e_dawg
Storage Freak
Nice pic. Tough to handle the dynamic range of a subject backlit against the sky, but you managed to use it creatively.
ddrueding
Fixture
I just managed to go a little crazy in Photoshop's RAW converter. DPP doesn't have the options to bring up the dark enough.
ddrueding
Fixture
Well, technically I was only out for an hour. Then I went and won a sailboat race (the first in my new boat, woo!). I still haven't gotten the nerve to break out the camera while racing, but those would be awesome shots.
ddrueding
Fixture
Right in the middle of an HDR pano, an exposure set output RAW files with resolution of 3485x2348 instead of the usual 4272x2856. The pano was a total of 33 shots (11x3) and only one set of three right in the middle was smaller. WTF? Any ideas?
ddrueding
Fixture
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Your camera is possessed. Send it to me at once so I can exorcise it. Time is of the essence; delay at your own peril. I will return it when it is safe to do so. Be sure to include any lenses, accesories, or media cards that may have come into contact with it.
ddrueding
Fixture
Stereodude
Not really a
Here's the result of my typical processing for web. I did save it at level 11. Usually I save at 9.
ddrueding
Fixture
Here is my attempt, also at 11.
Why did mine resize to 1600x1202? No idea, ask Photoshop.
Why did mine resize to 1600x1202? No idea, ask Photoshop.
ddrueding
Fixture
I think Stereodude did better with the diagonals, and I did better with the rocks. I think the diagonals are more important.
Stereodude
Not really a
I shaved a row of pixels off the top and bottom of mine to make it 1600x1200 per the rules.
Stereodude
Not really a
Look at the differences in the grills on the top of the A/C units.
Personally, I like my rocks better.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Good show, gents! It's difficult to choose between the two... IMHO, what I see is SD's has a bit more detail (and slightly more aliasing) in the rocks (although some of it is a bit of false detail from strong USM at a small radius setting), but less aliasing in the A/C grilles. Overall, a slightly better detail vs aliasing tradeoff by sd.
Maybe we should take it down to 800 x 600 since 1600 x 1200 is not proving to be much of a challenge for you
Here's my entry:
http://www.pbase.com/image/99636069/original
Maybe we should take it down to 800 x 600 since 1600 x 1200 is not proving to be much of a challenge for you
Here's my entry:
http://www.pbase.com/image/99636069/original
ddrueding
Fixture
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Not bad, dd. Very hard to maintain detail without aliasing downsizing to 11% of the original size. Here's my entry:
http://www.pbase.com/image/99640933/original
I sacrificed a bit of AA control to help preserve detail / contrast with such an extreme downsample.
http://www.pbase.com/image/99640933/original
I sacrificed a bit of AA control to help preserve detail / contrast with such an extreme downsample.
ddrueding
Fixture
IMHO, you went a bit overboard on the contrast. I'm not saying it looks bad, it just looks significantly different than the original.
Stereodude
Not really a
Mine:
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Looks like 800 x 600 leveled the playing field... they look the same to me
BTW, if you haven't seen this yet, check out this link. Deke McClelland gives you 101 Photoshop tips... in a 5 minute video. BTW, it's not the kind of video you think it is...
http://photojojo.com/content/tips/photoshop-tips-video/
BTW, if you haven't seen this yet, check out this link. Deke McClelland gives you 101 Photoshop tips... in a 5 minute video. BTW, it's not the kind of video you think it is...
http://photojojo.com/content/tips/photoshop-tips-video/
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Hmm... I seem to be optimizing more for further viewing distances than you guys... did something similar with your forest pic, but if you view up close and personal it looks a bit processed. But a bit further away, i think it looks better, as with your and sd's versions, the fine detail all fades into a blur unless you view close up. Perhaps you are spoiled with your massive LCD screen? It tends to emphasize detail and contrast compared to smaller monitors where everything is compressed together in a smaller space. It has the effect of viewing much closer.
ddrueding
Fixture
Well, my screen has a 0.5415mm Pixel Pitch, and I'm viewing in "actual pixels" for the resizing. And, for the record, my resizing technique for both was:
1. Open in Photoshop CS3
2. Image size...
3. Change size and resample with "Bicubic Sharper (best for reduction)"
4. Save
Nothing else was done.
1. Open in Photoshop CS3
2. Image size...
3. Change size and resample with "Bicubic Sharper (best for reduction)"
4. Save
Nothing else was done.
The image looks like it has already been sharpened and then up-rezzed.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
I don't know about sharpening, as I converted the RAW files directly to DNG and dumped them into Photo Acute Studio to stack 4 images to get the one I posted. Here's a before and after stacking at 100%:
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Also, let's keep in mind that I was only using a 50 mm lens on a tiny 4/3 sensor that starts getting diffraction limited at f/5.6. The roof is not that close, and the details are quite small. At that pixel density, the images are not going to be clean at the pixel level.
Stereodude
Not really a
I was working on my 15.4" 1680x1050 laptop LCD while on vacation.
This is my standard downsizing: (done both times)
1) open
2) create duplicate layer
3) high pass (1.0)
4) change to overlay with 100% opacity
5) flatten image
6) resize
7) create duplicate layer
8) high pass (1.0)
9) change to overlay with 50% opacity
10) flatten image
11) save
Stereodude
Not really a
Here are two quick processed shots (from the JPEGs, not the RAW) from my vacation.
I don't know what you mean by stacked, but the images are obviously sharpened and some NR is applied. Of course that may be fine for printing, etc. I prefer to start resampling with unsharpened or just slightly sharpened images. However, I don't care much about downsampling in general. The subtle differences visible on screen don't show in 4x or 5x prints.
Stereodude
Not really a
Larger size versions since the old ones were too small to see the details and I can't edit my earlier post.
Here are two quick processed shots (from the JPEGs, not the RAW) from my vacation.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Thanks for the nice pics, sd. That looks like a very picturesque area and the weather looks great. i can imagine the feeling walking around there... it can lift a person's spirits...
e_dawg
Storage Freak
LM, have you heard about image stacking programs like Photo Acute Studio? It's meant to increase the working resolution of pics so you can do things like print larger or resolve fine details as if you had a sharper lens or higher resolution camera. Kinda similar in concept to taking pano pics with a longer lens (and taking more of them to cover the same FoV). What it does is take the 4 RAW files that I shot in sequence (and have converted directly into DNG without NR or sharpening), align them so that the pixels overlap, and overlay them on top of each other. kinda like stacking layers and the flattening the image in PS.
The NR-like effects you see are because when the images are stacked, pixel values are by necessity averaged somewhat, reducing random noise. The application automatically aligns the images as well as or better than Autopano Pro and other PanoTools based apps, so the alignment is fairly accurate and precise, so it tries to limit the averaging to each "cylinder" of stacked, identical pixels itself and less with the surrounding pixels, so the pixel structure remains largely intact. But it is not perfect, and averaging values does mean that the processed image will never be 100% like the original. But the end result is usually of net benefit to IQ and resolution.
Stereodude
Not really a
The real important issue here is why don't my colors match?
This is the same sRGB file loading in PS and in IrfanView. The best I can tell PS changes the colors it is displaying perhaps due to a monitor calibration file, or perhaps bypassing a monitor calibration file?
Anyone seen this or know how to fix it?
This is the same sRGB file loading in PS and in IrfanView. The best I can tell PS changes the colors it is displaying perhaps due to a monitor calibration file, or perhaps bypassing a monitor calibration file?
Anyone seen this or know how to fix it?
ddrueding
Fixture
In Photoshop, go to Edit->Color Settings
Under "Color Management Policies", is it set to automatically convert your images color space?
Stereodude
Not really a
ddrueding
Fixture
Different version of Photoshop, but that look fine to me.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
The real important issue here is why don't my colors match?
This is the same sRGB file loading in PS and in IrfanView. The best I can tell PS changes the colors it is displaying perhaps due to a monitor calibration file, or perhaps bypassing a monitor calibration file?
Anyone seen this or know how to fix it?
IrfanView does not support colour management or ICC/ICM profiles. Therefore, it does not read your sRGB file as sRGB.
To get PhotoShop to match IrfanView's colours, simply remove the sRGB profile from your image by going to Edit > Assign Profile > Don't Color Manage This Document.
The image in Photoshop should now match the image in IrfanView. To go back, just select the previous state in your History palette.
Stereodude
Not really a
What you say works in theory except that sRGB is the default color space for Windows and all applications that don't support other color spaces.
Edit: I was able to get them to match by changing the ICM profile for my monitor (In Windows settings) from the one created by the Pantone Eye One to standard sRGB one with Windows.
Stereodude
Not really a
I can also get them to match by changing the RGB Working Space in Photoshop to the one created with the Pantone Eye One and telling PS not to manage the color in the files when I open them.
This solution though creates a big problem though if you open anything in PS that's not a sRGB file.
This solution though creates a big problem though if you open anything in PS that's not a sRGB file.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Okay, so I guess what is happening is that because IrfanView is not colour management aware and does not support ICC/ICM profiles, it is not making use of your monitor's profile whereas Photoshop is. So the difference is your monitor's profile being used vs not used.
ddrueding
Fixture
Did anyone else try to photograph fireworks and end up with fog?
Stereodude
Not really a
I'm not sure that's what's happening. It seems like Photoshop thinks the ICM profile assigned to the monitor is not a sRGB correction but instead tries to compensate for it being a different color space.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
I'm not sure changing your working space is the causative factor, but telling PS not to colour manage probably is.
I'm sure it would be. I think the easiest solution would be to do the Assign Profile > Don't Color Manage This Document step that I mentioned before. It takes the least effort, and you can even set up a couple actions with keyboard shortcuts to activate and deactivate it.