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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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

| 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.

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.