1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

POTM [04/08] Warm Blossom

Discussion in 'Photography, Art & Design' started by OleJ, 21 Apr 2008.

  1. OleJ

    OleJ Me!

    Joined:
    1 Jul 2007
    Posts:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    10
    [​IMG]

    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.
     
    Last edited: 21 Apr 2008
  2. Smilodon

    Smilodon The Antagonist

    Joined:
    25 Mar 2003
    Posts:
    6,244
    Likes Received:
    102
    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... :hehe:
     
  3. OleJ

    OleJ Me!

    Joined:
    1 Jul 2007
    Posts:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    10
    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.
     
  4. Vers

    Vers ...

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2007
    Posts:
    1,537
    Likes Received:
    12
    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.
     
  5. OleJ

    OleJ Me!

    Joined:
    1 Jul 2007
    Posts:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    10
    Thanks Vers.

    As suggested. Did default NR settings + Despeckle and also a 2.5px gaussian blur to remove that last speckle and noise.
    [​IMG]
    Large Version
     
  6. Vers

    Vers ...

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2007
    Posts:
    1,537
    Likes Received:
    12
    Much better :thumb:
     
  7. Whelan_999

    Whelan_999 New Member

    Joined:
    4 Jul 2005
    Posts:
    192
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  8. Vers

    Vers ...

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2007
    Posts:
    1,537
    Likes Received:
    12
    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.
     
  9. OleJ

    OleJ Me!

    Joined:
    1 Jul 2007
    Posts:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    10
    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.
     
  10. yodasarmpit

    yodasarmpit No longer the other Brett.

    Joined:
    27 May 2002
    Posts:
    11,239
    Likes Received:
    150
    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.
     
  11. Vers

    Vers ...

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2007
    Posts:
    1,537
    Likes Received:
    12
    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.
     
  12. OleJ

    OleJ Me!

    Joined:
    1 Jul 2007
    Posts:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    10
    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 :p
     
  13. Smilodon

    Smilodon The Antagonist

    Joined:
    25 Mar 2003
    Posts:
    6,244
    Likes Received:
    102
    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.
     
  14. yodasarmpit

    yodasarmpit No longer the other Brett.

    Joined:
    27 May 2002
    Posts:
    11,239
    Likes Received:
    150
    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.
     
  15. OleJ

    OleJ Me!

    Joined:
    1 Jul 2007
    Posts:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    10
    I use firefox with color profiles enabled which should have ff render the pictures as seen on screen in e.g. PS.
     
Tags:

Share This Page