| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/26/2008 02:44:23 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Brad:
All too often people want to sharpen images to the point they are razor-sharp, which is technically great, but unpleasant to the eye, as we most often don't see it that way in real life. Sometimes keeping it softer is easier on the eyes and "looks" sharper, as it is is how we normally would see it. A great deal can be done for final image appearance simply by the resampling method during downsizing of the image, such as do the editing at full size, then crop/resize down half the size using Bicubic or Bicubic Smoother, then half again using Bicubic or Bicubic Smoother, then down to final dimensions for the web using Bicubic Sharper. It often snaps the image back to a decent, realistic sharpness without adding the ghastly halos. I rarely ever use any USM or similar when PP images from a good camera & lens. The what and how much will depend greatly on if it is from a 12Mp or 3MP camera - each has it's own recipe.
(1)Your mileage may vary (2)Void where prohibited (3)Caution - contents hot (4)Do not stick in your eye. |
Coolio, I'll try it out. Sage advice from a PP-master. |
|
|
|
03/26/2008 02:46:54 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Hmmmm, #2 looks sharper than #3. Is your Smart Sharpen at 100? I usually use 100, radius=1, gaussian. |
I'll usually go with 50-100 and radius much lower, around 0.3. It seems to give a bit less haloing.
Linda - what I do is usually play with the % and radius and turn them up until I see halos and back off a bit. I tend to click preview off and on quite a bit during sharpening.
There was also good advice given about unnatural sharpening; just because halos aren't there doesn't mean that it's not oversharp. |
|
|
|
03/26/2008 02:47:35 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Brad:
All too often people want to sharpen images to the point they are razor-sharp, which is technically great, but unpleasant to the eye, as we most often don't see it that way in real life. Sometimes keeping it softer is easier on the eyes and "looks" sharper, as it is is how we normally would see it. A great deal can be done for final image appearance simply by the resampling method during downsizing of the image, such as do the editing at full size, then crop/resize down half the size using Bicubic or Bicubic Smoother, then half again using Bicubic or Bicubic Smoother, then down to final dimensions for the web using Bicubic Sharper. It often snaps the image back to a decent, realistic sharpness without adding the ghastly halos. I rarely ever use any USM or similar when PP images from a good camera & lens. The what and how much will depend greatly on if it is from a 12Mp or 3MP camera - each has it's own recipe.
(1)Your mileage may vary (2)Void where prohibited (3)Caution - contents hot (4)Do not stick in your eye. |
I will play with that method too Brad.
I am appreciating the feedback from all of you. I know my pp skills are not the best, so that is what I am hoping I really need to do more than just give up shooting for DPC. Hopefully my EMS shift runs smoother today and I can try this stuff out while we sit through a quite day. Yesterday was a nightmare call - suicidal man got into a shootout with the police and ended up with 8 holes in him. Sadly we could not save him.
Anyhow, keep the suggestions coming and I will keep working on trying out the suggestions. |
|
|
|
03/26/2008 02:54:39 PM · #29 |
| All this conversation was very helpful to me so far. |
|
|
|
03/26/2008 02:59:27 PM · #30 |
| You kind of mentioned it in your response on your camera setting but the 2.8 is part of your problem. A lens wide open is never going to be as sharp as if it were stopped down a bit. I was wrong about motion blur but it's defintley soft to start with due to the apature choice. I don't shoot studio much other than playing around with my daughter but I keep it between f/5.6 and f/8, that's usually in the sweet zone for most lenses and gives a decent dof. Maybe someone with more studio expirence can tell you the best apature to use but those work well for me. |
|
|
|
03/26/2008 03:33:27 PM · #31 |
Beyond the technicals that have already been discussed....the main difference I see between these images and your images that have scored higher is the content of the images. To score well, the image has to grab the viewer's attention and stand out in some way from the rest of the pack, either because it evokes some emotion, looks difficult to do, or is such a stunning image that the viewer is forced to stop and look. The higher scoring images on your profile page are all of subjects that grab the viewer's attention. These four, while they meet the challenge and are competently done, don't really stand out from everyone else's entries, so it's easy for the viewer to just hit the 5 button and go on to the next.
Although I did like the dog in the wagon....fixing the technicals on that would have gotten you a much better score. |
|
|
|
03/26/2008 03:48:21 PM · #32 |
Here is another factor which has a HUGE effect on the challenge images and their respective scores.
The Ebb & Flo of this site. There is a large number of "old-timers" that have been here for many years, and over that time have evolved to shooting in a niche or more for us than for the DPC recipe of wow. The voters en masse, love the wow and easily overlook images that speak, tell stories, dig in at a deeper emotional level, require more than a 1 or 2 second glance, and let's not forget those that venture out of the box, etc.
You're not alone Linda, not by a long shot. If I was asked to pick 5 of my best challenge pics to display, I bet most would be in the mid to low 5's. Funny that.
Message edited by author 2008-03-26 15:56:58. |
|
|
|
03/26/2008 03:55:09 PM · #33 |
I'm quite pleased with my current entry in a challenge, and it will end up in my bottom 10 shots, most likely. Chance are Brad will like it. That works for me!
But I too get quite pissed about scores, so I know where you're coming from. I'll shoot what I think fits the challenge to a "T", has decent technicals, and yet it languishes. I've learned (well, really I haven't - I complain every time) that I shoot a certain way and it isn't necessarily what the majority likes to see. But that's the way I shoot, and it's what I like. I still get bummed when a shot does poorly, but oddly enough I keep entering the stupid challenges anyway. :-) |
|
|
|
03/26/2008 04:06:05 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I'm quite pleased with my current entry in a challenge, and it will end up in my bottom 10 shots, most likely. Chance are Brad will like it. That works for me!
But I too get quite pissed about scores, so I know where you're coming from. I'll shoot what I think fits the challenge to a "T", has decent technicals, and yet it languishes. I've learned (well, really I haven't - I complain every time) that I shoot a certain way and it isn't necessarily what the majority likes to see. But that's the way I shoot, and it's what I like. I still get bummed when a shot does poorly, but oddly enough I keep entering the stupid challenges anyway. :-) |
I think that just about covers 75% of us here! We just never learn and keep entering challenges:) |
|
|
|
03/26/2008 04:29:48 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
What lens did you use and what was the shutter speed and apature? This looks a bit like it has motion blur. |
Canon 30D
Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8-4.0
ISO 400
Shutter Speed 1/640
Aperture f2.8
Tripod was used
|
A little surprised nobody else has asked this, but why did you choose these settings?
I assume you had a flash set up of some sort going on for these posed doggy shots, so why would you be up at ISO 400? You always want this to be as low as possible for the best image quality.
You had to get your shutter up to 1/640th of a second to expose correctly at F2.8.
You really don't need it at this speed. You could reduce your ISO to 100, and close your aperture up a bit and come in around 1/80th or 1/100th, which is more than enough to freeze your pup hand held, let alone on a tripod at the wide end of this lens (Assumed the wide end if you managed to get 2.8...)
Are you losing quality in your resizing at all?
Do you feel your full size images are a little soft when viewed at around 50% zoom in PS?
(I find 50% zoom gives a good indication of how sharp the details are in my pics)
Message edited by author 2008-03-26 16:32:14. |
|
|
|
03/26/2008 04:36:28 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by pix-al:
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
What lens did you use and what was the shutter speed and apature? This looks a bit like it has motion blur. |
Canon 30D
Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8-4.0
ISO 400
Shutter Speed 1/640
Aperture f2.8
Tripod was used
|
A little surprised nobody else has asked this, but why did you choose these settings?
I assume you had a flash set up of some sort going on for these posed doggy shots, so why would you be up at ISO 400? You always want this to be as low as possible for the best image quality.
You had to get your shutter up to 1/640th of a second to expose correctly at F2.8.
You really don't need it at this speed. You could reduce your ISO to 100, and close your aperture up a bit and come in around 1/80th or 1/100th, which is more than enough to freeze your pup hand held, let alone on a tripod at the wide end of this lens (Assumed the wide end if you managed to get 2.8...)
Are you losing quality in your resizing at all?
Do you feel your full size images are a little soft when viewed at around 50% zoom in PS?
(I find 50% zoom gives a good indication of how sharp the details are in my pics) |
To be perfectly honest, I think I got so caught up in keeping the pup in place that I forgot about changing the settings from the last shoot. I do not have fancy studio lighting, so I do get stuck using a higher ISO in a lot of cases. I could have probable cut it in half though for this shot. |
|
|
|
03/26/2008 04:54:29 PM · #37 |
Hey Pugs,
What would the dog picture look like if you used shadow/highlights to bring out the fur a little. That's what I did in the following picture to bring out the fur in the black dog.
[thumb]654479[/thumb]
I think your dog pictures are great but just a little too dark.
By the way, that dog is NOT a pug!!! Where are the pugs? |
|
|
|
03/26/2008 04:55:29 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
Third is using Smart Sharpen.
[thumb]662393[/thumb] |
Too sharp/harsh imo.
I ran your original through CS2's Smart Sharpen, drop-down set to Lens Blur, settings at 100%, Radius at 1 pixel, More Accurate check box selected, then Edit, fade smart sharpen 50%.
Another option would be 2 passes of USM, with 8%, 60 on the Radius and 0 on the Threshold. The USM has a way of affecting the local contrast and often really does a nice job, especially with people portraits. |
|
|
|
03/26/2008 04:59:33 PM · #39 |
Here is my honest, harsh opinion. Please don't take offense.
This one seems to lack a clear focal point. Also, it doesn't present the fence in any new or unique way. Try going for a more unexpected angle or picking a subject that is a little more unique. Though the colors or nice, that still doesn't make it a strong or new image for me.
The colors in this one are just kind of unattractive and the lighting does not give this anything but a blurry mess, instead of a blurry artistic mess.
The focus on this one seems like it was a bit off and then over sharpened. The lighting is a bit harsh and the colors are not very appealing. You sure captured the spirit of the challenge but because of the focus and lighting it just isn't fun to look at for me.
The sharpness on this one also seems odd, like it was slightly out of focus and then sharpened. Because the puppy is black you could have used more fill light so that it's eyes stood out more.
Overall, none of these photographs really have the level of technical excellence a higher score would call for and because the subjects and perspective are relatively ordinary and kind of over done, this is why I think they would be getting average scores.
My advice would be don't let silly stuff like scores get you down. Just keep practicing. The more you practice the better your technical elements will be. Then branch out. When you take a photograph think, how can I present this subject to the world in a way it hasn't seen it before.
Hope this helps
Claire |
|
|
|
03/26/2008 05:10:32 PM · #40 |
You want my honest opinion?
You didnt have any PUGs in your shots! That's why. DUH! :P
ok, the folks above me have better and more constructive things to say. :) |
|
|
|
03/26/2008 05:42:24 PM · #41 |
you are getting a lot of commentary and discussion about technical issues. I think that's mostly missing the point of why these score where they are.
Think about your concepts. Your compositions. Your use of colour. How those build upon or relate to the challenge theme. Just getting to the point of 'ticking a box' for meeting the challenge should be the basic level for a score of 2 or 3, everything else after that is about defining the essence of the challenge theme, not just completing the scavenger hunt of having something broadly on topic.
Yes, you have a fence, but does the image speak to the essence of fence-iness ? Is it an image about a fence, or one that just happens to have one in it in a minor supporting role ?
The dog in the cart. Yes its a portrait of a pet. Well done, you met the challenge. Then what ? Is it the best possible, most on topic pet portrait ever, or is that just one of several things that could be said about it in passing.
Similar with the other entries. They are roughly on topic. But they don't go much beyond that. |
|
|
|
03/26/2008 06:11:58 PM · #42 |
Hi ShutterPug
Fences II:
The colors are nice on this. The llamas are more interesting than the fence - which is moving off topic. I heard somewhere that for effective landscapes it often helps to have a strong foreground, midground and background (in this case the foreground is missing) - a closer view of the fence or llama would help, also a stronger line of the fence - either straight and diagonal (maybe), or curving would be v effective.
Blurry Mess:
The subject is not readily recognisable, or asthetically pleasing. Looking at the winners in this they have strong colour, nice contrast and artful technique achieved by the blurring.
Peek-a-Boo:
This is very cute. I find it very hard to be objective about my own pet portraits! The background doesn't work for me. A plain background, or using shallow DOF to achieve same, would be a good way to isolate the dog in the shot - keeping it clean and focused on the subject. Focus on the eyes for portraits. Closer framing (fill the frame technique), or rule or thirds framing would also help. Get closer, without puppy licking your lens of course! :D
Just afew comments, hope they come in useful.
All that said, top 70 is not bad at all - you've some amazing shots in your profile. Like:  I'd be ecstatic if I'd taken that.
Happy clicking,
Paula
Message edited by author 2008-03-26 18:19:41. |
|
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: 07/22/2025 01:48:18 PM EDT.
