First converted RAW image....

[chops]

What do you think?

http://chops.tzo.com/post2.jpg

[CyberDyneSystems]

Are you looking for Critique? Comments?


I like the image itself.. but the conversion is ... not good.
I think you need to go back to the drawing board.. but for a first try it is not too bad.

There is a huge amount of noise in the grass in the background, the colors are too muted, and it looks under exposed.. (this looks fixeable with any decent RAW converter) and it lacks contrast.

Keep trying.. it takes practice :wink:

[chops]

The pic in the first post was just a straight RAW conversion in CS with only a minor crop and resize done.

This one was also done with CS with a little tweaking in color temp and contrast. It still looks a little flat to me....
http://chops.tzo.com/post3.jpg

This pic was converted and tweaked in DPP v1.5. It was also saved as a jpeg with DPP. Personally, I think it came out much better than with CS....
http://chops.tzo.com/post4.jpg

[chops]

I like the image itself.. but the conversion is ... not good.
I think you need to go back to the drawing board.. but for a first try it is not too bad.

There is a huge amount of noise in the grass in the background, the colors are too muted, and it looks under exposed.. (this looks fixeable with any decent RAW converter) and it lacks contrast.

Keep trying.. it takes practice :wink:

There is NO noise in the grass. That is the boken of the lens, and as for exposure, it was taken in the shade. The color is just about life-like. :?

[phili1]

I can not figure your picture out. The post looks like it is over sharpened not allot of detail in it. The lens does not produce noise and it's hard to tell, everything is out of focus. I think the problem is you have two drastic lighting situations. the forground which is in shadow and the distent which is blown out. It' is hard to get a good picture with that.

As far as CS. I own Breezebrowser, Canon DPP and Photshop CS and there is no way you can get a better adjustment in DPP. It is limited where Breerze and CS have almost the same elements to adjsut. I think CS is easaier and more accurate. Make sure you are in the advanced mode because by default it adjusts sharpness and color noise and if you leave it on and adjust it in Photoshop you can overdue it.

[chops]

I can not figure your picture out. The post looks like it is over sharpened not allot of detail in it. The lens does not produce noise and it's hard to tell, everything is out of focus. I think the problem is you have two drastic lighting situations. the forground which is in shadow and the distent which is blown out. It' is hard to get a good picture with that.

As far as CS. I own Breezebrowser, Canon DPP and Photshop CS and there is no way you can get a better adjustment in DPP. It is limited where Breerze and CS have almost the same elements to adjsut. I think CS is easaier and more accurate. Make sure you are in the advanced mode because by default it adjusts sharpness and color noise and if you leave it on and adjust it in Photoshop you can overdue it.

No sharpening was used at all. The post is in sharp focus and the background definately is not blown out except for the sky.

Either there's something wrong with your monitor or I need to recalibrate mine. All I know is that whatever I see on my monitor looks perfectly fine and matches up very close to the print. In fact, I'll be printing this one out at work today just to see.

[arumdevil]

As far as I can see, the only thing wrong here is that the post is prett underexposed. i don't see any noise boys :D

[phili1]

Well my monitor is new and has been calibrated ithe Spider Photo cal.

What I mean by blown out is if you look at the field the exposure latitude between the post and the field is to great. With film you have a lattitude of about 2 1/2 to maybe 3 stops. the lattitude in your picture is greater.

On my monitor the only thing in focuse is the post. I assume that is what you desired. I could not figure out what that was on the post and now I guess it was paint and that look is what you can get if you over sharpen it.

Any way you said quote: What do you think? and we told you.

I took the liberty to try this and it works.

http://www.pbase.com/image/36927670/medium

[chops]

Well my monitor is new and has been calibrated ithe Spider Photo cal.

What I mean by blown out is if you look at the field the exposure latitude between the post and the field is to great. With film you have a lattitude of about 2 1/2 to maybe 3 stops. the lattitude in your picture is greater.

On my monitor the only thing in focuse is the post. I assume that is what you desired. I could not figure out what that was on the post and now I guess it was paint and that look is what you can get if you over sharpen it.

Any way you said quote: What do you think? and we told you.

I took the liberty to try this and it works.

http://www.pbase.com/image/36927670/medium

The ONLY thing that's blown out is the sky! I am not understanding your argument in this. You keep saying the background is blown out, but it's not. The post only looks underexposed because someone else here suggested I add some contrast. Personally, I think the very first picture looks best, and that's straight out of the camera.

Also, the reason the post is the only thing in focus is because that's what I wanted. That's what happens when you shoot at F6.3, focused on something close in the foreground, with plenty of background. Again, your argument on this does not make sence.

That would be like asking me why I took the picture to begin with.

BTW, your link doesn't work. :roll:

[Big_B]

I think I agree with some of the previous comments re: under/overexposure. The post is the only section in focus, but it is quite dark and therefore difficult to make out the details.

[phili1]

Listen you asked for opinions and I gave it, if you can't see it then you can't see it.

I know you focused on the post but it is to dark and if you look in the field at the grass it's to light and thnat is blown out in my opinion.

I thought you were looking for comments and if your not and you like it that is all that counts.

Forgert what I said, it';s a fantastic shot.

[arumdevil]

phili1 relax,

I think there is just a differing in people's definitions of blown-out.

I understand the term to mean that those parts that are blown out are all "white" pixels (or R, G or B if only one channel is blown out). on digital.

and going by that definition only some of the sky is blown out.

that's what it seems to me. if it's wrong someone please correct me.

[phili1]

I am relaxed.

I thought I was doing good and he did not like it so I am backing off. He has a nice shot but the grass is to light and the post to dark.

You are right about blown out but doesssssssn't it means is it is beyond the spectrum of either film or sensor to record it the way the eye sees it.

I did not mean to hurt his feelings and if I did I am sorry.

When some one comments on one of shots my ears open and I listen, I am always looking to better what I have been doing for 30 years. I just went to 2 web sits one women who is in Austrailia and the other in Belgium and there pictures blow mine away and I have the same equiptment, so I asked how do you get the results you get, I want to make mine better.

Anyway I am sorry for opening my mouth, it won't happen again, hey Photography is supposed to be fun.

[chops]

Here's my last try at this.... and no, my feelings are not hurt.

http://chops.tzo.com/post5.jpg

[phili1]

Now you have got it. If you have Photoshop Cs the adjust shadow detail should help in these instances.. Now the picture makes sence.

Now your eyes are drawn to the stump, the main subject.

NOw it looks like a sharp lens.

[Radtech1]

Here's my last try at this....

That is too bad, because I think this needs to be reworked. There is almost no local contrast in the post, which seem to be your main subject. That whole area of the shot seem flat, uninteresting, without any measure of inviting texutre to it. You might want to select the post and adjust your white and black points.

Rad

Why not something like this:

http://home.ripway.com/2004-2/78486/post5.jpg

[jads]

I'm new here and pretty much a novice, but with so much of the shot out of focus, it would appear a little hard on the eye - although the actual idea for the shot (subject matter) is great!

Would it have looked better with a little more of the foreground grass in focus perhaps? hmmm

[izzypizzy]

i'd have to say rad's conversion is the best..

[chops]

Whatever....

If you like a picture of a post that looks like someone smeared dung on it, then good for you.

I'm done.

[izzypizzy]

photography is all about what *you* like, so don't take my comment, or anyone elses comments too seriously.. It's like arguing over music, everyone has different tastes.. I wish ya luck..

[CyberDyneSystems]

*Thread is locked untill further notice*

CDS
Moderator