Re: Wedding Photographers Love The BatWing!!
Alan Browne
> Larry's been cracking the whip on the R&D team at Thong Imaging for the
> last
> several months with great success. The prototype BatWing has been field
> tested for several weeks and has been a hit with local wedding
> photographers.
>
>
> <http://ritaberk.cedhost.com/BatWing.htm>
I used to make these out of stiff paper board 10 years ago...
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> Larry's been cracking the whip on the R&D team at Thong Imaging for
>>> the last
>>> several months with great success. The prototype BatWing has been
>>> field tested for several weeks and has been a hit with local wedding
>>> photographers.
>>>
>>>
>>> <http://ritaberk.cedhost.com/BatWing.htm>
>>
>>
>> I used to make these out of stiff paper board 10 years ago...
>
> something earlier as I would have saved a nice piece of black anodized
> T6061
> aircraft grade aluminum.
I was referring to the reflector not the simplistic bracket on the side
that looks very cheesy.
I bet you believe there's an improvement in the image if a bracket is
made of an unnecessarily spec'd alu where ordinary aluminum will do?
(By the way "aircraft grade" is meaningless. There are a dozen or more
aluminums used in aircraft from structures to skin and what makes them
"aircraft" grade is not the material but the paperwork declaring the alu
meets its specification for traceability/certification reasons. So
don't be impressed by what is entirely ordinary. Or is that you Rita
and you *are* impressed by the merely ordinary?).
George Kerby
On 11/22/08 1:30 PM, in article
5uudnXUy-ayIw7XU...@supernews.com, "Larry Thong"
<larry...@shitstring.com> wrote:
> Larry's been cracking the whip on the R&D team at Thong Imaging for the last
> several months with great success. The prototype BatWing has been field
> tested for several weeks and has been a hit with local wedding
> photographers.
>
>
> <http://ritaberk.cedhost.com/BatWing.htm>
>
You REALLY need to stop using recycled TP for your background paper,
sweetie...
RichA
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:792dnQ63w7_n_LXU...@giganews.com...
> Larry Thong wrote:
>> Larry's been cracking the whip on the R&D team at Thong Imaging for the
>> last
>> several months with great success. The prototype BatWing has been field
>> tested for several weeks and has been a hit with local wedding
>> photographers.
>>
>>
>> <http://ritaberk.cedhost.com/BatWing.htm>
>
>
> I used to make these out of stiff paper board 10 years ago...
But that detracts from (for Fong stuff) going into a camera store and
dropping $100 for $5 worth of "Tupperware."
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne wrote:
> You need to loosen up, Son.
You need to stop gilding shit with gold.
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>> You need to loosen up, Son.
>>
>> You need to stop gilding shit with gold.
>
> least I wasn't dumb enough to buy a Sony with shitty glass.
Let's see ... a900 with 24 Mpix FF behind a CZ 135 f/1.8,
or Minolta 80-200 f/2.8G,
or Minolta 100 f/2.8 macro, other fast CZ's...
No Nikon comes remotely close at present, but I'm sure they'll catch up
one day.
Rumour is that Nikon will have the same sensor soon, but they want to
sell off more D700's before permitting their customers to get to this
level, so all is not lost.
Ja...@nova.com
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>Larry Thong wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>>> You need to loosen up, Son.
>>>
>>> You need to stop gilding shit with gold.
>>
>> Why? It works so good and produces superior images, just ask Mark. At
>> least I wasn't dumb enough to buy a Sony with shitty glass.
>
>Let's see ... a900 with 24 Mpix FF behind a CZ 135 f/1.8,
>
>or Minolta 80-200 f/2.8G,
>
>or Minolta 100 f/2.8 macro, other fast CZ's...
>
>No Nikon comes remotely close at present, but I'm sure they'll catch up
>one day.
Catch up to what? The number of pixels? That's not really that important, dude.
What's important is that Nikon has Sony (and Minolta) beat every which way that
actually counts, such as image quality and low noise, and overall camera
quality. The D90 has better ISO performance than the big Sony, and probably
makes better images, at 1/3 the price!
>Rumour is that Nikon will have the same sensor soon, but they want to
>sell off more D700's before permitting their customers to get to this
>level, so all is not lost.
Nikon uses some Sony sensors, and the funny thing? Their images are far
superior!
Your problem is that you got stuck with expensive Minolta glass, for what reason
I'll never know, since Minolta makes cheap cameras, but now you're stuck with
Sony products. I was also stuck with Minolta at one time, but I switched to
Nikon after I decided to spend more for quality. The Minolta stuff can always be
sold off.
Time to butch up, son, and get out of the Egyptian river you're in.
Chris Malcolm
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:00:00 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>Larry Thong wrote:
>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You need to loosen up, Son.
>>>>
>>>> You need to stop gilding shit with gold.
>>>
>>> Why? It works so good and produces superior images, just ask Mark. At
>>> least I wasn't dumb enough to buy a Sony with shitty glass.
>>
>>Let's see ... a900 with 24 Mpix FF behind a CZ 135 f/1.8,
>>
>>or Minolta 80-200 f/2.8G,
>>
>>or Minolta 100 f/2.8 macro, other fast CZ's...
>>
>>No Nikon comes remotely close at present, but I'm sure they'll catch up
>>one day.
> Catch up to what? The number of pixels? That's not really that important, dude.
> What's important is that Nikon has Sony (and Minolta) beat every which way that
> actually counts, such as image quality and low noise, and overall camera
> quality. The D90 has better ISO performance than the big Sony, and probably
> makes better images, at 1/3 the price!
Since the number of pixels isn't really that important, I'm sure
you're speaking of comparing the Sony images with the Nikon ones when
the Sony images have been noise reduced and scaled down to the size of
the Nikon images. That's one of the useful but less remarked things
you can do with a large number of pixels -- trade them down in size to
get better noise performance in situations where noise matters.
So where did you find this interesting comparison which found that at
comparable image sizes the D90 high ISO noise was better?
--
Chris Malcolm
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> Why? It works so good and produces superior images, just ask Mark.
>>> At least I wasn't dumb enough to buy a Sony with shitty glass.
>>
>> Let's see ... a900 with 24 Mpix FF behind a CZ 135 f/1.8,
>
> in a bag full of poorly designed dead-ended glass makes one a fool for
> getting emotionally attached to it. Many would rather have Nikon's 12
> perfect MPs in the D3, D700 and a bag full of the utterly perfect Nikkors.
> But I can understand your pain, Alan, as it is comforting for you to tell
> yourself you have quantity over quality. You should have bought a 20 MP
> P&S
> as it would be lighter on the back and have better image quality than that
> crap you're using.
Well that rubbish certainly proves what we all know. You spout
horsecrap as fact and attack all that is not Nikon.
Talk about emotional attachment ...
Paul Furman
Better than you'd expect from DX, surprising DR:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/205|0/(appareil2)/265|0/(appareil3)/202|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Sony/(brand3)/Nikon
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>Well that rubbish certainly proves what we all know. You spout
>horsecrap as fact and attack all that is not Nikon.
>
I've been following "Larry Thong" around with *my* Nikon to see if
it's indeed the same person as Rita. Someone else was following:
http://img91.imageshack.us/my.php?image=horsebarnwn1.jpg
I did get a better picture that day, though:
http://tonycooper.fileave.com/tractor.jpg
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
George Kerby
On 11/27/08 1:48 PM, in article p2uti4125djpvo2u2...@4ax.com,
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Nothing runs like a Deere, including that horse product "Rita".
Alan Browne
> I did get a better picture that day, though:
> http://tonycooper.fileave.com/tractor.jpg
Could you post that at full "10" quality. The fine texture seems a bit
screwy. Did you unsharp mask it in PS after re-sizing?
Could you e-mail me the raw file (via YouSendIt.com to the address above
minus the freelunch) or absent the raw, the original JPG from the camera?
It's a nice shot. I would have shot another few as the tractor moved
across the scene (and perhaps you did).
Alan Browne
> Admit it, the A900 is a noise box that is so noisy you can grate Romano
> cheese on the images it produces.
It's this kind of BS that has earned Rita/Larry
a credibility score of -3 on a 1 to 10 scale.
John McWilliams
> tony cooper wrote:
>
>> I did get a better picture that day, though:
>> http://tonycooper.fileave.com/tractor.jpg
>
> horizon level as that nice looking Deere is going down hill.
Tony, nice shot! You did well.
"Rita"- the horizon is just fine. With undulating hills, not only might
that be the absolute plumb level, it's often unimportant. Not so,
however, with water.
--
John McWilliams
Mark Thomas
that looks more like a composite.. (that's meant as a compliment!)
For the horizon-peepers, a small tip (although I would have thought even
a beginner would know this..) - the lay of the land is not always
horizontal (fancy that!). Before embarrassing oneself, one should check
other clues where available, like reflections in water, trunks of
(*tall*) trees, and .. cloud layers (bingo!).
So, yes, it looks nicely *level* to a discerning eye. (O:
Chris Malcolm
> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>> Why? It works so good and produces superior images, just ask Mark.
>>>>> At least I wasn't dumb enough to buy a Sony with shitty glass.
>>>>
>>>> Let's see ... a900 with 24 Mpix FF behind a CZ 135 f/1.8,
>>>
>>> Let's see... 24 MPs worth of a poorly designed sensor behind an
>>> investment in a bag full of poorly designed dead-ended glass makes
>>> one a fool for getting emotionally attached to it. Many would
>>> rather have Nikon's 12 perfect MPs in the D3, D700 and a bag full of
>>> the utterly perfect Nikkors. But I can understand your pain, Alan,
>>> as it is comforting for you to tell yourself you have quantity over
>>> quality. You should have bought a 20 MP P&S
>>> as it would be lighter on the back and have better image quality
>>> than that crap you're using.
>>
>> Well that rubbish certainly proves what we all know. You spout
>> horsecrap as fact and attack all that is not Nikon.
> You haven't been paying attention to the world around you. Sorry that I
> have to be the bearer of bad news, but it is a Nikon and Canon world, always
> has been and always will be.
You must be very young.
> I've been shooting both brands for years.
Years eh? As I thought, very young :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
Ja...@nova.com
Yup, Nikon's mid model beats Sony's best!
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>
>> I did get a better picture that day, though:
>> http://tonycooper.fileave.com/tractor.jpg
>
>Could you post that at full "10" quality. The fine texture seems a bit
>screwy. Did you unsharp mask it in PS after re-sizing?
I forget. Really. I didn't resize, but I did crop it. I think I
unsharped it before I cropped.
>
>Could you e-mail me the raw file (via YouSendIt.com to the address above
>minus the freelunch) or absent the raw, the original JPG from the camera?
I don't shoot RAW. I have only Photoshop v 7.0, and tried LightRoom's
trial, but the 'puter kept locking up. I'm debating buying a new
computer, so I haven't made a decision on which way to go. I shoot
Nikon, have to figure out the best way to handle .NEF files
>It's a nice shot. I would have shot another few as the tractor moved
>across the scene (and perhaps you did).
I just shot two, and in the other image the tractor is closer to the
tree and I preferred the spaced out version.
The grass in the original is very yellow, so I played around in
Channels with this one. I'm just learning to use Channels.
This shot was taken at a training stable for trotters and pacers. The
tractor is dragging a device over the track (which is not visible)
that smooths the practice track after the horses and sulkies mess it
up.
tony cooper
<larry...@shitstring.com> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>
>> I did get a better picture that day, though:
>> http://tonycooper.fileave.com/tractor.jpg
>
>LOL! You did good, but you need to start using your grid lines to get that
>horizon level as that nice looking Deere is going down hill.
I did two versions before the crop. In one I straightened the horizon
and in this one I didn't. (Photoshop has a tool to straighten) I
liked this one better. I kinda like the imbalance. I wanted all of
that magnolia tree.
tony cooper
I really don't know if the horizon should be level or not. I was
shooting towards a built-up rise around a practice track at a horse
training track. It's not a natural horizon.
It may be just my eye, but the weight of the tree on one side and more
sky on the other seems to give the shot better balance. Could be my
imagination.
Ja...@nova.com
wrote:
>
>Nope, I just know what the best on the market is and shoot with it. If I
>want the very best in HD TVs, Mini-Disc players, proprietary memory sticks,
>and root-kits I would buy Sony. Sony is not a camera or optical company.
They're not much of a TV company anymore either... they don't make plasma, and
they bought their current TV technology from Samsung... Their 'wonderful' XBR
glass tubes are in the shitter.
And they bought their camera company from Minolta... and they don't even make
the lenses!
I'd sell my Sony stock if I had any...
Mark Thomas
element.. (O:
To me the shot does indeed look well-balanced, and the clouds give a
strong clue that it is very close to level as posted.
CarltonBrown
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
There is an amazingly simple way to strike a perfect level in most any photo. (I
authored quite a few tutorials on this.) But ... it's much more fun watching
virtual-photographer snapshooter trolls on usenet make fools of themselves
constantly with every waste-of-space photo they share.
tony cooper
<larry...@shitstring.com> wrote:
>John McWilliams wrote:
>
>>>> I did get a better picture that day, though:
>>>> http://tonycooper.fileave.com/tractor.jpg
>>>
>>> LOL! You did good, but you need to start using your grid lines to
>>> get that horizon level as that nice looking Deere is going down hill.
>>
>> Tony, nice shot! You did well.
>>
>> "Rita"- the horizon is just fine. With undulating hills, not only
>> might that be the absolute plumb level, it's often unimportant. Not
>> so, however, with water.
>
>While I agree that it is unimportant for the most part. Tony was shooting
>for depicting an accurate scene and missed the mark by not getting the true
>perspective of the landscape, even at 28mm on an APS-C sensor. The dead
>giveaway is the Deere is still running. Most diesel Deere's have a tendency
>to stall on hills with less decline than is inaccurately depicted in this
>shot. Had this been a Kubota this wouldn't be an issue and wouldn't have
>been brought up. Kubota's are made for hilly and rougher terrain. Anyway,
>you did well, Tony! And that is good.
You are guessing about what's in a closed sack. The tractor was on a
level surface: a practice track for harness horses (trotters and
pacers). There's a built-up berm around the track that conceals the
track from view. The berm varies in height. At one point, it's about
six feet higher than the track to allow for some benches where
trainers sit to watch the horses on the track, and at other points
it's no more than foot or two higher than the track.
I can't honestly tell you if the berm is level or not where I shot the
picture. I was down by the barns, noticed the tractor going by, and
snapped off two shots keeping that magnolia tree in the left-hand
frame. Without the tree, it's not a shot. It was only after taking
the shots that I walked up there.
I was there in the early afternoon. I'll go back another time to take
some shots of the horses in training. They're on the track between
7AM and about 11AM. I grew up in Indiana where sulky racing is big,
and I like watching them.
This shot: http://img341.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sulkieszj8.jpg
is straight out of the camera with no adjustments. There's nothing
interesting at all about the shot, but I'm posting it to show how that
berm is raised. Through the leaves of the tree on the right you can
see the board fence around the bench area. The tractor shot was taken
far to the right of this.
tony cooper
<larry...@shitstring.com> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>
>>> While I agree that it is unimportant for the most part. Tony was
>>> shooting for depicting an accurate scene and missed the mark by not
>>> getting the true perspective of the landscape, even at 28mm on an
>>> APS-C sensor. The dead giveaway is the Deere is still running.
>>> Most diesel Deere's have a tendency to stall on hills with less
>>> decline than is inaccurately depicted in this shot. Had this been a
>>> Kubota this wouldn't be an issue and wouldn't have been brought up.
>>> Kubota's are made for hilly and rougher terrain. Anyway, you did
>>> well, Tony! And that is good.
>>
>> You are guessing about what's in a closed sack. The tractor was on a
>> level surface: a practice track for harness horses (trotters and
>> pacers). There's a built-up berm around the track that conceals the
>> track from view. The berm varies in height. At one point, it's about
>> six feet higher than the track to allow for some benches where
>> trainers sit to watch the horses on the track, and at other points
>> it's no more than foot or two higher than the track.
>
>Go back there tomorrow and stand in the exact spot and you'll see that the
>berm is much more level than what is depicted in this shot. Not that it
>matters as I still think it a cool shot. I really like the Deere, but a
>Kubota works much better for this shot as it is orange.
>
>> This shot: http://img341.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sulkieszj8.jpg
>> is straight out of the camera with no adjustments. There's nothing
>> interesting at all about the shot, but I'm posting it to show how that
>> berm is raised. Through the leaves of the tree on the right you can
>> see the board fence around the bench area. The tractor shot was taken
>> far to the right of this.
>
>Looks pretty level to me.
>
I didn't do a good job in explaining what I was trying to convey. The
shot shows the berm as level horizontally, but shows the vertical rise
from the barn area to the top of the berm. As you move from left to
right down the track, the vertical rise is less, which makes the berm
slant to the right.
I'm not defending my shot, though. I really don't know if the berm
was horizontally level there or not. I printed the shot the way it is
because I like it. I could have straightened it in PS, but didn't.
Paul Furman
It looks fine, the tree would probably look crooked if you straightened
the horizon.
Chris Malcolm
That shows a slight advantage to the Nikon, but I can't find anything
in the descrpiptions of test methodology on that and other web pages
there to suggest that they're comparing image noise rather than the
more usual (and much more easily done) pixel noise. If that is what
they're doing, then that test strongly suggests that at the image
level the Sony would be superior.
--
Chris Malcolm
Ray Fischer
>horizon level as that nice looking Deere is going down hill.
Because we know that all hills are always level?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
George Kerby
On 11/27/08 7:43 PM, in article fviui455bolkpcao0...@4ax.com,
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Not to mention that the tree would be 'leaning' if you did...
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>
>> I did get a better picture that day, though:
>> http://tonycooper.fileave.com/tractor.jpg
>
>Could you post that at full "10" quality. The fine texture seems a bit
>screwy. Did you unsharp mask it in PS after re-sizing?
>
Something suddenly struck me about the sharpening comment. I have
been trying various photo hosts. Since I'm using free hosts, there
are often limits on the number and frequency of uploads and on storage
space so I'm currently using several. I find that FileAve is easy to
use, allows nice, large images, and doesn't show ads on the linked
image page.
Earlier today I was putting together a series on JAlbum (photographs
of my grandchildren to be viewed by relatives) and noticed that JAlbum
sharpens photos unless you tick a box that tells them not to. I
noticed this because one of the photos came out very obviously
over-sharpened on the JAlbum site, but not after I ticked the box and
started over.
It's possible that FileAve incorporates this unwanted sharpening step.
Their site doesn't say or provide an opt-out choice.
Paul Furman
They apparently reduce the larger MP cameras to even that out... I'm not
exactly sure: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Insights
Alan Browne
> tony cooper wrote:
>
>> I did get a better picture that day, though:
>> http://tonycooper.fileave.com/tractor.jpg
>
> Could you post that at full "10" quality. The fine texture seems a bit
> screwy. Did you unsharp mask it in PS after re-sizing?
Got the phot.
Ah, now I get it.
If you increase color saturation to fix an area of the photo, then you
should select the area that you're boosting (using the 'magic wand' is a
good help in this). You pushed the green a bit hard all over which
covered other detail that should not have been so green. (Also killed
the skin tones of the tractor driver and tainted the orange of the
implement the tractor is towing and 'limed' the yellow of the wheels).
So select the brown grass, green grass, sky, tractor, etc.
When re-sampling down, make sure you pick an algorithm that does so
without adding artifacts to the image. In PS, this is generally
bi-cubic-sharper. I'm not sure if this was an issue in this image.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>Alan Browne wrote:
>> tony cooper wrote:
>>
>>> I did get a better picture that day, though:
>>> http://tonycooper.fileave.com/tractor.jpg
>>
>> Could you post that at full "10" quality. The fine texture seems a bit
>> screwy. Did you unsharp mask it in PS after re-sizing?
>
>Got the phot.
>
>Ah, now I get it.
>
>If you increase color saturation to fix an area of the photo, then you
>should select the area that you're boosting (using the 'magic wand' is a
>good help in this). You pushed the green a bit hard all over which
>covered other detail that should not have been so green. (Also killed
>the skin tones of the tractor driver and tainted the orange of the
>implement the tractor is towing and 'limed' the yellow of the wheels).
>
>So select the brown grass, green grass, sky, tractor, etc.
My eye is not good enough to notice a problem with this.
>When re-sampling down, make sure you pick an algorithm that does so
>without adding artifacts to the image. In PS, this is generally
>bi-cubic-sharper. I'm not sure if this was an issue in this image.
I don't understand the above. Not that you have phrased it badly, but
that I don't understand the concept of what you are talking about. I
don't know when I'm "re-sampling down".
You mean if I re-size? If so, Resample Image/Bicubic is checked.
Usually I crop to size, but I will re-size sometimes if I have to
change from one resolution (eg: 300) to another (eg: 72). I don't do
that often. However, my photo host might do it automatically. I've
been using several different photo hosts lately. I did try one photo
host, and discarded them, who added sharpening.
Alan Browne
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:08:40 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>
>>>> I did get a better picture that day, though:
>>>> http://tonycooper.fileave.com/tractor.jpg
>>> Could you post that at full "10" quality. The fine texture seems a bit
>>> screwy. Did you unsharp mask it in PS after re-sizing?
>> Got the phot.
>>
>> Ah, now I get it.
>>
>> If you increase color saturation to fix an area of the photo, then you
>> should select the area that you're boosting (using the 'magic wand' is a
>> good help in this). You pushed the green a bit hard all over which
>> covered other detail that should not have been so green. (Also killed
>> the skin tones of the tractor driver and tainted the orange of the
>> implement the tractor is towing and 'limed' the yellow of the wheels).
>>
>> So select the brown grass, green grass, sky, tractor, etc.
>
> My eye is not good enough to notice a problem with this.
Put them on your screen side by side and these differences are pretty
clear. I'd be surprised that anyone with normal vision would not see
the colour differences. (And by normal I mean qualified to drive a car
and has not been proven colour blind).
>> When re-sampling down, make sure you pick an algorithm that does so
>> without adding artifacts to the image. In PS, this is generally
>> bi-cubic-sharper. I'm not sure if this was an issue in this image.
>
> I don't understand the above. Not that you have phrased it badly, but
> that I don't understand the concept of what you are talking about. I
> don't know when I'm "re-sampling down".
> You mean if I re-size? If so, Resample Image/Bicubic is checked.
Yep. The best (in photoshop) for re-sizing smaller is bicubic-sharper
not Bicubic. (But I'm not claiming this was an issue here, I think what
affected detail most was the (ab)use of green sat.
> Usually I crop to size, but I will re-size sometimes if I have to
> change from one resolution (eg: 300) to another (eg: 72). I don't do
> that often. However, my photo host might do it automatically. I've
> been using several different photo hosts lately. I did try one photo
> host, and discarded them, who added sharpening.
The resolution does not matter unless you are sizing to a dimensional
scale (eg: printing an 8 x 10 @ 300 dpi).
Yes, some photo sites do apply sharpening as well as re-saving JPG's to
reduce file space ... and some do quite a wreck of it.
That's why most of my own phots are posted on my own host w/o change; or
on photo.net (which no longer processes images at all as far as I can
tell (when viewed full size). Pbase also seems okay in this respect as
their charge basis is so much storage space... so up to the user to be
judicious in its use.
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:08:40 -0500, Alan Browne
>> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I did get a better picture that day, though:
>>>>> http://tonycooper.fileave.com/tractor.jpg
>>>> Could you post that at full "10" quality. The fine texture seems a bit
>>>> screwy. Did you unsharp mask it in PS after re-sizing?
>>> Got the phot.
>>>
>>> Ah, now I get it.
>>>
>>> If you increase color saturation to fix an area of the photo, then you
>>> should select the area that you're boosting (using the 'magic wand' is a
>>> good help in this). You pushed the green a bit hard all over which
>>> covered other detail that should not have been so green. (Also killed
>>> the skin tones of the tractor driver and tainted the orange of the
>>> implement the tractor is towing and 'limed' the yellow of the wheels).
>>>
>>> So select the brown grass, green grass, sky, tractor, etc.
>>
>> My eye is not good enough to notice a problem with this.
>
>Put them on your screen side by side and these differences are pretty
>clear. I'd be surprised that anyone with normal vision would not see
>the colour differences. (And by normal I mean qualified to drive a car
>and has not been proven colour blind).
No, what I meant was that I can't see the problems that you see on the
final. I don't see the skin tones being a problem, I don't see that
the color of the implement is a problem, and I don't see the problem
with the yellow of the wheels. I'm not saying that there aren't some
things there that you see as problems, but I am saying that I don't
think these things detract.
It just doesn't make sense to me. The color of the implement in the
final is what people see. The fact that this color is slightly
different from the out-of-camera is - in my opinion - of no
consequence. It's not like I've changed a bluebird's feathers to
pink.
I *really* dislike people who get defensive about their images, and I
don't want to be in that group. If I see the same problem when it's
pointed out, I'll accept the critique with grace. I've got to see the
problem, though.
>
>>> When re-sampling down, make sure you pick an algorithm that does so
>>> without adding artifacts to the image. In PS, this is generally
>>> bi-cubic-sharper. I'm not sure if this was an issue in this image.
>>
>> I don't understand the above. Not that you have phrased it badly, but
>> that I don't understand the concept of what you are talking about. I
>> don't know when I'm "re-sampling down".
>
>> You mean if I re-size? If so, Resample Image/Bicubic is checked.
>
>Yep. The best (in photoshop) for re-sizing smaller is bicubic-sharper
>not Bicubic.
I don't know what that is. In Photoshop 7.0 (which I use), the
drop-down is bicubic, bilinear, or nearest neighbor.
>(But I'm not claiming this was an issue here, I think what
>affected detail most was the (ab)use of green sat.
>> Usually I crop to size, but I will re-size sometimes if I have to
>> change from one resolution (eg: 300) to another (eg: 72). I don't do
>> that often. However, my photo host might do it automatically. I've
>> been using several different photo hosts lately. I did try one photo
>> host, and discarded them, who added sharpening.
>
>The resolution does not matter unless you are sizing to a dimensional
>scale (eg: printing an 8 x 10 @ 300 dpi).
Yeah, that's what I mean. That's the only time I do re-size.
>Yes, some photo sites do apply sharpening as well as re-saving JPG's to
>reduce file space ... and some do quite a wreck of it.
>
>That's why most of my own phots are posted on my own host w/o change; or
>on photo.net (which no longer processes images at all as far as I can
>tell (when viewed full size). Pbase also seems okay in this respect as
>their charge basis is so much storage space... so up to the user to be
>judicious in its use.
I'll take a look at photo.net. I tried Pbase but I wasn't impressed.
I don't mind paying an annual fee, but I've been trying various hosts
to see how they work out for me. This image, when you saw it here
first, was uploaded to FileAve.com. I don't know if they sharpen or
re-size. I noted one image I uploaded to them says, in Properties
2000 x 3008 scaled to 581 x 874.
Alan Browne
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:47:52 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> I *really* dislike people who get defensive about their images, and I
> don't want to be in that group. If I see the same problem when it's
> pointed out, I'll accept the critique with grace. I've got to see the
> problem, though.
The equipment could get a pass, but the skin tones definitely not.
>>>> When re-sampling down, make sure you pick an algorithm that does so
>>>> without adding artifacts to the image. In PS, this is generally
>>>> bi-cubic-sharper. I'm not sure if this was an issue in this image.
>>> I don't understand the above. Not that you have phrased it badly, but
>>> that I don't understand the concept of what you are talking about. I
>>> don't know when I'm "re-sampling down".
>>> You mean if I re-size? If so, Resample Image/Bicubic is checked.
>> Yep. The best (in photoshop) for re-sizing smaller is bicubic-sharper
>> not Bicubic.
>
> I don't know what that is. In Photoshop 7.0 (which I use), the
> drop-down is bicubic, bilinear, or nearest neighbor.
Even PSE E 6 has bicub-sharp if I recall correctly.
>> That's why most of my own phots are posted on my own host w/o change; or
>> on photo.net (which no longer processes images at all as far as I can
>> tell (when viewed full size). Pbase also seems okay in this respect as
>> their charge basis is so much storage space... so up to the user to be
>> judicious in its use.
>
> I'll take a look at photo.net. I tried Pbase but I wasn't impressed.
> I don't mind paying an annual fee, but I've been trying various hosts
> to see how they work out for me. This image, when you saw it here
> first, was uploaded to FileAve.com. I don't know if they sharpen or
> re-size. I noted one image I uploaded to them says, in Properties
> 2000 x 3008 scaled to 581 x 874.
Then unless you can click on something to see it full size, it's a waste
of effort to upload fullsize. Check out their posting spec/policy.
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:47:52 -0500, Alan Browne
>> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>> I *really* dislike people who get defensive about their images, and I
>> don't want to be in that group. If I see the same problem when it's
>> pointed out, I'll accept the critique with grace. I've got to see the
>> problem, though.
>
>The equipment could get a pass, but the skin tones definitely not.
Alan, if you can see the skin tones from the image I posted a link to,
then you can perch in a tall tree and fight off the owls for mice.
http://tonycooper.fileave.com/tractor.jpg
>
>>>>> When re-sampling down, make sure you pick an algorithm that does so
>>>>> without adding artifacts to the image. In PS, this is generally
>>>>> bi-cubic-sharper. I'm not sure if this was an issue in this image.
>>>> I don't understand the above. Not that you have phrased it badly, but
>>>> that I don't understand the concept of what you are talking about. I
>>>> don't know when I'm "re-sampling down".
>>>> You mean if I re-size? If so, Resample Image/Bicubic is checked.
>>> Yep. The best (in photoshop) for re-sizing smaller is bicubic-sharper
>>> not Bicubic.
>>
>> I don't know what that is. In Photoshop 7.0 (which I use), the
>> drop-down is bicubic, bilinear, or nearest neighbor.
>
>Even PSE E 6 has bicub-sharp if I recall correctly.
Then, be so kind as to point it out. Here's a screenshot of the
resize function as it is in PS 7.0.
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/capture.jpg
Just the three choices I listed above.
>>> That's why most of my own phots are posted on my own host w/o change; or
>>> on photo.net (which no longer processes images at all as far as I can
>>> tell (when viewed full size). Pbase also seems okay in this respect as
>>> their charge basis is so much storage space... so up to the user to be
>>> judicious in its use.
>>
>> I'll take a look at photo.net. I tried Pbase but I wasn't impressed.
>> I don't mind paying an annual fee, but I've been trying various hosts
>> to see how they work out for me. This image, when you saw it here
>> first, was uploaded to FileAve.com. I don't know if they sharpen or
>> re-size. I noted one image I uploaded to them says, in Properties
>> 2000 x 3008 scaled to 581 x 874.
>
>Then unless you can click on something to see it full size, it's a waste
>of effort to upload fullsize. Check out their posting spec/policy.
There's no wasted effort. You just upload the original image. It
would be an extra effort to re-size. Normally, I crop to the size I
want to use before uploading, but with no cropping an out-of-camera
.jpg is 2000 x 3008 and that will upload to FileAve, PhotoBucket, or
Picasa.
Alan Browne
> On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:25:56 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> The equipment could get a pass, but the skin tones definitely not.
>
> Alan, if you can see the skin tones from the image I posted a link to,
> then you can perch in a tall tree and fight off the owls for mice.
>
> http://tonycooper.fileave.com/tractor.jpg
I sure as hell can. I didn't pick up on it at first, but esp. after
seeing the original you sent me, the color difference is very clear.
Mice hunting is about acuity and motion, not colour. I was a great
mouser in my day. (Meow, hissss).
>> Even PSE E 6 has bicub-sharp if I recall correctly.
>
> Then, be so kind as to point it out. Here's a screenshot of the
> resize function as it is in PS 7.0.
> http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/capture.jpg
>
> Just the three choices I listed above.
PS Elements 6 is somewhat newer (2008) than Photoshop 7.0.
>> Then unless you can click on something to see it full size, it's a waste
>> of effort to upload fullsize. Check out their posting spec/policy.
>
> There's no wasted effort. You just upload the original image. It
> would be an extra effort to re-size. Normally, I crop to the size I
> want to use before uploading, but with no cropping an out-of-camera
> .jpg is 2000 x 3008 and that will upload to FileAve, PhotoBucket, or
> Picasa.
I meant in the sense of expected presentation. I systematically edit
images for their presentation to avoid surprises. I've never used an
out of camera image for anything (small lie, I tested the pic bridge of
my camera with my office printer last week ... and never again I bet).