| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/07/2007 03:15:11 PM · #26 |
| Foe me the main "subjects:, the king and queen needed to be in focus and the rest back in the DOF blur. It's hard to get the eyes to focus on the king with it also being caught in the DOF blur. Great idea and so very close. |
|
|
|
02/07/2007 03:30:09 PM · #27 |
I played around with the noise and tones a bit.
Still some noise but the blacks are more solid now.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2007 03:37:58 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I played around with the noise and tones a bit.
Still some noise but the blacks are more solid now. |
this is actually much better and I think would ahve scored higher. |
|
|
|
02/07/2007 04:20:32 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by RazorsEdge:
...
I am wondering if the material I used for the background has soemthing to do with this "noise". It was a piece of black material -- on one side it was shiny, on the other side (the side I used)it was flatter-but still with some reflective properties. It wasn't absolutely flat like felt. |
I agree with you. I believe the "noise" most people are seeing is the mottled reflection of a truly 'not black' background. Noise really is not a significant problem. The fact that the red and green channels retain luminosity in the 'black' background when the blue channel does not is the issue. Scarbrd's treatment fixes that.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2007 05:00:03 PM · #30 |
| Another factor that may have influenced voters is the 'in your face' title. While the image does imply that black lost the game, the pieces are attitude featureless. A less anatagonistic title may have worked better, such as "The Triumph of White", but nothing can save the too shallow dof, the noise, and tight framing. |
|
|
|
02/07/2007 08:30:16 PM · #31 |
I gave this picture a "5" for reasons pointed out - noisy, cluttered composition, and too many chess pictures in this or other active challenges. Not that it's a bad picture, just not too good either as Larus told me on one of my challenge entries. Without being too presumptous I'd like to throw out my challenge picture that also received a similar rating but not very many comments. Any thoughts are appreciated..
The idea here was to isolate the antlers into the mid-space created by the out-of-focus lines due to limited DOF. Thanks in advance for any comments,
Jack
 |
|
|
|
02/07/2007 09:26:16 PM · #32 |
Scarbrd I DO like your fix. Your hired for the challenge :^)
I would like to post the original, but I am not a member so I cannot upload to a portfolio.
Hey alexjack, start your own thread. :) |
|
|
|
02/08/2007 11:38:11 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by RazorsEdge:
Hey alexjack, start your own thread. :) |
can't blame a guy for trying can you??
:-)
BTW, very good, infomrative comments and suggestions here. |
|
|
|
02/08/2007 12:00:25 PM · #34 |
Big issue with the photo is graininess.
5.3 isn't really that bad. |
|
|
|
02/08/2007 12:04:25 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by RazorsEdge:
Scarbrd I DO like your fix. Your hired for the challenge :^)
I would like to post the original, but I am not a member so I cannot upload to a portfolio.
Hey alexjack, start your own thread. :) |
Glad to help!
I did basically three things on your image, and I do these on almost every image I enter.
(the following assumes you are using Adobe Photoshop. Most image processing programs have equivalent tools)
1. Levels - Learn the Levels screen, white point, black point, etc. Curves are used by the more expert photoshop folks. Personally, I rarely use curves, never could get the hang of it. Someone once put it like this
Beginners use Brightness/Contrast
Intermediates use Levels
Advanced users use Curves
2. Unsharp Mask (USM) - Best tool for me for sharpening. There are some good best practices posted in tutorials and other forums here at DPC. Some people use Smart Sharpen very effectively too.
3. Neat Image - Good tool to deal with digital noise. Very touchy, less is more IMO. Noise Ninja is another tool people around here use. You can get the free version of Neat Image. It is limited to images no bigger than 1024x1024. This will work on all DPC images once sized down to 640px or 720px
Overuse of any these tools will usually result in lower scores unless it is done for artistic reasons, even then it can backfire on your score.
Post Processing can take a good image and put it over the top if done well. It will rarely save a weak image. Take you best shot and do the post processing basics and you should do well.
Good luck!
|
|
|
|
02/08/2007 12:19:08 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by RazorsEdge:
Scarbrd I DO like your fix. Your hired for the challenge :^)
I would like to post the original, but I am not a member so I cannot upload to a portfolio.
Hey alexjack, start your own thread. :) |
Glad to help!
I did basically three things on your image, and I do these on almost every image I enter.
(the following assumes you are using Adobe Photoshop. Most image processing programs have equivalent tools)
1. Levels - Learn the Levels screen, white point, black point, etc. Curves are used by the more expert photoshop folks. Personally, I rarely use curves, never could get the hang of it. Someone once put it like this
Beginners use Brightness/Contrast
Intermediates use Levels
Advanced users use Curves
2. Unsharp Mask (USM) - Best tool for me for sharpening. There are some good best practices posted in tutorials and other forums here at DPC. Some people use Smart Sharpen very effectively too.
3. Neat Image - Good tool to deal with digital noise. Very touchy, less is more IMO. Noise Ninja is another tool people around here use. You can get the free version of Neat Image. It is limited to images no bigger than 1024x1024. This will work on all DPC images once sized down to 640px or 720px
Overuse of any these tools will usually result in lower scores unless it is done for artistic reasons, even then it can backfire on your score.
Post Processing can take a good image and put it over the top if done well. It will rarely save a weak image. Take you best shot and do the post processing basics and you should do well.
Good luck! |
This is all great and it is good advice, but you are rescuing something that has already been corrupted. Almost certainly a reprocessing from the original capture will solve the noise issue, for example... So that would be MY advice, contingent on actually SEEING the original.
Razor, can you show us the unprocessed version please?
R.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2007 12:35:28 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This is all great and it is good advice, but you are rescuing something that has already been corrupted. Almost certainly a reprocessing from the original capture will solve the noise issue, for example... So that would be MY advice, contingent on actually SEEING the original.
Razor, can you show us the unprocessed version please?
R. |
Agreed, I was just offering some tips that will perhaps prevent it from getting into the state it did.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2007 05:21:36 PM · #38 |
Update...
My monitr was too dark indeed. I tweaked teh brightness just a tad and the noise in the photo popped-out. Man that pisses me off. But now I see what everyone is talking about.
Scarbrd-I use either levels or curves. I actually try both sometimes,. it really depends on the photo, but I usually get decent results with either one.
Here is the orig...Raw conversion w/minor adj in exposure and shadow.
//img292.imageshack.us/img292/7235/crw2721cwi5.jpg
Message edited by ClubJuggle - Changed large image to link. |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 09:37:00 AM · #39 |
| ...also, what are the size limitations of posting on the forum? Is it the same as in a challenge? As you can see ClubJuggle removed the photo and replaced it with a link. |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 09:41:11 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by RazorsEdge:
...also, what are the size limitations of posting on the forum? Is it the same as in a challenge? As you can see ClubJuggle removed the photo and replaced it with a link. |
I'm not sure that there are numbers specified, it goes with the common sense and what is perceived as prohibiting or taxing on dial-up users when browsing the forums.
I recommend creating a thumbnail of your photo on your web site, and emulating the members' thumb links. |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 01:43:47 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by RazorsEdge:
Update...
My monitr was too dark indeed. I tweaked teh brightness just a tad and the noise in the photo popped-out. Man that pisses me off. But now I see what everyone is talking about.
Scarbrd-I use either levels or curves. I actually try both sometimes,. it really depends on the photo, but I usually get decent results with either one.
Here is the orig...Raw conversion w/minor adj in exposure and shadow.
//img292.imageshack.us/img292/7235/crw2721cwi5.jpg |
Yup, the original is significantly underexposed. Processing to bring up detail is bringing up noise.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2007 08:20:49 PM · #42 |
| Wouldn't more exposure blowout the highlights? Especially on the queen and king. |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 10:20:37 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by RazorsEdge:
Wouldn't more exposure blowout the highlights? Especially on the queen and king. |
Yes, it would. And no, you don't want to increase ISO beyond 400 here either - not with the 10D. Only choice is to improve lighting. |
|
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: 08/10/2025 05:20:33 PM EDT.
