[04/08] Warm Blossom - bit-tech.net Forums

OleJ · 21st Apr 2008, 19:54

Click here for large

EOS350D, f/7.1, 1/400, ISO400, -1ev, 18-55 kit lens + macro filter.
Only PP was a crop.

This was selected from approx. 200 shots of this subject during the last 15 minutes of direct sunlight

C&C most welcome. Thanks.

Smilodon · 21st Apr 2008, 20:23

Nice

How did you get that pitch black background?

And it's nice to hear that I'm not the only one who take a LOT of pictures and end up with just one that I like...

OleJ · 21st Apr 2008, 20:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smilodon

Nice

How did you get that pitch black background?

And it's nice to hear that I'm not the only one who take a LOT of pictures and end up with just one that I like...

Heh yeah. I don't think anybody can do one-shot marvels.
The black is because background was far away and in shade while the motif was highlighted by the sun.

Vers · 21st Apr 2008, 20:40

Nice. I like the lighting and composition, but it could use a tad bit of NR on the BG. Make a secondary layer in PS and add NR+Despeckle, then on the same layer select the front flower and delete it to expose the untouched image on the layer beneath. Flatten layers and there you go...noise/sharpening artifact free w/o sacrificing the sharpness of the FP.

OleJ · 21st Apr 2008, 21:28

Thanks Vers.

As suggested. Did default NR settings + Despeckle and also a 2.5px gaussian blur to remove that last speckle and noise.

Large Version

Vers · 21st Apr 2008, 23:05

Much better

Whelan_999 · 22nd Apr 2008, 00:59

Nice picture. I saved both the first and second and switched back and forth between then repeatedly and could only (After about 40 switches) see any difference in the pictures. Very very small detail changes.

Vers · 22nd Apr 2008, 01:45

There is a noticeable amount of noise in the first image, specifically on the stems/branch and leaves. If you look at them both zoomed you can clearly see this when switching back and forth...hell I can even see it on the rear flower and white is the least noticeable shade to see noise on.

OleJ · 26th Apr 2008, 21:14

Just looked at this on the PC with an uncalibrated monitor and I have to say that it looks like crap

There's an impressive amount of noise in the one I submitted.
What a shame. It's a really beautiful shot on my MBP screen.

yodasarmpit · 27th Apr 2008, 00:08

I hate that, you get a shot looking right on a calibrated monitor that matches prints, but most people don't calibrate theirs so there is no way to tell how it looks to others.

Vers · 27th Apr 2008, 00:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by OleJ

Just looked at this on the PC with an uncalibrated monitor and I have to say that it looks like crap

There's an impressive amount of noise in the one I submitted.
What a shame. It's a really beautiful shot on my MBP screen.

On my calibrated monitor's the second image you touched up looks a lot better than the first...it also looks better on my other PC's monitor.

OleJ · 27th Apr 2008, 14:03

I looked at it on an Acer laptop I have lying around and it looked hideous which led me to think the Acer was its usual crap. Didn't think more about it. Then I looked at it on the mac and everything was aok. Then I looked at it on my stationery PC and curled my toes. It's also got a lot to do with screen dpi. The mbp is 1920x1200 on 17 inches widescreen and my PC is 1280x1024 on 19 inches which no matter how you look at it will expose flaws a whole lot more.
I don't really know what to do in the future because I love doing my photo work on the mac and I always take the raw files into aperture and then export straight to jpg...
It's like every time I stumble over this monitor display difference and color stuff I get really frustrated. *sigh* Some day! Some day! some day we'll hopefully be past such issues. Until then I'll send my POTM on print to the bit-tech offices

Smilodon · 27th Apr 2008, 14:08

What programs did you use to view the pictures?

I noticed the other day that browsers make images look a bit weird sometimes. The colors and contrast seems to fade a tiny bit.

yodasarmpit · 27th Apr 2008, 14:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smilodon

What programs did you use to view the pictures?

I noticed the other day that browsers make images look a bit weird sometimes. The colors and contrast seems to fade a tiny bit.

Your (Windows based) browser will normally display in sRGB where as Photoshop etc will display in AdobeRGB, I tend to convert to sRGB when importing from RAW so that the colour profile remains consistant.

OleJ · 27th Apr 2008, 14:11

I use firefox with color profiles enabled which should have ff render the pictures as seen on screen in e.g. PS.

21st Apr 2008, 19:54	#1
OleJ Me! Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Posts: 1,986	[04/08] Warm Blossom Click here for large EOS350D, f/7.1, 1/400, ISO400, -1ev, 18-55 kit lens + macro filter. Only PP was a crop. This was selected from approx. 200 shots of this subject during the last 15 minutes of direct sunlight C&C most welcome. Thanks. __________________ Quickr! Clickr to my Flickr! Canon camera stuff. Some aluminium PC, an HTPC and a MBP 17".. Last edited by OleJ; 21st Apr 2008 at 20:38.

21st Apr 2008, 20:23	#2
Smilodon The Antagonist Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Norway Posts: 4,895	Nice How did you get that pitch black background? And it's nice to hear that I'm not the only one who take a LOT of pictures and end up with just one that I like... __________________ "You have to wonder about a business plan based on the notion that people want to interact with a soda can." -Jeff Salkowski abot the :CueCat My Flickr

21st Apr 2008, 20:40	#4
Vers Protograffer...but not really. Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Orange County, NY Posts: 1,318	Nice. I like the lighting and composition, but it could use a tad bit of NR on the BG. Make a secondary layer in PS and add NR+Despeckle, then on the same layer select the front flower and delete it to expose the untouched image on the layer beneath. Flatten layers and there you go...noise/sharpening artifact free w/o sacrificing the sharpness of the FP. __________________ 1DIII, 5D+BG-E4, 40Dx2, Tamron 17-50, Canon EF-S 17-85, 16-35L, 70-200L f/2.8 IS, 100-400L IS, 35L, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, Sigma 150 Macro, 580EXIIx2, Giottos MT 9360+MH1001 Ballhead & MH658 QR system, Custom Brackets CB Jr. Flash Bracket flickr

21st Apr 2008, 21:28	#5
OleJ Me! Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Posts: 1,986	Thanks Vers. As suggested. Did default NR settings + Despeckle and also a 2.5px gaussian blur to remove that last speckle and noise. Large Version __________________ Quickr! Clickr to my Flickr! Canon camera stuff. Some aluminium PC, an HTPC and a MBP 17"..

21st Apr 2008, 23:05	#6
Vers Protograffer...but not really. Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Orange County, NY Posts: 1,318	Much better __________________ 1DIII, 5D+BG-E4, 40Dx2, Tamron 17-50, Canon EF-S 17-85, 16-35L, 70-200L f/2.8 IS, 100-400L IS, 35L, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, Sigma 150 Macro, 580EXIIx2, Giottos MT 9360+MH1001 Ballhead & MH658 QR system, Custom Brackets CB Jr. Flash Bracket flickr

22nd Apr 2008, 00:59	#7
Whelan_999 Multimodder Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Corner Brook, NFLD Posts: 192	Nice picture. I saved both the first and second and switched back and forth between then repeatedly and could only (After about 40 switches) see any difference in the pictures. Very very small detail changes.

22nd Apr 2008, 01:45	#8
Vers Protograffer...but not really. Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Orange County, NY Posts: 1,318	There is a noticeable amount of noise in the first image, specifically on the stems/branch and leaves. If you look at them both zoomed you can clearly see this when switching back and forth...hell I can even see it on the rear flower and white is the least noticeable shade to see noise on. __________________ 1DIII, 5D+BG-E4, 40Dx2, Tamron 17-50, Canon EF-S 17-85, 16-35L, 70-200L f/2.8 IS, 100-400L IS, 35L, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, Sigma 150 Macro, 580EXIIx2, Giottos MT 9360+MH1001 Ballhead & MH658 QR system, Custom Brackets CB Jr. Flash Bracket flickr

26th Apr 2008, 21:14	#9
OleJ Me! Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Posts: 1,986	Just looked at this on the PC with an uncalibrated monitor and I have to say that it looks like crap There's an impressive amount of noise in the one I submitted. What a shame. It's a really beautiful shot on my MBP screen. __________________ Quickr! Clickr to my Flickr! Canon camera stuff. Some aluminium PC, an HTPC and a MBP 17"..

27th Apr 2008, 00:08	#10
yodasarmpit The other Brett. Moderator Join Date: May 2002 Location: West Lothian , Scotland Posts: 9,667	I hate that, you get a shot looking right on a calibrated monitor that matches prints, but most people don't calibrate theirs so there is no way to tell how it looks to others. __________________ The Rt. Hon. Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson - "Ping Pong is coming home" www.yodasarmpit.com clickr my flickr

27th Apr 2008, 14:03	#12
OleJ Me! Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Posts: 1,986	I looked at it on an Acer laptop I have lying around and it looked hideous which led me to think the Acer was its usual crap. Didn't think more about it. Then I looked at it on the mac and everything was aok. Then I looked at it on my stationery PC and curled my toes. It's also got a lot to do with screen dpi. The mbp is 1920x1200 on 17 inches widescreen and my PC is 1280x1024 on 19 inches which no matter how you look at it will expose flaws a whole lot more. I don't really know what to do in the future because I love doing my photo work on the mac and I always take the raw files into aperture and then export straight to jpg... It's like every time I stumble over this monitor display difference and color stuff I get really frustrated. sigh Some day! Some day! some day we'll hopefully be past such issues. Until then I'll send my POTM on print to the bit-tech offices __________________ Quickr! Clickr to my Flickr! Canon camera stuff. Some aluminium PC, an HTPC and a MBP 17"..

27th Apr 2008, 14:08	#13
Smilodon The Antagonist Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Norway Posts: 4,895	What programs did you use to view the pictures? I noticed the other day that browsers make images look a bit weird sometimes. The colors and contrast seems to fade a tiny bit. __________________ "You have to wonder about a business plan based on the notion that people want to interact with a soda can." -Jeff Salkowski abot the :CueCat My Flickr

27th Apr 2008, 14:11	#15
OleJ Me! Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Posts: 1,986	I use firefox with color profiles enabled which should have ff render the pictures as seen on screen in e.g. PS. __________________ Quickr! Clickr to my Flickr! Canon camera stuff. Some aluminium PC, an HTPC and a MBP 17"..