| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/18/2002 02:11:20 AM · #1 |
I was really pleased with my macro entry, and I think the reason it didn't do nearly as well as I had hoped was because I oversharpened it. I think. Please look and tell me what you think. I want to learn to do better with the little equipment I have.
Submission: Here (three sharpens as I recall)
One sharpening: Here
Original: Here |
|
|
|
11/18/2002 02:23:43 AM · #2 |
First I want to say that I really like this photo. I didn't get to vote on all of the pictures this week, just ran out of time, but I would have given this a 6 of 7. As for the sharpening, I like the Original or one sharpening the best but that just my personal taste.
Roger
|
|
|
|
11/18/2002 02:27:43 AM · #3 |
| I don't think the sharpening helped or was even needed. The lighting was a little bright in spots and that just made it worse. I don't know anything about your camera or its limitations. Technically it wasn't bad, I just wasn't personally attracted by the subject. This topic really left the subject open and there were a lot more that I found more appealing. |
|
|
|
11/18/2002 04:07:33 AM · #4 |
I did a search on what the camera (Intel CS530) can do. Am I right that its resolution is 640x480? And the original picture you gave a link to, was that the maximum quality output / the highest jpeg quality setting?
In that case, this is not about sharpening, it is a sum of several factors.
First: The camera did not take a quality picture to begin with. The amount of detail the chip in this camera can resolve is very, very limited. Therefore the output looks unsharp, but it is lack of resolved detail.
The in-camera sharpening is probably soft.
The in-camera compression is agressive.
I am sorry, but this camera just does not produce good quality. It is in fact very poor. I don't say this to offend you, or to brag about my camera, it is just a fact.
You could consider a 1.3-2.1 megapixel camera from Sony or Canon. Don't cost much, but the quality is better.
Second: Any more sharpening on a picture like this won't do it any good.
Third: When you resave it, save it at a higher quality. It wasn't high to begin with and when you resave it at an even lower compression ratio, all the aspects I mentioned under 'first' will even be more visible because of compression artifacts.
* This message has been edited by the author on 11/18/2002 4:44:05 AM. |
|
|
|
11/18/2002 07:46:28 AM · #5 |
Listen to Azrifel, he is not trying to be harsh, just give you a detached factual analysis. and his points are quite accurate and well-stated.
I will also add that sharpening on a lo-res image like that will only degrade it further.
best of luck |
|
|
|
11/18/2002 10:09:22 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
I did a search on what the camera (Intel CS630) can do. Am I right that its resolution is 640x480? And the original picture you gave a link to, was that the maximum quality output / the highest jpeg quality setting?
Yup, that's my camera. I know I should think about getting a new one, but as a starving college student it's not looking too bright. But thanks, I'll keep the Sony and Canon in mind.
I use Paint Shop Pro 7 and Adobe PhotoDeluxe 3 to edit my photos, is anyone familiar with those programs and using either to save at a higher quality? |
|
|
|
11/18/2002 10:18:34 AM · #7 |
| The most important step is to immediately save a copy of your shot in "native" or TIFF file format, not JPEG. Every time you make a change and re-save a JPEG you degrade the quality further. Only resave your final JPEG for DPC when you're completely done editing, and then again save a COPY so you can go back in case there's a problem... |
|
|
|
11/25/2002 09:05:17 PM · #8 |
| I was very pleased with my macro submission althouth I had a severe problem!? I submitted it under the technology challenge DOH! None the less what did you think of it if I were smart enough to submit it as a macro? From the Homer who finished 179th out of that many and should have finished lower! Paul |
|
|
|
11/25/2002 11:38:26 PM · #9 |
| Hi everyone! I have just joined dpc and am hoping to have a picture to submit for the next challenge. I don't know if this is the right place to ask a question - but if someone could please tell me if I should be setting my camera to take the original picture at the resolution to submit (640x480) JPEG or should I set it on a higher resolution available and then try to reduce the original to that size for submission? Also, is it ok to leave some of the settings on the camera on auto, or do they all have to be manually set to qualify (i.e. white balance, shutter speed, etc.). Am kinda new at this and am still learning what the camera can do. I would appreciate any help! Thanks, BJ |
|
|
|
11/25/2002 11:46:15 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Gracechild7:
I was really pleased with my macro entry, and I think the reason it didn't do nearly as well as I had hoped was because I oversharpened it. I think. Please look and tell me what you think. I want to learn to do better with the little equipment I have.
Submission: Here (three sharpens as I recall)
One sharpening: Here
Original: Here
I looked at all three and didn't see much of a difference and the comments you got I felt were overly harsh. that said to me a macro shot is something real close in and real dramatic.
I prefer taking macro shots of something living or some thing the naked eye can't capture just my thoughts thanks
|
|
|
|
11/26/2002 12:46:57 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by BJ:
Hi everyone! I have just joined dpc and am hoping to have a picture to submit for the next challenge. I don't know if this is the right place to ask a question - but if someone could please tell me if I should be setting my camera to take the original picture at the resolution to submit (640x480) JPEG or should I set it on a higher resolution available and then try to reduce the original to that size for submission? Also, is it ok to leave some of the settings on the camera on auto, or do they all have to be manually set to qualify (i.e. white balance, shutter speed, etc.). Am kinda new at this and am still learning what the camera can do. I would appreciate any help! Thanks, BJ
Welcome. Pretty much everyone recommends shooting at the maximum resolution you have, and cropping to the finished size afterwards. You may set your camera settings any way you want. There are limitations on the types of post-processing you're allowed -- check out the full current rules (link under the Help menu).
You should also check in the forums for information on upcoming changes (look under Administrator Announcements) -- the site plans an extensive renovation in a week or so, and some of the rules will be changing at that time. |
|
|
|
11/28/2002 11:58:30 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The most important step is to immediately save a copy of your shot in "native" or TIFF file format, not JPEG. Every time you make a change and re-save a JPEG you degrade the quality further. Only resave your final JPEG for DPC when you're completely done editing, and then again save a COPY so you can go back in case there's a problem...
that's the most useful suggest i have heard for dealing with crappy-ass camera's like mine and grace's. i will try it for my future entries here (unless i submit one of the ones i have already taken for this week)
hopefully it helps. because my camera massively corrupts images. and the software imports it as jpeg. and it's not like i don't have the space. i have a 128 meg card in there.
granted, i won't do it for my own artistic purposes. i actually rather like the compression. yes, i'm crazy.
* This message has been edited by the author on 11/28/2002 11:56:43 PM. |
|
|
|
11/29/2002 08:19:58 AM · #13 |
I was very convinced that you had done just what you say, but for the sake of the challenge had to give you a low score. So sorry! It was a quality picture of a good looking dog, but probably wouldn't have done really well here. Pet shots are typically scored low because they are thought of (and this is not necessarily always true, it's just what our voters think) as low effort, last ditch shots with no creativity involved. That's sort of sad, because there are sometimes some good pet shots, but many look rather "snapshotty" and really do lack any creativity and wow factor. I hope you enjoy DPC, and I hope you have gotten it all figured out as to how to submit to the challenge you intend :-) Best of luck!
Originally posted by rogerspaul:
I was very pleased with my macro submission althouth I had a severe problem!? I submitted it under the technology challenge DOH! None the less what did you think of it if I were smart enough to submit it as a macro? From the Homer who finished 179th out of that many and should have finished lower! Paul
|
|
|
|
11/29/2002 08:29:25 AM · #14 |
Azrifel has done a good summary of the technical aspects, so I will have a stab critiquing the composition.
First off, the actual subject is just ot that interesting, being a cheap ornament of some kind. The textures are bretty bland, and there is very little colour in the picture.
What colour there is detracts from the compostion rather than adds to it. The relationship between the two unicorns liies in the small unicorns head at the top of the frame, but the eye is drawn to the ball at the bottom. The eye is being directed out of frame by the mothers head and horn, there should be something directing the eye to the babies head. There is a dead space in the center of the frame.
How would I improve it? Id try and get the ball out of frame or cover it in the fluff. Id move the babies head onto a line of third (roughly where its shadow falls on the mother). Id move round to the right a bit and possibly up a bit to get side on to the babies head nd stop the horn pointing straight out of frame. Id pull back a bit to get more of the babies body in frame too.Id try and get more fluff under mothers head to make it look like shes grazing on cloud. Id , um, is this in a shop window, the reflection in the ball is *really* odd, anyway, Id try and get the lighting a bit warmer by using evening sunlight or a desk lamp instead of the brilliant white light you have here.
Hope this helps.
N.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 07:04:24 AM EDT.
