FZ8, JPEG Fine, ISO 100, 1/640 @ f/4, AP auto exp, 114 mm (35 mm equiv), hand-held; Noise Reduction, Contrast and Sharpening set to Low; compressed to Quality 8 with Photoshop for hosting full res: <http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8yu8.jpg>
-- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
In article <d8suk35pqpv39j24v5s3kmk5bflqg6v...@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: > FZ8, JPEG Fine, ISO 100, 1/640 @ f/4, AP auto exp, 114 mm (35 mm equiv), > hand-held; Noise Reduction, Contrast and Sharpening set to Low; > compressed to Quality 8 with Photoshop for hosting full res: > <http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8yu8.jpg>
Nice burnt highlights. Glad to see that histogram is doing well for you.
John Navas wrote: > FZ8, JPEG Fine, ISO 100, 1/640 @ f/4, AP auto exp, 114 mm (35 mm > equiv), hand-held; Noise Reduction, Contrast and Sharpening set to > Low; compressed to Quality 8 with Photoshop for hosting full res: > <http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8yu8.jpg>
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:43:47 GMT, "David J Taylor" <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in <73Q3j.55385$c_1.50...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>John Navas wrote: >> FZ8, JPEG Fine, ISO 100, 1/640 @ f/4, AP auto exp, 114 mm (35 mm >> equiv), hand-held; Noise Reduction, Contrast and Sharpening set to >> Low; compressed to Quality 8 with Photoshop for hosting full res: >> <http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8yu8.jpg>
John Navas wrote: > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:43:47 GMT, "David J Taylor" > <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in > <73Q3j.55385$c_1.50...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>> John Navas wrote: >>> FZ8, JPEG Fine, ISO 100, 1/640 @ f/4, AP auto exp, 114 mm (35 mm >>> equiv), hand-held; Noise Reduction, Contrast and Sharpening set to >>> Low; compressed to Quality 8 with Photoshop for hosting full res: >>> <http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8yu8.jpg>
On Dec 1, 4:43 pm, "David J Taylor" <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-
bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote: > John Navas wrote: > ... > > <http://img139.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8fr5.jpg> > ... > All the detail in the foliage at the back is lost - possibly due to the > noise reduction. Nice photo, though.
> Cheers, > David
It is a nice *scene*, but as David notes, the foliage has lost a large amount of detail, and as Mr Strat notes, the highlights are a touch over (although that isn't a big deal)..
It is not a technically good image - even at the reduced size, the foliage is clearly (heh!) mush, and detail is completely obliterated in the darker areas (ie almost all of the background). A large print of that image would not be a good idea. Yet a DSLR, competently handled, would have sailed through this test with flying colours. Pun intended..
That type of low-contrast fine detail is a indeed a tough test for digitals - especially small sensored ones - and this one has failed the test.
To get better results, you could use a better camera (O:, but if that isn't an option:
- shoot in RAW. That way you do not lose any more detail to jpeg compression or noise reduction (depending on the camera), and also you will improve the dynamic range - this scene clearly needs all the dynamic range it can get.
- watch your post-proc very carefully. *Selective* noise reduction can help (ie *don't* apply NR to foliage areas!), and also watch any gamma/brightness/contrast adjustments - working in 16-bit, at least initially, may also help.
Just trying to help... In a couple of years time, assuming you get good at this imaging stuff, come back and re-visit this image... At the moment I think you may be a little emotionally attached. (O:*
(* I'm allowed to be unkind if I put a smiley there - John said.)
> - watch your post-proc very carefully. *Selective* noise reduction > can help (ie *don't* apply NR to foliage areas!), and also watch any > gamma/brightness/contrast adjustments - working in 16-bit, at least > initially, may also help.
And just to show I'm not *all* mouth... here's an example of an image with a similarly wide (probably wider) contrast range, shot on a similar (but, imo, better) prosumer : http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/pano2_small.jpg
(Note -it's a *large* panoramic image - 1.4Mb jpg...)
It was shot in RAW, and I (crudely!) used selective noise reduction. Note the foliage detail in the dark areas compared to John's. Yes, it's somewhat *noisy* detail, but it's .. *there*.
I am very happy to post a full-resolution crop if anyone wants one.
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:43:47 GMT, "David J Taylor" > <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in > <73Q3j.55385$c_1.50...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
> >John Navas wrote: > >> FZ8, JPEG Fine, ISO 100, 1/640 @ f/4, AP auto exp, 114 mm (35 mm > >> equiv), hand-held; Noise Reduction, Contrast and Sharpening set to > >> Low; compressed to Quality 8 with Photoshop for hosting full res: > >> <http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8yu8.jpg>
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 06:43:29 GMT, "David J Taylor" <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in <lo74j.55897$c_1.22...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>John Navas wrote: >> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:43:47 GMT, "David J Taylor" >> <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in >> <73Q3j.55385$c_1.50...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>>> John Navas wrote: >>>> FZ8, JPEG Fine, ISO 100, 1/640 @ f/4, AP auto exp, 114 mm (35 mm >>>> equiv), hand-held; Noise Reduction, Contrast and Sharpening set to >>>> Low; compressed to Quality 8 with Photoshop for hosting full res: >>>> <http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8yu8.jpg>
>All the detail in the foliage at the back is lost - possibly due to the >noise reduction. Nice photo, though.
Thank you.
What this actually shows is the limitation of 8-bit JPEG on the very wide luminance range reducing luminance resolution in shadows, limited depth of field from the wide aperture I used to focus on just the fountain, additional JPEG compression for hosting, and the effect of direct sun on the lens (flare).
The image might have been a little better technically if I had used RAW instead of JPEG Fine, but that would be due to the greater luminosity resolution of RAW as compared to 8-bit JPEG and reduced loss of detail from JPEG compression, not noise reduction processing (which was turned down to Low). JPEG Fine did quite well nonetheless.
-- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 00:55:55 -0800 (PST), mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote in <6dc35cc7-bff2-4c7b-8e45-db2729480...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>On Dec 1, 4:43 pm, "David J Taylor" <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this- >bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote: >> John Navas wrote: >> ... >> > <http://img139.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8fr5.jpg> >> ... >> All the detail in the foliage at the back is lost - possibly due to the >> noise reduction. Nice photo, though. >It is a nice *scene*,
It is a nice *photograph*.
>but as David notes, the foliage has lost a large >amount of detail,
See my prior response.
>and as Mr Strat notes, the highlights are a touch >over (although that isn't a big deal)..
Not true.
>It is not a technically good image
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
>Just trying to help... ...
No you're not -- you're trying to be supercilious.
-- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 02:30:35 -0800 (PST), mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote in <4cdb3884-8da8-459f-a0de-d97c67159...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>On Dec 1, 6:55 pm, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: >> - watch your post-proc very carefully. *Selective* noise reduction >> can help (ie *don't* apply NR to foliage areas!), and also watch any >> gamma/brightness/contrast adjustments - working in 16-bit, at least >> initially, may also help.
>And just to show I'm not *all* mouth... here's an example of an image >with a similarly wide (probably wider) contrast range, shot on a >similar (but, imo, better) prosumer >: >http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/pano2_small.jpg
Totally different image, and too shrunk to make any real assessment possible. Don't you have anything else?
-- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
>On Dec 1, 7:29 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:43:47 GMT, "David J Taylor" >> <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in >> <73Q3j.55385$c_1.50...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>> >John Navas wrote: >> >> FZ8, JPEG Fine, ISO 100, 1/640 @ f/4, AP auto exp, 114 mm (35 mm >> >> equiv), hand-held; Noise Reduction, Contrast and Sharpening set to >> >> Low; compressed to Quality 8 with Photoshop for hosting full res: >> >> <http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8yu8.jpg>
On Dec 17, 1:35 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 00:55:55 -0800 (PST), mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote > >It is a nice *scene*,
> It is a nice *photograph*.
No, it's a crap photograph of a nice scene. It would be ok if better composed, and if it didn't have total MUSH for a background. The fact you can't see the mush, speaks volumes.
> >and as Mr Strat notes, the highlights are a touch > >over (although that isn't a big deal).. > Not true.
No, of course not, dear. Two people comment on it, but you are of course a better judge, seeing it's your image, and you're not like 'biased' or nuthin.
> We'll just have to agree to disagree.
What a great comeback - you should use it more often....
>What this actually shows is the limitation of 8-bit JPEG on the very >wide luminance range reducing luminance resolution in shadows, limited >depth of field from the wide aperture I used to focus on just the >fountain, additional JPEG compression for hosting, and the effect of >direct sun on the lens (flare).
What a pile of unadulterated crap. Anyone with more than a couple of weeks of post-proc experience will easily be able to avoid the overcontrasty look and the lost highlights and shadows *provisding the oiriginal is up to it. If it isn't, you only have yourself and the camera to blame. The only other person who makes this sort of claim about using 8-bit JPG's is Douglas MacDonald. You're in good company there.
And I love the HYPOCRISY - elsewhere you are talking about the need to post a 7Mb jpg image to keep the quality up, but here, the hosting compression is at fault. Hahah!!
>The image might have been a little better technically if I had used RAW >instead of JPEG Fine and then: >> It is not a technically good image > We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Oh. That's very clear then. So you say it *was* you and the camera at fault. Glad we sorted that, finally. Er, except it wasn't... (O:
On Nov 29, 9:12 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> FZ8, JPEG Fine, ISO 100, 1/640 @ f/4, AP auto exp, 114 mm (35 mm equiv), > hand-held; Noise Reduction, Contrast and Sharpening set to Low; > compressed to Quality 8 with Photoshop for hosting full res: > <http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8yu8.jpg>
Wow!
How did you get the background to look so ... muddy?
|
