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
|
|||
|
|||
Munged SD10 peacock
OK, peacock wars!
Since posting an unadjusted, unsharpened, effectively raw image elicits misunderstanding, here's a messed up variant - http://www.freelancephotographer.co....xelsharped.jpg Waht I've done here is just a quick adjustment to the 8bit file, but it balances the English impoverished grass colour to Alan's Bronx Zoo colour (both are probably wrong - I warmed up a dull day shot, he shot in open shade on a sunny day) and changes the profile to sRGB for those who simply don't have colour-management enabled browsers, and upscales the file to 18 megabytes expanded (to match 6 megapixel cameras) and adds some sharpening to the normal parameters - actually, I've allowed levels to be 0, which tends to boost noise a lot, but I felt that even at ISO 400 and enlarged to a 1.5X size file, the Sigma noise was not excessive. Well, it ain't much, but at least it's a composition. If I shoot a pic, I frame it. I don't press the shutter unless its tight as a gnat's posterior for composition. I never have. Mythology: in the first year I set out in photography, at the age of 19, I had over 260 pictures printed in the UK photo press. Every single one was black and white, because the year was 1971. Tight composition - nothing wasted, but everything balanced - is 90 per cent of the battle. I doubt I could do it now. I am not so lucky or so hopeful and 50x is very different from 19! Serious advice: I remember not long after that period seeing Jesus Christ Superstar. Fair old rubbish in its own time... but one line stuck in my mind - 'Take him away, he has nothing to say'. As an editor, I get countless articles sent to me, and even more pictures, which have nothing to say. They add nothing to what has gone before. Any image must have something to say, even if it's just a witty one-liner or a casual comment. If the photographer has not composed the picture to make its point, it fails. Just remember this; even in a family snap. Give the image an angle, give it a statement, an attitude. Make it speak, make it connect. nuffsaid. DK |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Munged SD10 peacock
Much better. Should I sharpen and upsize my picture as retaliation?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Munged SD10 peacock
Brian C. Baird wrote: Much better. Should I sharpen and upsize my picture as retaliation? How did you manage to see it? I forgot to check to filesize and as a top quality JPEG it was nearly 10 megabytes, and timed out on uploading. It did place a file on the server but 2mb short of the total and I would have expected it not to have functioned properly. I made a version at quality 8 - so no longer as accurate, but not a bad representation - and this is 1.8 mb - that's on the server now. You could always crop down to the central part - 3.4 megapixels worth - and lose the twigs and stuff and try upsizing that back to the original. That would be a direct comparison of the sensor images. My hope is that Foveon will produce a larger size - 1.4 or even 1.3X factor - 5.6 megapixel sensor, without making the pitch smaller, and will be able to address some of the impurity issues which cause blotchiness at extreme calculated colour points (where most of the colour information is obtained by subtracting other channels). If they do, there's a way forward; if not, improvements to full frame Bayer or other filter array sensors are likely get there first. David |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Munged SD10 peacock
Brian C. Baird wrote: Much better. Should I sharpen and upsize my picture as retaliation? And I meant Brian not Alan in the post. Late night... David |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Munged SD10 peacock
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Munged SD10 peacock
Brian C. Baird wrote: In article , says... If they do, there's a way forward; if not, improvements to full frame Bayer or other filter array sensors are likely get there first. What I don't get is this: Foveon has the technology to put 10.3 million sensors in a small chip and have the street price of the final camera be about $1500. Admittedly, their method is more intensive and complicated than a single-layer sensor. Why don't they just build a 10.3 megapixel Bayer sensor? After all, the 11 megapixel Canon 1Ds is still at the top in terms of resolution and low noise and certainly trumps the Foveon sensors currently found in Sigma dSLRs. I think the price difference, and holding a patent, may explain why. I don't know if any royalty or fee is payable for Bayer pattern image algorithm usage, but Foveon must be (for their own use) free of any payments for licenses to outside patent holders. I have never really understood why much larger pitch, big sensors can't be made covering say the whole of 6 x 4.5cm rollfilm with loads of space between each pixel and maybe just 12 megapixels in total. A Foveon 12x12x12 stacked like that would be very interesting. The other interesting possibility given by coincident points on the sensor for virtual RGB would be to create a random (stochastic) sensor which gets 'mapped' using some kind of target system, and thus avoids all the problems of grid-based pixel arrays. David |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Munged SD10 peacock
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Munged SD10 peacock
David Kilpatrick writes:
Brian C. Baird wrote: Much better. Should I sharpen and upsize my picture as retaliation? How did you manage to see it? I forgot to check to filesize and as a top quality JPEG it was nearly 10 megabytes, and timed out on uploading. Ah, that probably explains why the bottom was cropped off relative to the full version when I looked at it yesterday. Actually, it was a fairly effective crop -- everything was the tail, with the body sticking up into the middle of it, but no ground below it. I guess it wasn't a progressive jpeg, eh? -- David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/ Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/ Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Munged SD10 peacock
David Dyer-Bennet wrote: David Kilpatrick writes: Brian C. Baird wrote: Much better. Should I sharpen and upsize my picture as retaliation? How did you manage to see it? I forgot to check to filesize and as a top quality JPEG it was nearly 10 megabytes, and timed out on uploading. Ah, that probably explains why the bottom was cropped off relative to the full version when I looked at it yesterday. Actually, it was a fairly effective crop -- everything was the tail, with the body sticking up into the middle of it, but no ground below it. I guess it wasn't a progressive jpeg, eh? Funny that - because for a long time PageMaker and InDesign would not place progressive JPEGs, I avoid them - I used to end up with the Photoshop default on progressive from doing web work, and then end up saving JPEGs I could not place! David |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|