Thirsty Moth
 

Two weeks ago I saw this thirsty moth. As usual all constructive
comments are appreciated.
The image was saved in medium quality.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150704_Lomgwood_0299.jpg


--
PeterN

Thirsty Moth
 

On 2015-07-22 02:29:14 +0000, PeterN said:

Two weeks ago I saw this thirsty moth. As usual all constructive
comments are appreciated.
The image was saved in medium quality.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150704_Lomgwood_0299.jpg

Peter, Peter, Peter....
You used the TC-17 didn't you?

Then you made the usual severe crop, over-sharpened, and you have left
noise which is neither grain nor bokeh.

To me it is another fortuitous capture spoilt.

I am also a little baffled by the oddity in white under the bulb.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Thirsty Moth
 

PeterN:

Two weeks ago I saw this thirsty moth. As usual all constructive
comments are appreciated.
The image was saved in medium quality.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150704_Lomgwood_0299.jpg

Here's what it /looks/ like to me. It looks
over-sharpened/over-processed. Are you using Photoshop or brand X? Mac
or an imitation? It has a lot of noise in the background, maybe from
the sharpening. The lower left quadrant has artifacts of some sort. You
marred it with a copyright notice in the ROI rather than at an edge. If
you don't want it downloaded, don't upload it!

Finally, you failed to identify the species. It's Epargyreus clarus,
Silver-spotted Skipper http://eol.org/pages/184797/overview.

Nice pic, though!

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

Thirsty Moth
 

PeterN wrote:
Two weeks ago I saw this thirsty moth. As usual all constructive
comments are appreciated.
The image was saved in medium quality.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150704_Lomgwood_0299.jpg

Way overworked.

Thirsty Moth
 

| Here's what it /looks/ like to me. It looks
| over-sharpened/over-processed. Are you using Photoshop or brand X? Mac
| or an imitation?

It's in the EXIF data:

Make: NIKON CORPORATION
Model: NIKON D800
Softwa Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)

But that implies it was taken as JPG. I haven't
researched different cameras, but JPGs I see
seem to generally show over-compression when
viewed at full size. They look great viewed small,
but when viewed full size it's clear that a lot of
data is already gone in the initial save. So even if
this image were not oversharpened, little rectangles
would probably still be visible at full size.

Isn't the whole idea of saving as JPG outdated?
Wasn't that format a poor choice in the first place,
due simply to the need to have a universally supported
format for casually taken photos? Why would anyone
who's actually going to work on the photo not
shoot RAW?
I'm curious about the opinions of more experienced
people about these questions.

Thirsty Moth
 

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| Here's what it /looks/ like to me. It looks
| over-sharpened/over-processed. Are you using Photoshop or brand X? Mac
| or an imitation?

It's in the EXIF data:

Make: NIKON CORPORATION
Model: NIKON D800
Softwa Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)

But that implies it was taken as JPG.

no it doesn't.

the exif data is preserved when editing.

I haven't
researched different cameras, but JPGs I see
seem to generally show over-compression when
viewed at full size. They look great viewed small,
but when viewed full size it's clear that a lot of
data is already gone in the initial save. So even if
this image were not oversharpened, little rectangles
would probably still be visible at full size.

only if it's a low quality jpeg.

Isn't the whole idea of saving as JPG outdated?

of course not. where did you get that ridiculous idea?

Wasn't that format a poor choice in the first place,
due simply to the need to have a universally supported
format for casually taken photos? Why would anyone
who's actually going to work on the photo not
shoot RAW?

they would shoot raw, however, they still need to convert it to a jpeg
to post the image.

Thirsty Moth
 

| But that implies it was taken as JPG.
|
| no it doesn't.
| the exif data is preserved when editing.

So RAW contains EXIF data? I didn't know that.
Personally I always save anything as TIFF or BMP
until such time as I need to transfer a small file for
online use. I don't pay much attention to EXIF data.
So it hadn't occurred to me that RAW may embed
EXIF data.

So... you have EXIF data in all of your images, and
RAW contains EXIF data? Do you take most images
in RAW and save them that way until posting them
online or printing?

| I haven't
| researched different cameras, but JPGs I see
| seem to generally show over-compression when
| viewed at full size. They look great viewed small,
| but when viewed full size it's clear that a lot of
| data is already gone in the initial save. So even if
| this image were not oversharpened, little rectangles
| would probably still be visible at full size.
|
| only if it's a low quality jpeg.
|
| Isn't the whole idea of saving as JPG outdated?
|
| of course not.

Because JPG is by definition low quality. At the
time cameras were coming out PNG was not widely
supported, and PNG doesn't compress as well. JPG
was/is supported on all major OSs. JPG was really
designed to optimize file size with "tolerable" loss of
quality. Great for the Web, but questionable
for photographs.

I got thinking about this last week because I
was testing out some image resizing code and had
some test images. They were not top quality, but
they're pretty good:

Panasonic DMC-ZS25
4608x3456 at just under 6 MB each. I expect they'd
look fine printed as postcard size, but when zooming
in, and in some cases at normal size viewing, I can
see rectangles. I doubt that any camera taking JPGs
saves the images with no loss at all. I'm not sure it's
even possible to save a JPG with zero loss, even at the
"100" quality level. (Though I'm not certain about that.)

Thirsty Moth
 

On 2015-07-22 13:44:54 +0000, "Mayayana" said:


| But that implies it was taken as JPG.
|
| no it doesn't.
| the exif data is preserved when editing.

So RAW contains EXIF data? I didn't know that.

If RAW didn't have EXIF and other metadata, where did you think it
magically came from?

Personally I always save anything as TIFF or BMP
until such time as I need to transfer a small file for
online use. I don't pay much attention to EXIF data.
So it hadn't occurred to me that RAW may embed
EXIF data.

Why BMP?

So... you have EXIF data in all of your images, and
RAW contains EXIF data? Do you take most images
in RAW and save them that way until posting them
online or printing?

All my shooting is RAW, and occasionalty RAW+JPEG. Since my workflow is
Lightroom+ Photoshop I have no need to print from JPEG, and so I don't
have to concern myself with compression artifacts in the prints. For
posting online I export to JPEG from Lightroom.

| I haven't
| researched different cameras, but JPGs I see
| seem to generally show over-compression when
| viewed at full size. They look great viewed small,
| but when viewed full size it's clear that a lot of
| data is already gone in the initial save. So even if
| this image were not oversharpened, little rectangles
| would probably still be visible at full size.
|
| only if it's a low quality jpeg.
|
| Isn't the whole idea of saving as JPG outdated?
|
| of course not.

Because JPG is by definition low quality. At the
time cameras were coming out PNG was not widely
supported, and PNG doesn't compress as well. JPG
was/is supported on all major OSs. JPG was really
designed to optimize file size with "tolerable" loss of
quality. Great for the Web, but questionable
for photographs.

I got thinking about this last week because I
was testing out some image resizing code and had
some test images. They were not top quality, but
they're pretty good:

I make any critical resizing to ACR/Lightroom processed RAW in PS, or
with On1 Perfect Resize. All JPEGs for online posting are resized via
the Lightroom export dialog. The result for me is, I don't have any
JPEGs saved in Lightroom, they are only found in Dropbox, Adobe
Creative Cloud, and my archives for those two cloud services.

Panasonic DMC-ZS25
4608x3456 at just under 6 MB each. I expect they'd
look fine printed as postcard size, but when zooming
in, and in some cases at normal size viewing, I can
see rectangles. I doubt that any camera taking JPGs
saves the images with no loss at all. I'm not sure it's
even possible to save a JPG with zero loss, even at the
"100" quality level. (Though I'm not certain about that.)


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Thirsty Moth
 

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| But that implies it was taken as JPG.
|
| no it doesn't.
| the exif data is preserved when editing.

So RAW contains EXIF data? I didn't know that.

of course it does. anything coming out of a camera contains exif data
(unless it's a super-****ty camera).

Personally I always save anything as TIFF or BMP
until such time as I need to transfer a small file for
online use. I don't pay much attention to EXIF data.
So it hadn't occurred to me that RAW may embed
EXIF data.

why would anyone use bmp?

So... you have EXIF data in all of your images, and
RAW contains EXIF data? Do you take most images
in RAW and save them that way until posting them
online or printing?

i shoot raw but others might not.

posting obviously must be jpg but for printing, they're directly
printed from raw.

there's nothing wrong with shooting jpeg, especially if the images are
going to not be processed all that much. for example, ebay photos.

| Isn't the whole idea of saving as JPG outdated?
|
| of course not.

Because JPG is by definition low quality.

no it isn't. high quality jpeg is indistinguishable from the original.

At the
time cameras were coming out PNG was not widely
supported, and PNG doesn't compress as well.

png still doesn't compress well.

JPG
was/is supported on all major OSs. JPG was really
designed to optimize file size with "tolerable" loss of
quality. Great for the Web, but questionable
for photographs.

nonsense. jpeg is *designed* for photographs. what do you think the
second letter represents?

where jpeg doesn't work well are synthetic images, such as computer
generated graphics.

I got thinking about this last week because I
was testing out some image resizing code and had
some test images. They were not top quality, but
they're pretty good:

Panasonic DMC-ZS25
4608x3456 at just under 6 MB each. I expect they'd
look fine printed as postcard size, but when zooming
in, and in some cases at normal size viewing, I can
see rectangles.

then set the quality higher.

I doubt that any camera taking JPGs
saves the images with no loss at all. I'm not sure it's
even possible to save a JPG with zero loss, even at the
"100" quality level. (Though I'm not certain about that.)

it's close enough to 0 to where it is not noticeable (assuming you
choose the highest quality).

Thirsty Moth
 

On 7/21/2015 10:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-07-22 02:29:14 +0000, PeterN said:

Two weeks ago I saw this thirsty moth. As usual all constructive
comments are appreciated.
The image was saved in medium quality.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150704_Lomgwood_0299.jpg

Peter, Peter, Peter....
You used the TC-17 didn't you?

Yep!


Then you made the usual severe crop, over-sharpened, and you have left
noise which is neither grain nor bokeh.

A serious, but not severe crop. Oversharpen, yes, I see that now that
you point it out.


To me it is another fortuitous capture spoilt.

I already see some corrections I have to make.

I am also a little baffled by the oddity in white under the bulb.

That is a rainwater drop, that I messed up.
thanks for your comments.


--
PeterN