-A-Grave are excerable - many are impossible to read. Scholarly, archive-quality photos are monochrome and sunlit at a narrow range of angles. Those standards provide maximum detail of the stone's inscription and decorations.

Here is the Find-A-Grave photo of an ancestor's gravestone:

[Image: https://mathomhouseradio.net/temp/4fag.jpg]

Can you read the inscription?

Here is an archival quality photo of the same gravestone. As you can see it is far superior to the Find-A-Grave photo:

[Image: https://mathomhouseradio.net/temp/4gs1.jpg]

[RodB]

Thanks for the lesson. I take it north facing headstones are very difficult to photograph.

[DaleHCook]

In the 17th and 18th centuries headstones generally faced east, so that the dead could arise facing the dawn on Judgement Day. Archival photographs of the east-facing stones were taken with the sunlight raking the face of the stone at an angle between 20 and 30 degrees to show the best contrast between light and shadow in the inscription and the decoration. Monochrome photography displays that contrast much better than color photography. The solution I am working on uses a powerful electronic flash when the sun is not on the face of a stone, raking the face at an appropriate angle. The difficulty is in compensating for the inverse square law in the lighting.

It is best to also provide contrast between a stone and the (largely chlorophyll) background to make the stone stand out from the background. For a light-colored stone such as white marble a red filter will darken the background in monochrome. For a dark-colored stone such as slate a green filter will lighten the background in monochrome.

[MrFixr55]

I am constantly amazed by the non-Philco and non-electronic knowledge base of this Phorum and the community service or human service activities of its members. Dale, not only is your photography fantastic, but the subject matter is also interesting and potentially comforting to the descendants who see these photos.

Interestingly, the East - West and North- South directions have meaning in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Back in the days of the early Christian Church, when adults were baptized by immersion (a practice that still occurs in several denominations, one is laid down in the water, "setting in (back facing) the west", ending their life in Original Sin, and "rising (facing) in the east", indicating the beginning of their Christian life. I recently attended the baptism of a friend in an Evangelical church and this was the case. Later, as baptism as an infant became common, especially in the Roman Catholic church, babies were baptized by holding them over a basin (the Baptismal Font), face up, head tilted back and pouring Holy Water over their head. In our parish, the baby is held with the top of their head facing west and then is raised with face facing east and the Paschal Candle which is lit for the Baptismal liturgy

In the traditional construction of Catholic churches, when possible, the priest and congregation faced whatever direction Jerusalem lied (East for most of Europe and the US). The Gospel was proclaimed facing North because threats to the Jewish and early Christian communities generally came from the North. (Now, the priest faces the congregation, churches have transepts or people face the altar from 3 different directions, etc., but direction had or still has symbolism.