F Sharp Deutsch

[Barb Frison]

Whencreating creating/editing your signature on HubSpot, there's an option to upload am image - i'm using this to import the signature I created in canva. No matter what I try, I can't get it to display this signature satisfactorily - if I import a larger version of the file/image - it looks lovely and crisp, but is much too big. If I make the image smaller, it looks poor quality - a bit fuzzy.

Thanks @JCussens and I apologize for the delay, the screenshots are helpful to see (especially since your image is text based), I was looking for the actual image file - however, I don't think that's needed anymore.

use the higher quality version you already have and optimize that version, this should do the trick. if it still looks blurry, I'd be happy to review the file directly to see how it could be best optimized for your signature without sacrificing quality.

Hi Jennifer -thanks for getting in touch. I've uploaded screen shots of the two email signatures - one at the 'correct' size, that doesn't display with the required sharpness and the other at a larger size - which has good resolution but clearly too large. Any help you can suggest would be appreciated!

I've tried what you've suggested and the results are a little better, but still not great. It's very frustrating. I had a similar problem getting my email sig to look sharp in outlook, but got there eventually. I don't seem to be able to replicate the same results with HubSpot.

I don't like the idea of my email sig not looking sharp - poor quality resoultion doesn't reflect well on my business. Guess I'll keep trying (i've lost track of how many test emails I've sent to myself!).

After reviewing some resources I was able to confirm that the signature tool does not support embeds, if you are using HTML you will need the full source HTML code to render the signature. Canva creates signatures as banners to be embedded, so the code they provide it's not the full source code. At the moment the workaround will be to use Hubspot Signature Generator.

Thanks for your response, however, I'm not looking to embed the image. I've created an image in canva - it creates a straightforward PNG (or JPG if you prefer) image / file that I export and save to my laptop. I then try and upload it to the email signature function, but as described, it's not coming through looking sharp on test emails.

I suspect i may have to resort to using the Hubspot Signature generator, but that wouldn't be ideal as it is fairly restrictive in terms of options for layout; i'd prefer to have the layout i've spent time crafting.

@JCussens since you've followed the steps from @aviafriat26 to optimize the image, can you share the image at the larger size and the optimized size?

It would help to see the signature and I'd also like to test out what might work best for the type of image/design you're using.

Die Spiegelseite eines Stemmeisens muss plan sein um mit ihm przise Holzverbindungen herstellen zu knnen. Diese Erkenntnis ist den meisten Holzwerkern gelufig. Sie drften jedoch die Erfahrung gemacht haben, dass es gar nicht so einfach ist eine solche przise Spiegelseite bei westlichen Stemmeisen herzustellen bzw. aufrechtzuerhalten.

Warum gibt es bei japanischen Stemmeisen diese Problematik nicht?

Die Spiegelseite japanischer Stemmeisen ist kurz, hufig nur 60 bis 70 mm. Zustzlich ist durch einfachen oder mehrfachen Hohlschliff (Ura) der Spiegelseite die Flche, die abgezogen werden muss erheblich reduziert. Der dritte und entscheidende Vorteil besteht darin, dass die Angel gegenber der Lngsachse der Spiegelseite des Eisens abgewinkelt ist. Dadurch berhrt der Schrf- bzw. Abziehstein nur die allseitig begrenzte Flche der Spiegelseite. Das Ergebnis ist eine dauerhaft plane Spiegelseite.

Es bleibt zunchst noch die Frage zu beantworten, warum man dann nicht gleich mit japanischen statt mit westlichen Stemmeisen arbeitet. Die Antwort: Vielen westlichen Holzwerkern sind die japanischen Stemmeisen zu kurz. An das abgewinkelte Heft mag sich nicht jeder gewhnen.

Die Spiegelseite des isi sharp Stemmeisens ist in seinem schneidennahen Teil bis zu einer Lnge von ca. 70 mm als plane Flche ausgefhrt. Die neuartige Eigenschaft besteht darin, dass die restliche Flche bis zur Angel um 0,5 bis 0,6 mm vertieft ist. Dadurch ist die zu schleifende Flche an allen 4 Seiten klar definiert und auf die Lnge eines japanischen Stemmeisens reduziert. Damit gilt auch hier: das Ergebnis ist eine dauerhaft plane Spiegelseite. Diese Erfindung stammt von Friedrich Kollenrott und ist beim Deutschen Patentamt als Gebrauchsmuster eingetragen.

Dieser Satz isi sharp Stemmeisen ist eine solide Grundausstattung fr jeden Holzwerker. Die Klinge aus Kohlenstoffstahl (T10) ist auf 61 - 63 HRC gehrtet. Verwendet wurde brigens der gleiche Stahl wie bei unseren Juuma Hobeln. Die Hefte aus Eiche sind ohne Schlagring, damit die Eisen bequemer mit der Hand gefhrt bzw. mit dem Handballen geschlagen werden knnen. Auch ohne Schlagring halten die Eichenhefte leichte bis mittlere Schlge mit dem Holzhammer aus. Die Hefte sind farblos matt lackiert und an zwei Seiten leicht abgeflacht, um ein Wegrollen zu verhindern.

Look f.e. white vegetation on middle left on pictures. When I zone focus, I make sure that hyperfocal point is between distance scale (so f.e. with 21 SEM@f11, if I set focusing to 1.5m, zone focus area should be between 0.75m and infinity)

... have I understood zone focusing wrong, is my camera and/or lenses misaligned or what gives.

This same happens also with 35mm and 50mm , but with those lenses I understand that zone focusing area is much narrower.

I have always referred to zone focus as controlled misfocus.

As it relies on setting the lens to a zone of acceptable unsharpness it is highly subjective. Additionally, the sharpness falloff is a gradient, the further from the actual point of focus, the more unsharp.

The only sharp area in the image is the plane of focus, nothing else. Zone focus is exactly the same as setting focus by symbols on an old box camera, face cartoon, stick man, family group, mountain.

It was used as an quick-and-dirty aid in the days before autofocus, and has been adopted by rangefinder users as a workaround to get an acceptable image in situations where setting proper focus is impractical - which depends on skill level.

I think it depends a lot on the camera (sensor) you are using. With the M8 , zone focus as indicated on Leica M lenses works (sort of)

With higher resolution, your actual focus zone will be smaller than indicated. The zone focus lines were made with film camera's in mind.

As Jaap said what is acceptable sharpness is somewhat subjective and, as you already found out, also depending on magnification. It seems you're using the old film dof tables for zone focussing which is start but the magnification on which these are based is that a print looks sharp when viewed at a distance of the diagonal of that print. However when the magnification increases (like pixel peeping at 100%) it's a much higher magnification and more like looking at a print of several meters wide from a distance of 10 or 20 cm (depending on the amount of pixels of your camera). So if you want to have sharpness when pixel peeping at 100% your zone gets much smaller.

In general, it has been my experience that photography is generally about making choices...how to frame, how to expose, what to focus on etc. Like in life, it is seldom possible to get everything you want all at once, at least if you are talking about in the best possible quality. I would generally suggest focusing on the most important image element. You almost always want the sharpest area of the image to be the most significant detail. Often if that is not easy to identify, the image itself is lacking in terms of composition. It gets a bit trickier when the image is about the interaction of two different objects, in which case I would typically suggest focusing a bit behind the nearer object and stopping down as much as required to bring the second object into focus. These decisions generally come down to experience. The DOF distance markings on the lenses are best thought of as very general guidelines for what will be sharp in small prints or pictures on the web. Anything bigger than A4 or A3 is probably not going to be well served by hyperfocal focusing unless you stop down very generously or have a fairly wide lens. As you probably know, the closer distance you focus, the shallower the DOF, so typically you are better off focusing a bit further out if you are concerned with sharpness at infinity, for example.

It irritates me a bit when I see Internet pundits declaring zone focus the way to go about street photography. Sure, Street is multi-layered and focusing somewhere in the middle at f8 or f11 is an acceptable compromise, but to proclaim zone focus to be the best technique to use a Leica M is bollocks.

I think it is also very much about intended output. Many of the street photographers who practiced zone focusing were using quite wide lenses stopped down pretty far, and generally they were printing modest sized darkroom prints, or publishing in books and newspapers. Or in the case of, for example, William Klein or the Provoke photographers, blurriness was an acceptable part of the aesthetic. You would rarely see a photographer like Eggleston or Shore resort to it, even if they are associated with vernacular photography. One option is to set up your camera for zone focus if you are doing street work and want to be ready to take a photo immediately without focusing, but then to focus if you have time. That will probably allow you to have your cake and eat it too. Or get something like a Ricoh GRIII, which has a 28mm equivalent on APS-C, so it inherently has very wide DOF.

3a8082e126