If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Thirsty Moth
On 7/22/2015 3:23 PM, MC wrote:
PeterN wrote: 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. You only saw it when it was pointed out? What? Are you serious? Yes. There are times when I am working on an image that I concentrate very hard on what is important to me, (composition, color, and exposure,) that I pay no attention to things like noise and oversharpening. I have an intense power of concentration. So intensense that I heve blocked out all sense of time, even my wife telling me that it's dinner time. -- PeterN |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Thirsty Moth
On 2015-07-22 19:42:35 +0000, PeterN said:
On 7/22/2015 3:23 PM, MC wrote: PeterN wrote: 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. You only saw it when it was pointed out? What? Are you serious? Yes. There are times when I am working on an image that I concentrate very hard on what is important to me, (composition, color, and exposure,) that I pay no attention to things like noise and oversharpening. Noise and sharpening (oversharpening in your case) are just as important as composition, color, and exposure in post, and you should be paying attention to them. I have an intense power of concentration. So intensense that I heve blocked out all sense of time, even my wife telling me that it's dinner time. Not intense enough because you are using your particular (...and for me peculiar) PP methodology which does not produce articularly pleasing results when applied to what are good captures. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Thirsty Moth
On 7/22/2015 4:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-07-22 19:42:35 +0000, PeterN said: On 7/22/2015 3:23 PM, MC wrote: PeterN wrote: 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. You only saw it when it was pointed out? What? Are you serious? Yes. There are times when I am working on an image that I concentrate very hard on what is important to me, (composition, color, and exposure,) that I pay no attention to things like noise and oversharpening. Noise and sharpening (oversharpening in your case) are just as important as composition, color, and exposure in post, and you should be paying attention to them. I freely admit to being oblivious to noise. It is simply not that important to me. As to oversharpening, you are right. I should pay more attention to that. I have an intense power of concentration. So intensense that I heve blocked out all sense of time, even my wife telling me that it's dinner time. Not intense enough because you are using your particular (...and for me peculiar) PP methodology which does not produce articularly pleasing results when applied to what are good captures. I am not perfect -- PeterN |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Thirsty Moth
On 23/07/2015 5:42 AM, PeterN wrote:
oversharpening. I have an intense power of concentration. So intensense that I heve blocked out all sense of time, even my wife telling me that it's dinner time. Nownownow, that is simply NOT acceptable! No soup for you, young man! Tuttuttut! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Super Zoom's Moth | Dudley Hanks[_4_] | Digital Photography | 1 | November 18th 10 01:40 AM |
Just a pretty moth | Nervous Nick | Digital Photography | 2 | April 5th 07 08:14 AM |
What type of moth? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 8 | May 30th 06 05:51 PM |