| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/23/2009 12:37:14 PM · #26 |
Haha.
Why you Does agree not? |
|
|
|
11/23/2009 12:42:51 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
Topaz, for the most part, has become peoples way of attempting to polish a turd.
That being said, it does have its uses, but for the most part, it is a lot of peoples last ditch attempt to salvage an other wise bad image. |
Ha! You made my day with the "polishing a turd" comment. ;) Right on! |
|
|
|
11/23/2009 12:53:47 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
Topaz, for the most part, has become peoples way of attempting to polish a turd.
That being said, it does have its uses, but for the most part, it is a lot of peoples last ditch attempt to salvage an other wise bad image. |
Originally posted by frisca:
Ha! You made my day with the "polishing a turd" comment. ;) Right on! |
Will you guys take my images if I post up the originals and give 'em your best shot on editing?
Or.......critique them and tell me why you think they're turds?
Again....already have the ribbons, so my attitude about 'em is such that I feel that you can hurl insults at 'em & I'll be fine with it......8>)
|
|
|
|
11/23/2009 01:02:36 PM · #29 |
| Oh I don't think your images are turds, Jeb. I actually don't have an opinion on them. I think if you like them, then that's all that matters. I was only laughing at the generalized joke/comment AJ made. I haven't got access to photo editing during the day and I'm doing renovations on my house in the evenings so I won't have a chance to take on your images, but hopefully someone else will. :) |
|
|
|
11/23/2009 01:07:31 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Oh I don't think your images are turds, Jeb. I actually don't have an opinion on them. I think if you like them, then that's all that matters. I was only laughing at the generalized joke/comment AJ made. I haven't got access to photo editing during the day and I'm doing renovations on my house in the evenings so I won't have a chance to take on your images, but hopefully someone else will. :) |
Chicken!.......8>)
I'll post up the originals when I get home.
I'll resize them since they're 15MB RAW files.
I always edit in DPC size when I do challenge entries.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2009 01:18:16 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I always edit in DPC size when I do challenge entries. |
Really? I edit full size and then shrink it. |
|
|
|
11/23/2009 01:26:00 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I always edit in DPC size when I do challenge entries. |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Really? I edit full size and then shrink it. |
I find that most editing features are far more effective on smaller image sizes.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2009 01:38:00 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Or.......critique them and tell me why you think they're turds? |
You're not the only turd out there, hahaha
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
[quote=NikonJeb]I always edit in DPC size when I do challenge entries. |
Man you're missing out on the abilities you could have. What do you do if you need to zoom into a picture? |
|
|
|
11/23/2009 01:47:55 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
Topaz, for the most part, has become peoples way of attempting to polish a turd.
That being said, it does have its uses, but for the most part, it is a lot of peoples last ditch attempt to salvage an other wise bad image. |
Originally posted by frisca:
Ha! You made my day with the "polishing a turd" comment. ;) Right on! |
Will you guys take my images if I post up the originals and give 'em your best shot on editing?
Or.......critique them and tell me why you think they're turds?
Again....already have the ribbons, so my attitude about 'em is such that I feel that you can hurl insults at 'em & I'll be fine with it......8>) |
Go for it. I wasn't calling your stuff turds, I was just making a general statement (although I don't care for either image really)
The window view one - no depth of field what so ever. It seems that everythings on the same plane. What would be the foreground, that is a pretty cool image, but the "background" (which is just as in focus as the foreground) offers nothing. If you want to have fun, take another image, and composite it with the foreground. |
|
|
|
11/23/2009 02:00:47 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
Go for it. I wasn't calling your stuff turds, I was just making a general statement (although I don't care for either image really) |
On, I didn't think either you or Pam were calling 'em turds.......just that you might have a different view.
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
The window view one - no depth of field what so ever. It seems that everythings on the same plane. What would be the foreground, that is a pretty cool image, but the "background" (which is just as in focus as the foreground) offers nothing. If you want to have fun, take another image, and composite it with the foreground. |
Umm.....I shot it at f/11.....that would explain why it's all in focus.
Let me post up the original later, after I get home from work, and you can see what you might do differently.
Message edited by author 2009-11-23 14:05:33.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2009 02:09:07 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
[quote=NikonJeb]I always edit in DPC size when I do challenge entries. |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
Man you're missing out on the abilities you could have. What do you do if you need to zoom into a picture? |
I don't follow you at all.
I edit depending on what I'm doing.
I edit much differently for doing 8x10 and larger prints than I do for these tiny images for challenges.
The RAW files my D200 makes are 15MB, and when I just flip them straight into jpeg, they're like 14x20, and still generally over 10MB.
Why would you work with all that to just shrink it g\down?
It's quick and easy to work on the little files.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2009 02:12:46 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Why would you work with all that to just shrink it g\down?
It's quick and easy to work on the little files. |
Might be a technique worth trying. Jeb has enough ribbons to his name that I think he knows some a trick or three that work. |
|
|
|
11/23/2009 02:14:57 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
Go for it. I wasn't calling your stuff turds, I was just making a general statement (although I don't care for either image really) |
On, I didn't think either you or Pam were calling 'em turds.......just that you might have a different view.
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
The window view one - no depth of field what so ever. It seems that everythings on the same plane. What would be the foreground, that is a pretty cool image, but the "background" (which is just as in focus as the foreground) offers nothing. If you want to have fun, take another image, and composite it with the foreground. |
Umm.....I shot it at f/11.....that would explain why it's all in focus.
|
I understand why its all in focus, I just don't agree that it was a good idea. |
|
|
|
11/23/2009 02:15:59 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Why would you work with all that to just shrink it g\down?
It's quick and easy to work on the little files. |
Just for one example, topaz works by enhancing local area contrast (among other things). When you resize to 800 pixels before using topaz, you give it a very coarse substrate to work on, and as a consequence you dramatically increase the noise level when topazing.
As another example, perhaps the most effective sharpening for web display is the "Adamus" technique, which involves shrinking an image to 2x its final size, sharpening aggressively, and then shrinking to final size.
There are other reasons. Trust us. In general, you are better off processing at full size and then resizing. There may be some adjustments you want to make at the end that are size-specific, but in general it's better to process at a larger size, especially when you're doing any cloning, as for dust removal, or contrast boosting.
R. |
|
|
|
11/23/2009 02:24:18 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
Okay I'm sorry to say it but I'm getting tired of seeing people using Topaz or an HDR program to try and turn some crappy boring picture into something it will never be. |
Right on! So, you'll be giving back that ribbon, I presume?
|
|
|
|
11/23/2009 02:30:19 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
The window view one - no depth of field what so ever. It seems that everythings on the same plane. What would be the foreground, that is a pretty cool image, but the "background" (which is just as in focus as the foreground) offers nothing. If you want to have fun, take another image, and composite it with the foreground. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Umm.....I shot it at f/11.....that would explain why it's all in focus.
|
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
I understand why its all in focus, I just don't agree that it was a good idea. |
Oh....I understand now.......I thought you were saying that there was something worng with it......not that it was a personal taste thing.
The challenge theme was Window VIEW, so it really wouldn't make much sense to go with a shallow DOF, would it?
|
|
|
|
11/23/2009 02:56:56 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Just for one example, topaz works by enhancing local area contrast (among other things). When you resize to 800 pixels before using topaz, you give it a very coarse substrate to work on, and as a consequence you dramatically increase the noise level when topazing. |
That's the predominant reason I edit in a smaller size.....that way when I'm specifically looking for that added effect, I get it. I can always fade it back......or scrap it and go bigger if I need the effect to be more minimal.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
As another example, perhaps the most effective sharpening for web display is the "Adamus" technique, which involves shrinking an image to 2x its final size, sharpening aggressively, and then shrinking to final size. |
Okay......you *completely* lost me.....how do you shrink something to twice its size?????
I have issues with sharpening.......I am generally size specific with how I do that, too.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
There are other reasons. Trust us. In general, you are better off processing at full size and then resizing. There may be some adjustments you want to make at the end that are size-specific, but in general it's better to process at a larger size, especially when you're doing any cloning, as for dust removal, or contrast boosting. |
Okay......I'm not sure I see the advantage to spending the extra time and effort to edit at a large size, and then shrinking it.
If I don't necessarily need the image full size 'cause it's not something I'm likely to use elsewhere, why should I spend the time?
With a full size image, it's difficult to tell how the changes are being affected, at least the way it appears to me. If I look at the image actual size, I can only see a small portion of it, so I can't really tell how a global effect is working, if I fitr the screen, it screws it up such that the scale of the changes is so wonky that it changes the final effect of the smaller image.
I'm not really sure what would make it better if I cannot get it the way I want it to look at all.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2009 02:57:30 PM · #43 |
there is a market for polished turds. i saw it on TV. perfectly round nicely polished ( by hand mind you ) turds.
it takes awhile to make one - it seems. so don't knock what you don't understand :)
Originally posted by frisca:
Ha! You made my day with the "polishing a turd" comment. ;) Right on! |
Message edited by author 2009-11-23 14:57:53.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2009 03:02:39 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
As another example, perhaps the most effective sharpening for web display is the "Adamus" technique, which involves shrinking an image to 2x its final size, sharpening aggressively, and then shrinking to final size. |
Okay......you *completely* lost me.....how do you shrink something to twice its size?????
I have issues with sharpening.......I am generally size specific with how I do that, too. |
If final size is to be 800 pixels, you shrink to 1600, then do the Adamus sharpening on the 1600 image, then shrink down to 800 and adjust for effect.
R. |
|
|
|
11/23/2009 03:04:35 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Why would you work with all that to just shrink it g\down?
It's quick and easy to work on the little files. |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Might be a technique worth trying. Jeb has enough ribbons to his name that I think he knows some a trick or three that work. |
Oh, GAWD!!!!
I do things screwball trying tyo figure out what works and what doesn't.
I "Speed Edit" small size to see what I have, generally, and then I'll spend time on it if I think the image has merit iin a larger size.
I definitely edit things differently for size, whether or not I'm printing from my printer, or the print shop I use, and if I'm entering a digital projection competitiion at a local camera club event, I edit differently for that, too.
I even edit differently between the two local clubs 'cause the one's projector seems to have hotter light.
I am firmly convinced that you have to do what works best for you, however, and wherever your knowledge come from, in a lot of circumstances, because ultimately, you have to be able to either repeat steps, or you have to edit in a similar manner on other images.
But PLEASE don't take anything I have to say as a technique.......everything I know is usually borne out of desperation, and/or hard-learned lessons from glaring errors.
It's an effective system, but I don't recommend it! LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
11/23/2009 03:06:12 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
If final size is to be 800 pixels, you shrink to 1600, then do the Adamus sharpening on the 1600 image, then shrink down to 800 and adjust for effect.
R. |
I don't have Adamus sharpening......I also couldn't get Topaz Detail to work worth beans in my hands.....
|
|
|
|
11/23/2009 03:15:18 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
If final size is to be 800 pixels, you shrink to 1600, then do the Adamus sharpening on the 1600 image, then shrink down to 800 and adjust for effect.
R. |
I don't have Adamus sharpening......I also couldn't get Topaz Detail to work worth beans in my hands..... |
You couldn't get Topaz Detail to work well for you because you are using it on a very small image, Jeb. It is not designed for that. It is why I told you earlier to use it on the full size image. It takes a while, but that's why God gave us the capacity for patience, eh?
Adamus sharpening is a technique, not a piece of software. You resize to 2x desired output size, copy BG and sharpen, copy that and sharpen, copy that and sharpen (all using filter>sharpen, not fancy USM or smart sharpen or anything), then resize to final size and see which sharpening layer works best on the particular image. It has the effect of tricking PS into doing something very smooth in sharpening. A lot of us are using Adamus Sharpening. You can google it if you want to find out more.
R. |
|
|
|
11/23/2009 03:20:25 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
But PLEASE don't take anything I have to say as a technique.......everything I know is usually borne out of desperation, and/or hard-learned lessons from glaring errors.
It's an effective system, but I don't recommend it! LOL!!! |
It's all just various things that I try for myself to see if they work. I've picked up some good tips and made an awful mess trying to emulate some other stuff. |
|
|
|
11/23/2009 03:46:50 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You couldn't get Topaz Detail to work well for you because you are using it on a very small image, Jeb. It is not designed for that. It is why I told you earlier to use it on the full size image. It takes a while, but that's why God gave us the capacity for patience, eh? |
Ah! I must have missed that.
I don't have much patience.......(yeah, yeah, I know.....tell you about it......)
I have so many things going on that it's pretty frustrating and hard for me right now to try new things. As it is, I've got a new lens, and am trying to refine, and develop some other things that some fearsome taskmaster is trying to cajole me throuigh, despite much whining and bitching on my part.
I'm actually exhausted, and slightly burned out right at the moment and am finding most of what I've been shooting to be sub-standard.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Adamus sharpening is a technique, not a piece of software. You resize to 2x desired output size, copy BG and sharpen, copy that and sharpen, copy that and sharpen (all using filter>sharpen, not fancy USM or smart sharpen or anything), then resize to final size and see which sharpening layer works best on the particular image. It has the effect of tricking PS into doing something very smooth in sharpening. A lot of us are using Adamus Sharpening. You can google it if you want to find out more. |
Just shows to go ya how little I know.......
I have stumbled onto a couple of weird techniques on my own that seem to work. I'm guessing that Adamus musta been the guy that stumbled onto this sharpening technique?
|
|
|
|
11/23/2009 04:00:32 PM · #50 |
| Marc Adamus' sharpening technique: the source. Includes other tips by professional landscape/nature photographers. |
|
