 |
|
|
|
Next: Chroma Green/Photoshop
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Nov 04, 2007
Posts: 1436
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:16 pm
Post subject: Dawn in Foster City with the Panasonic FZ8
Archived from groups: rec>photo>digital (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Jul 31, 2006
Posts: 328
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:47 pm
Post subject: Re: Dawn in Foster City with the Panasonic FZ8 [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
John Navas wrote:
> http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/1020559_gxrzx/P1040662.JPG
Maybe the rest are better, but I see no sense posting shots like these
at full-res, when they show sharpening halos, lots of (very spotty)
noise in the sky, and NR-obliterated detail in low-contrast areas (eg
in the bottom-right corner, look at the mess above and left of the bin
- some really noisy areas, some areas smoothed unrealistically).
A few tips:
1. Turn off in-camera NR, or whatever you are using.
2. Turn off in-camera sharpening, or whatever you are using...
3. While still at full-res, experiment with NR to get a suitable
result and don't save over the original.
4. Use a layer containing the NR version, and a layer without.
Selectively erase the NR-ed areas where they have damaged detail, eg
the somewhat-dark-but-detailed areas.
5. Reduce to about half size, experiment with algorithms to get best
result - I like Lanczos for most (eg via Irfanview).
6. Very carefully sharpen. In PS I generally settle on around .3 to .
7 of a pixel, 100%, maybe 3-5 levels is about right but ymmv. If you
can see halos, you have gone too far.
If you can't see the halos and squashed detail in that image, I give
up.
Don't get me wrong, it's a nice enough image but you are pushing it
way too far, and your workflow/camera settings are doing it damage.
These issues have been mentioned to you before, I note, not just by
me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 23, 2008
Posts: 164
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:32 am
Post subject: Re: Dawn in Foster City with the Panasonic FZ8 [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
mark.thomas.7.TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/1020559_gxrzx/P1040662.JPG
>
> Maybe the rest are better, but I see no sense posting shots like these
> at full-res, when they show sharpening halos, lots of (very spotty)
> noise in the sky, and NR-obliterated detail in low-contrast areas (eg
> in the bottom-right corner, look at the mess above and left of the bin
> - some really noisy areas, some areas smoothed unrealistically).
The tree strikes me as a bit too central as well. Nice image when not
viewed close up.
David >> Stay informed about: Dawn in Foster City with the Panasonic FZ8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 27, 2007
Posts: 45
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 2:37 pm
Post subject: Re: Dawn in Foster City with the Panasonic FZ8 [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Ron Hunter <rphun... RemoveThis @charter.net> wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
> >
> > With regard to technical nitpicking:
>
> > "Any digital image seen at 100% that is either from an in-camera JPG
> > or from a RAW file which has had USM applied properly by the user
> > will show halos. One therefore can not use 100% magnification images
> > to form a reliable conclusion about real-world image quality."
> > -Michael Reichmann, The Luminous Landscape (luminous-landscape.com)
Which since Navas provided 100% images, he only has himself to blame
for then receiving *technical* criticism.
> One might fault composition.
Which was also noted on posts here ... but no suggestions to change
anything were offered at Dpreview.
> I would have, at least, tried a shot from about 30 feet to the
> photographer's right in order to put the brightest area behind
> the tree to make a more dramatic contrast, but I might not
> have liked the result.
The tree was compositionally dead-center, which also suggests trying a
few compositions that use the classical rule of thirds would have been
in order too.
> Some of the critics
> here are more like movie critics, who tend to notice the technical
> aspects, and the acting ability of the characters, and the directing, or
> special effects, and forget the plot entirely. Many movies that gross
> the highest are panned by the critics, but I feel they have worth,
> simply because they do what they are intended to do, entertain!
> Photography is much like that.
Its a shot that will generally gather positive feedback because of its
nice orange colors. However, that's predominantly a "good luck"
aspect of a shot, of being at the right place at the right time. The
meta-question is what do you do from there, specifically if one did a
job worthy of the conditions that you were afforded with, or if you
ended up with something that's merely 'nice' when reduced down to ~20%
and viewed on a webpage.
-hh >> Stay informed about: Dawn in Foster City with the Panasonic FZ8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 04, 2007
Posts: 1436
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 6:56 pm
Post subject: Re: Dawn in Foster City with the Panasonic FZ8 [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 08:32:22 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor RemoveThis @blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
<qY9wj.12365$XI.8024@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>mark.thomas.7@gmail.com wrote:
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/1020559_gxrzx/P1040662.JPG
>>
>> Maybe the rest are better, but I see no sense posting shots like these
>> at full-res, when they show sharpening halos, lots of (very spotty)
>> noise in the sky, and NR-obliterated detail in low-contrast areas (eg
>> in the bottom-right corner, look at the mess above and left of the bin
>> - some really noisy areas, some areas smoothed unrealistically).
>
>The tree strikes me as a bit too central as well. Nice image when not
>viewed close up.
I rather like the tree image myself -- it's my own favorite of the four.
Feedback on these photos on DPReview was all:
(1) focused on them as photos, rather than technical nitpicking.
(2) complimentary.
With regard to technical nitpicking:
"Any digital image seen at 100% that is either from an in-camera JPG
or from a RAW file which has had USM applied properly by the user
will show halos. One therefore can not use 100% magnification images
to form a reliable conclusion about real-world image quality."
-Michael Reichmann, The Luminous Landscape (luminous-landscape.com)
Mark's determination to just run them down with off-the-mark nitpicking
(much like the person complaining the sign wasn't readable in my image
of Alcatraz despite letters too small to be resolved by any camera at
that focal length and resolution) is part of how and why Mark's earned a
coveted spot in my twit filter.
--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) >> Stay informed about: Dawn in Foster City with the Panasonic FZ8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 06, 2004
Posts: 3286
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 6:56 pm
Post subject: Re: Dawn in Foster City with the Panasonic FZ8 [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
John Navas wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 08:32:22 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor.DeleteThis@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
> <qY9wj.12365$XI.8024@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>
>> mark.thomas.7.DeleteThis@gmail.com wrote:
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/1020559_gxrzx/P1040662.JPG
>>> Maybe the rest are better, but I see no sense posting shots like these
>>> at full-res, when they show sharpening halos, lots of (very spotty)
>>> noise in the sky, and NR-obliterated detail in low-contrast areas (eg
>>> in the bottom-right corner, look at the mess above and left of the bin
>>> - some really noisy areas, some areas smoothed unrealistically).
>> The tree strikes me as a bit too central as well. Nice image when not
>> viewed close up.
>
> I rather like the tree image myself -- it's my own favorite of the four.
>
> Feedback on these photos on DPReview was all:
> (1) focused on them as photos, rather than technical nitpicking.
> (2) complimentary.
>
> With regard to technical nitpicking:
>
> "Any digital image seen at 100% that is either from an in-camera JPG
> or from a RAW file which has had USM applied properly by the user
> will show halos. One therefore can not use 100% magnification images
> to form a reliable conclusion about real-world image quality."
> -Michael Reichmann, The Luminous Landscape (luminous-landscape.com)
>
> Mark's determination to just run them down with off-the-mark nitpicking
> (much like the person complaining the sign wasn't readable in my image
> of Alcatraz despite letters too small to be resolved by any camera at
> that focal length and resolution) is part of how and why Mark's earned a
> coveted spot in my twit filter.
>
I have to agree. The shot was at ISO 100, and 1/60 second. Not a bad
image for a small camera. One might fault composition. I would have,
at least, tried a shot from about 30 feet to the photographer's right in
order to put the brightest area behind the tree to make a more dramatic
contrast, but I might not have liked the result. Some of the critics
here are more like movie critics, who tend to notice the technical
aspects, and the acting ability of the characters, and the directing, or
special effects, and forget the plot entirely. Many movies that gross
the highest are panned by the critics, but I feel they have worth,
simply because they do what they are intended to do, entertain!
Photography is much like that. >> Stay informed about: Dawn in Foster City with the Panasonic FZ8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 20, 2007
Posts: 102
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 6:56 pm
Post subject: Re: Dawn in Foster City with the Panasonic FZ8 [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 04, 2004
Posts: 337
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 6:56 pm
Post subject: Re: Dawn in Foster City with the Panasonic FZ8 [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <o7h3s3hpl2859uu8csl1u3mdvm5hb4uh3n.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter1.TakeThisOut@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 08:32:22 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor.TakeThisOut@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
> <qY9wj.12365$XI.8024@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>
> >mark.thomas.7@gmail.com wrote:
> >> John Navas wrote:
> >>> http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/1020559_gxrzx/P1040662.JPG
> >>
> >> Maybe the rest are better, but I see no sense posting shots like these
> >> at full-res, when they show sharpening halos, lots of (very spotty)
> >> noise in the sky, and NR-obliterated detail in low-contrast areas (eg
> >> in the bottom-right corner, look at the mess above and left of the bin
> >> - some really noisy areas, some areas smoothed unrealistically).
> >
> >The tree strikes me as a bit too central as well. Nice image when not
> >viewed close up.
>
> I rather like the tree image myself -- it's my own favorite of the four.
>
> Feedback on these photos on DPReview was all:
> (1) focused on them as photos, rather than technical nitpicking.
> (2) complimentary.
>
> With regard to technical nitpicking:
>
> "Any digital image seen at 100% that is either from an in-camera JPG
> or from a RAW file which has had USM applied properly by the user
> will show halos. One therefore can not use 100% magnification images
> to form a reliable conclusion about real-world image quality."
> -Michael Reichmann, The Luminous Landscape (luminous-landscape.com)
>
> Mark's determination to just run them down with off-the-mark nitpicking
> (much like the person complaining the sign wasn't readable in my image
> of Alcatraz despite letters too small to be resolved by any camera at
> that focal length and resolution) is part of how and why Mark's earned a
> coveted spot in my twit filter.
Everybody on the internet is a twit.
A properly applied USM never shows a halo. USM is an anti-blur that,
when properly tuned, can exactly correct for a mild and consistent blur.
The only fault remaining is amplified noise. A halo indicates that the
level is too high or the diameter is too large.
As for the photos - The sunrise and tree image is my favorite too but it
is severely damaged. The center of attention is long, thin branches
which have been garbled. You need a better camera or you need to take
photos of trees with fatter branches. Zoom in.
--
I don't read Google's spam. Reply with another service. >> Stay informed about: Dawn in Foster City with the Panasonic FZ8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 21, 2004
Posts: 224
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 6:56 pm
Post subject: Re: Dawn in Foster City with the Panasonic FZ8 [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:35:33 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter RemoveThis @charter.net>
wrote:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 08:32:22 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>> <david-taylor RemoveThis @blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
>> <qY9wj.12365$XI.8024@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>>
>>> mark.thomas.7 RemoveThis @gmail.com wrote:
>>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>>> http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/1020559_gxrzx/P1040662.JPG
>>>> Maybe the rest are better, but I see no sense posting shots like these
>>>> at full-res, when they show sharpening halos, lots of (very spotty)
>>>> noise in the sky, and NR-obliterated detail in low-contrast areas (eg
>>>> in the bottom-right corner, look at the mess above and left of the bin
>>>> - some really noisy areas, some areas smoothed unrealistically).
>>> The tree strikes me as a bit too central as well. Nice image when not
>>> viewed close up.
>>
>> I rather like the tree image myself -- it's my own favorite of the four.
>>
>> Feedback on these photos on DPReview was all:
>> (1) focused on them as photos, rather than technical nitpicking.
>> (2) complimentary.
>>
>> With regard to technical nitpicking:
>>
>> "Any digital image seen at 100% that is either from an in-camera JPG
>> or from a RAW file which has had USM applied properly by the user
>> will show halos. One therefore can not use 100% magnification images
>> to form a reliable conclusion about real-world image quality."
>> -Michael Reichmann, The Luminous Landscape (luminous-landscape.com)
>>
>> Mark's determination to just run them down with off-the-mark nitpicking
>> (much like the person complaining the sign wasn't readable in my image
>> of Alcatraz despite letters too small to be resolved by any camera at
>> that focal length and resolution) is part of how and why Mark's earned a
>> coveted spot in my twit filter.
>>
>
>I have to agree. The shot was at ISO 100, and 1/60 second. Not a bad
>image for a small camera. One might fault composition. I would have,
>at least, tried a shot from about 30 feet to the photographer's right in
>order to put the brightest area behind the tree to make a more dramatic
>contrast, but I might not have liked the result. Some of the critics
>here are more like movie critics, who tend to notice the technical
>aspects, and the acting ability of the characters, and the directing, or
>special effects, and forget the plot entirely. Many movies that gross
>the highest are panned by the critics, but I feel they have worth,
>simply because they do what they are intended to do, entertain!
>Photography is much like that.
Bad composition plus bad techniques do not a great picture make. >> Stay informed about: Dawn in Foster City with the Panasonic FZ8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 18, 2007
Posts: 96
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 11:53 pm
Post subject: Re: Dawn in Foster City with the Panasonic FZ8 [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 2008-02-24, me.RemoveThis@mine.net <me.RemoveThis@mine.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:49:55 GMT, in rec.photo.digital John Navas
><spamfilter1.RemoveThis@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>With regard to technical nitpicking:
>>
>> "Any digital image seen at 100% that is either from an in-camera JPG
>> or from a RAW file which has had USM applied properly by the user
>> will show halos. One therefore can not use 100% magnification images
>> to form a reliable conclusion about real-world image quality."
>> -Michael Reichmann, The Luminous Landscape (luminous-landscape.com)
>>
>
> And this is neither, correct? It's been edited in PS, so there's no need
> for in camera sharpening. And it's not a raw conversion, though I totally
> disagree with the statement that proper USM use creates such haloed images.
Sometimes that kind of ridiculous journalistic pontification can only
be taken as a challenge...
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2039/2289519573_d1299cef66_o.jpg
This is straight off a (Berkowitz-assessment: obsolete) D200, only
adjusted the temperature in ACR, then a 115/0.7/0 USM in Photoshop.
--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg >> Stay informed about: Dawn in Foster City with the Panasonic FZ8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 04, 2007
Posts: 1436
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:05 am
Post subject: Re: Dawn in Foster City with the Panasonic FZ8 [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:35:33 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter.DeleteThis@charter.net>
wrote in <VrSdnaHqCu-KSFzanZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d.DeleteThis@giganews.com>:
>I have to agree. The shot was at ISO 100, and 1/60 second. Not a bad
>image for a small camera. One might fault composition. I would have,
>at least, tried a shot from about 30 feet to the photographer's right in
>order to put the brightest area behind the tree to make a more dramatic
>contrast, but I might not have liked the result.
I considered that, but unfortunately there was an ugly lamppost that
would have marred a shot taken that way.
>Some of the critics
>here are more like movie critics, who tend to notice the technical
>aspects, and the acting ability of the characters, and the directing, or
>special effects, and forget the plot entirely.
Or are dSLR bigots that are desperate to put down any image from a small
sensor camera no matter how good.
>Many movies that gross
>the highest are panned by the critics, but I feel they have worth,
>simply because they do what they are intended to do, entertain!
>Photography is much like that.
Sure, but these self-appointed critics aren't representative of the
world at large.
--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) >> Stay informed about: Dawn in Foster City with the Panasonic FZ8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
| Related Topics: | Circuit City vs Best Buy - Which is better?
city streets/nightime - I want to get some good shots of city streets at night using an OlympusC5000z. I've got the streets, regular nightimes and the camera however it seems that whatever settings I use the image is getting flooded with yellow from the sodium lighting. When I...
City map on a Memory Stick. - My little jewel of a Sony W1 only came with a 32 Mb stick. Bought a 512 as a standard. I was thinking of shooting some copies of City maps of Paris and London in segments and using the 32mb stick. The W1 has a decent size LCD and enlarges with good..
print to canvas in New York City? - Hi all, A while ago I asked about recommendations for a service to make canvas poster-size prints for me. It seems that prices vary greatly, so I've decided I'd like to --- believe it or not --- actually find a store where I can walk in and see samples...
New York City - Contours and detours - Hello, A brief incursion by New York: http://www.tomcuss.fr/webphoto/New-York/ I take this message to wish you a very Happy New Year 2008 In french : http://www.tomcuss.fr/webphoto/New-York/New-York_DSC1900c-voeux-2008.jpg Whether it is conducive to... |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
