A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

[SI] Pairs etc - Eric Stevens comments



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 21st 12, 08:57 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default [SI] Pairs etc - Eric Stevens comments

On 2012-07-21 12:59 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-07-21 09:13:34 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 2012-07-21 11:21 , tony cooper wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 10:55:51 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

In that sense, the window frame should have been cropped out at the
time
the photo was composed. As is, it cannot be cropped without cutting
into the chair. (Maybe I'll try a content-aware edit in CS5).

That really isn't necessary:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/shwubema97m6dyo/Browne.jpg

I selected some lower boards with the rectangular marquee, copied,
pasted, and moved the pasted part up over window corner. I did a
little bit of cloning and blurring to make the new section blend in
and not repeat the pattern of the copied section. A repair made in
just a couple of minutes.


With content aware edition, this took less than 10 seconds from
opening the file, selecting the area and applying content-aware-editing:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tj51axzinp...6SMLCAEDIT.jpg


Original:

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/143800474

It's clear that content aware editing is very complex - since it
failed to do a good job here on a simple task. ;-).

I'll play with it more later.


Content aware fill just gives you a starting point.
Now duplicat the layer and go to filters-."Vanishing Point". Mark out a
perspective area using the siding lines as a guide, the expand the area
by pulling the middle top handle up, and the middle left handle to the
let, both beyond the canvas.
Next use the in-filter clone tool (adjust size using "[" "]") to cover
the bad content aware fill. Once done close out the vanishing point
filter and touch up. The fix result will be better.
http://db.tt/vDJbBHAy


Pretty good. There's a slight mis-alignment.


--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.
  #12  
Old July 21st 12, 08:59 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default [SI] Pairs etc - Eric Stevens comments

On 2012-07-21 14:02 , Savageduck wrote:

Just a quick and nasty fix, not perfection demonstrating tools.
A little short on time, I have to hit the road for a visit to some
friends just North of Salinas. Perhaps a photo-op or two along the way.


"On the road" 'duck.




--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.
  #13  
Old July 21st 12, 11:36 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default [SI] Pairs etc - Eric Stevens comments

On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 17:31:54 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

When this topic was first mooted someone made a remark which made me
think of reflections, images mirrored in the computer etc. From that
moment I was hooked on reflections and the like and never gave thought
to multiple objects. It's amazing how you can develop a blind spot.


--- etc ---

I'm amazed at the thread which branched off from my article. In fact,
I'm amazed that my article appeared at all. Until a few minutes ago I
thought the only copy of my article was much longer and still sitting
in incomplete form in my 'drafts' folder. I don't know quite how and
when this tag got out but I must have hit the wrong key somewhere.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #14  
Old July 22nd 12, 12:18 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default [SI] Pairs etc - Eric Stevens comments

On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 17:31:54 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

Oops! Somehow part of this article has been sent off already. Never
mind, there is more.

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/pairs_triplets_

When this topic was first mooted someone made a remark which made me
think of reflections, images mirrored in the computer etc. From that
moment I was hooked on reflections and the like and never gave thought
to multiple objects. It's amazing how you can develop a blind spot.

Alan Browne 1:
-----------------
This is not inconsistent with my original thinking and I was quite
impressed with the idea. The shadow on a nearly vertical surface does
it nicely. At first sight the picure is stark, except for the wine.
But starting to explore and think, I wondered at the knots in the
weatherboards in the back ground (we would never get away with them in
New Zealand - they would be too likely to shrink and leak). I am
curious about the origin of the semicircular pattern indentations in
the seat board at the bottom of the photographs. The picure is not as
empty as some might be inclined to think.

Unlike others, I do not mind the window frame in the corner. It helps
balance the picture around the wine glass: it helps centre the picture
on the wine glass.


PAIR_Watchmaker_OLD_2.png
-----------------------------------
This surprised me. Not a reflection or identically matched pair of any
kind, but it's still a pair. It looks like a Leica F3 picture from 60
years ago. Is the similarity deliberate? In any case, I like the
sense of motion.

I was interested to see that SI accepts PNGs.

PAIR_Watchmaker_OLD_1
------------------------------
I was interested in the bottle tops but, apart from that, the photo
does nothing for me. It's a difficult subject done very well though.

PAIRS-Watchmaker-3
-------------------------
I particularly like this one. Its a pity you couldn't have made the
piers stand out from the clutter of plant life rather more than they
do.

pairs Max Duryee 1
---------------------
As an exercise in woodworking, its quite impressive. The template for
Peacock Tail was made by hand I presume. But, as a photograph, it does
little for me.

pairs Max Duryee 2.
-----------------------
A nice pair of windows. How did you make the lighting look as though
it was taken at dusk? Would it have worked better in colour?

pairs Max Duryee 3
----------------------
Would it have worked better if the shot had been taken at an angle
from the side? That would have put some perspective into it.

Pairs-Savageduck-01
-----------------------
Technically excellent, as always. The three power plant stacks make a
magnificent shot but I found the clutter of masts and overhead gear
(Tell me, can birds fly through all these?) detracted from the three
piles in the foreground. In fact, to be honest, I found the clutter so
bad that the first time around I missed the three piles in the
foreground until somebody else pointed them out. Could you have
emulated your cousin Donald and run out into midair to take a
portrait-view photograph from further to the left. This would have cut
out all the clutter in the foreground. If you can do this please give
me warning so I can turn up with my camera.

Pairs-Savageduck-02
------------------------
Very similar boats, very similar names (both beginning with 'L'),
almost identical anchor winches: there is not much doubt that these
boats qualify as a near-enough pair. But, somehow, the picture seems a
little crowded.

Pairs-Savageduck-03
------------------------
Four of a kind but, again, it feels too crowded to me.

Pairs_otter_1
---------------
Interesting. Nice bright colours. Nobody on the team is small. A good
shot.

Pairs_otter_2
---------------
A good idea. I like the stand-out red seat. I can't help feeling there
ought to be a better viewing point and angle.

Pairs_otter_3
---------------
I presume the pairs are the two antennae towers. I can't help
wondering if it might have been improved by a wider angle lens and a
little more foreground.

Pairs_KurtP_1
---------------
I like the shot but am a little disappointed that the base of the
further glass is out of focus. I note the ISO is already at 1600, the
exposure is 1/50 second, the lens is probably wide open at f/2.8. You
can't be accused of not trying. I don't see that you could have done
much better unless you either used a flash or a tripod and stopped
down to increase the depth of field. I think I would prefer the
tripod.

Pairs_KurtP_2
---------------
You must have had a tripod for this one but still the image is soft.
If it was me I would try again for a sharper image. That's going to be
difficult but not impossible.

Pairs_KurtP_3
---------------
As a Nikon user, what can I say? :-)

PAIRS_Lorikeets_TonyCooper
---------------------------------
Brilliant colours, wicked birds, but it's lack of definition makes it
look like an oil painting. The 'large' image looks to have lost detail
as a result of being excessively compressed, whether in the JPG
process or in whatever PBase has done to it. It does look better at
the 'original' size.

PAIRS_Merging Pairs_TonyCooper
---------------------------------------
A nice shot in nearly all respects but I can't help feeling that
reducing it to only black and white has made it too harsh. There
should be shades of gray in there.

PAIRS_Pygmy Marmosets_TonyCooper
--------------------------------------------
A nice shot but, as with the Lorrikeets, there is a lack of sharpness.
Probably for the same reason.

PAIRS_Bird Fight_ClearyC
-----------------------------
Bird fight? It looks more like a feeding frenzy. At first I thought
the image was a little soft but when I clicked on the 'original' image
size it came up both larger and sharper than it had been in the
'large' size.

PAIRS_Pair of Drops_DaveC
--------------------------------
A difficult picture and by the look of the EXIF data you were not
using the ideal equipment. Depth of focus is critical for this kind of
image and f/5.6 won't give you much depth of focus. With my 105mm
macro lens I would probably have been at f/45. I don't know how your
200mm lens would behave in these circumstances if it was stopped right
down. It's a pity about the lack of depth of focus as I would like to
have seen what was in those water drops. A good try though.

PAIRS_Pair of Lovers_ClearyC
----------------------------------
Now that's a good shot. Clear, bright and as sharp as a shot of this
kind can be. If it's the same 200mm lens as used for the previous
shot, it gives a good indication of what can be gained by stopping
down even one stop to f/8. Mind you, apart from the wings, the bodies
of the two insects lie more or less in a single plane and should be
more easily focussed.

PAIRS_Sunflower Pattern_ClearyC
---------------------------------------
Pairs? Well there is certainly lots of them. :-)
It's a nice sharp photograph at its plane of focus but I'm afraid it
doesn't do much for me.

PAIRS_Wave Pattern_DaveC
--------------------------------
I love the texture in the waves but the appearance of the spray makes
me wonder whether or not it has been slightly oversharpened?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #15  
Old July 22nd 12, 03:46 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default [SI] Pairs etc - Eric Stevens comments

On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 17:31:54 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

Oops! Somehow part of this article has been sent off already. Never
mind, there is more.

This is the second time. I appear to have an 'autosend' option in my
computer. I hope I can get to the end without it striking again. I'll
mark the beginning of the end down below.

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/pairs_triplets_

When this topic was first mooted someone made a remark which made me
think of reflections, images mirrored in the computer etc. From that
moment I was hooked on reflections and the like and never gave thought
to multiple objects. It's amazing how you can develop a blind spot.

Alan Browne 1:
-----------------
This is not inconsistent with my original thinking and I was quite
impressed with the idea. The shadow on a nearly vertical surface does
it nicely. At first sight the picure is stark, except for the wine.
But starting to explore and think, I wondered at the knots in the
weatherboards in the back ground (we would never get away with them in
New Zealand - they would be too likely to shrink and leak). I am
curious about the origin of the semicircular pattern indentations in
the seat board at the bottom of the photographs. The picure is not as
empty as some might be inclined to think.

Unlike others, I do not mind the window frame in the corner. It helps
balance the picture around the wine glass: it helps centre the picture
on the wine glass.


PAIR_Watchmaker_OLD_2.png
-----------------------------------
This surprised me. Not a reflection or identically matched pair of any
kind, but it's still a pair. It looks like a Leica F3 picture from 60
years ago. Is the similarity deliberate? In any case, I like the
sense of motion.

I was interested to see that SI accepts PNGs.

PAIR_Watchmaker_OLD_1
------------------------------
I was interested in the bottle tops but, apart from that, the photo
does nothing for me. It's a difficult subject done very well though.

PAIRS-Watchmaker-3
-------------------------
I particularly like this one. Its a pity you couldn't have made the
piers stand out from the clutter of plant life rather more than they
do.

pairs Max Duryee 1
---------------------
As an exercise in woodworking, its quite impressive. The template for
Peacock Tail was made by hand I presume. But, as a photograph, it does
little for me.

pairs Max Duryee 2.
-----------------------
A nice pair of windows. How did you make the lighting look as though
it was taken at dusk? Would it have worked better in colour?

pairs Max Duryee 3
----------------------
Would it have worked better if the shot had been taken at an angle
from the side? That would have put some perspective into it.

Pairs-Savageduck-01
-----------------------
Technically excellent, as always. The three power plant stacks make a
magnificent shot but I found the clutter of masts and overhead gear
(Tell me, can birds fly through all these?) detracted from the three
piles in the foreground. In fact, to be honest, I found the clutter so
bad that the first time around I missed the three piles in the
foreground until somebody else pointed them out. Could you have
emulated your cousin Donald and run out into midair to take a
portrait-view photograph from further to the left. This would have cut
out all the clutter in the foreground. If you can do this please give
me warning so I can turn up with my camera.

Pairs-Savageduck-02
------------------------
Very similar boats, very similar names (both beginning with 'L'),
almost identical anchor winches: there is not much doubt that these
boats qualify as a near-enough pair. But, somehow, the picture seems a
little crowded.

Pairs-Savageduck-03
------------------------
Four of a kind but, again, it feels too crowded to me.

Pairs_otter_1
---------------
Interesting. Nice bright colours. Nobody on the team is small. A good
shot.

Pairs_otter_2
---------------
A good idea. I like the stand-out red seat. I can't help feeling there
ought to be a better viewing point and angle.

Pairs_otter_3
---------------
I presume the pairs are the two antennae towers. I can't help
wondering if it might have been improved by a wider angle lens and a
little more foreground.

Pairs_KurtP_1
---------------
I like the shot but am a little disappointed that the base of the
further glass is out of focus. I note the ISO is already at 1600, the
exposure is 1/50 second, the lens is probably wide open at f/2.8. You
can't be accused of not trying. I don't see that you could have done
much better unless you either used a flash or a tripod and stopped
down to increase the depth of field. I think I would prefer the
tripod.

Pairs_KurtP_2
---------------
You must have had a tripod for this one but still the image is soft.
If it was me I would try again for a sharper image. That's going to be
difficult but not impossible.

Pairs_KurtP_3
---------------
As a Nikon user, what can I say? :-)

PAIRS_Lorikeets_TonyCooper
---------------------------------
Brilliant colours, wicked birds, but it's lack of definition makes it
look like an oil painting. The 'large' image looks to have lost detail
as a result of being excessively compressed, whether in the JPG
process or in whatever PBase has done to it. It does look better at
the 'original' size.

PAIRS_Merging Pairs_TonyCooper
---------------------------------------
A nice shot in nearly all respects but I can't help feeling that
reducing it to only black and white has made it too harsh. There
should be shades of gray in there.

PAIRS_Pygmy Marmosets_TonyCooper
--------------------------------------------
A nice shot but, as with the Lorrikeets, there is a lack of sharpness.
Probably for the same reason.

PAIRS_Bird Fight_ClearyC
-----------------------------
Bird fight? It looks more like a feeding frenzy. At first I thought
the image was a little soft but when I clicked on the 'original' image
size it came up both larger and sharper than it had been in the
'large' size.

PAIRS_Pair of Drops_DaveC
--------------------------------
A difficult picture and by the look of the EXIF data you were not
using the ideal equipment. Depth of focus is critical for this kind of
image and f/5.6 won't give you much depth of focus. With my 105mm
macro lens I would probably have been at f/45. I don't know how your
200mm lens would behave in these circumstances if it was stopped right
down. It's a pity about the lack of depth of focus as I would like to
have seen what was in those water drops. A good try though.

PAIRS_Pair of Lovers_ClearyC
----------------------------------
Now that's a good shot. Clear, bright and as sharp as a shot of this
kind can be. If it's the same 200mm lens as used for the previous
shot, it gives a good indication of what can be gained by stopping
down even one stop to f/8. Mind you, apart from the wings, the bodies
of the two insects lie more or less in a single plane and should be
more easily focussed.

PAIRS_Sunflower Pattern_ClearyC
---------------------------------------
Pairs? Well there is certainly lots of them. :-)
It's a nice sharp photograph at its plane of focus but I'm afraid it
doesn't do much for me.

PAIRS_Wave Pattern_DaveC
--------------------------------
I love the texture in the waves but the appearance of the spray makes
me wonder whether or not it has been slightly oversharpened?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is how far I got the last time the 'autosend' demon struck. From
here on all should be new
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well, I've changed the batteries in the keyboard. I hope that was the
problem.

Pairs_Tim_Conway_3
-------------------------
Are the socks brand-new? Judging by their definition, they should be
very soft. :-)

Pairs_Tim_Conway_old_1
-----------------------------
I like it but, no flash used? What was the lighting?

Pairs_Tim_Conway_old_2
------------------------------
I like this one too. I had to look hard at first but I found two
pairs countable in two different ways.

multiples_peter_newman_fishing net
------------------------------------------
I like all aspects of it but one. I like the composition, the
reflection in the wet sand and the colour. What upset me was the fact
that I could only see it in small sizes. I would love to have seen a
larger version but I can see that I am limited by the size of the
original.

multiples_peter_newman_parade
--------------------------------------
I can see what you have done but I can't look at it for more than a
few seconds without getting a headache. :-)

multiples_peter_newman_strawberry in the sky
------------------------------------------------------
This is a shot which I find works better in a smaller size or when
viewed from a distant. My first reaction was not a 'strawberry' but a
brightly coloured Scotch Thistle. One second exposure is impressive
for hand held. I can tell that it's hand held from the identical
wiggles in the trajectory of the flares. Is the focus distance of 8.67
metres correct? I would hnave thought it was further away.

Pairs-EricS-1
--------------
My own shot so I will leave comment to others. Multiple reflections of
reflections, including within the glass.

Pairs-EricS-2
---------------
Not all people could see this as 'pairs' but some picked up on the
fact that it was a reflection of the camera taking the photograph.
Nobody picked up on the fact that there was a further reflection in
that it is possible to read 'Nikon' and 'D300' round the right way.
The whole image has already been reflected around a vertical axis. In
other words there are two cameras which the viewer has to imagine.

Pairs-EricS-old-3
-------------------
An old one but a still not good enough one.

Pairs_MG_Mates
-------------------
A nice shot in which the texture of the feathers seems to have
survived. You have woken one of them up, or is it only awake on this
side of its head?

Pairs_MG_Reflections
------------------------
This shot has me puzzled. What causes the straight line in the edge of
the water upon which the ducks seem to be virtually standing?

Pairs_MG_Twins
-------------------
I like that shot. I find the detail is remarkably good when I consider
you have probably had to crop the original significantly. Hand held, I
suppose?

Pairs Bob_Coe 1
------------------
Bob might have found the buildings to not be identical but they are as
good a 'pair' as any other 'pair' in the [SI]. There is something in
the vertical and horizontal alignments which I find vaguely
disturbing. Despite the verticals at the edges being parallel to the
photo frame things don't seem right nearer the middle. Does your lens
have a Lens Baby somewhere in its ancestry? :-)

Pairs Bob_Coe 2
------------------
You have pairs of pairs and trios and quartos and pairs of pairs and
pairs of trios and .... enough. Somehow the image lacks punch. It's
not sharp enough and not bright enough and there isn't enough
contrast, or something.

Pairs Bob_Coe 3
-------------------
Interesting, but slightly too ghostly for my taste. You probably
didn't have enough contrast in the lighting, but that's beyond your
immediate control.

Pairs Martha_Coe 1
----------------------
I like the house and that you have had the courage to stop down to
increase depth of field. (So many people start yelling 'diffraction'
when you do this.) Its a pity you didn't manage to do something about
the perspective effects on the verticals of the building.

Pairs Martha_Coe 2
----------------------
Now that's magnificent! Crisp, clear and sharp. Did you curse that
tree?

Pairs Martha_Coe 3
----------------------
That's very good shot of Sam Clemens' house. The thought of those
chimneys in a earthquake gives me the grues.

pairs_bowser_01
-------------------
That's a nice shot. What else can I say?

pairs_bowser_02
-------------------
That's a nice shot. The pairs being, presumably, the hanging flower
baskets. Were you not able to get further back to take in the full
height of the door?

pairs_bowser_03
-------------------
Another nice shot with the bottom cropped off. Is it that the chimneys
were not sufficiently obvious if you had the full height of the
buildings?

Pairs_Bob_Flint_1
--------------------
I hope you plucked that lateral shoot off after you took the
photograph.

Pairs_Bob_Flint_2
--------------------
What can I say? A good shot of a slightly neglected corner of
somebody's garden.

Pairs_Bob_Flint_3
--------------------
I give up. What are they, and surely they are not that colour? :-)

PAIRS_Dan_Petre_1
-----------------------
I like it. it has the look and feel of the kind of shot which you used
to find in 'art' books of 60 years ago. It looks better as a
monochrome and sharp focus would spoil it. 'Well done' I have to say.

PAIRS_Dan_Petre_2
-----------------------
A nice shot, and no doubt a lucky find. I think the presence of the
glass makes it. I'm damned if I know quite what is reflection and what
isn't.

Pairs_Alan_Browne_2
------------------------
I don't know if that's 'Pairs' etc so much as 'Lots'. The camera has
captured lots of fine detail of the newly growing plants but it is
somehow slightly blurred by the time it gets to me. It's not just a
question of pixel size. Enlarging the image seems to make no
difference.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I've got to the end with no more autosends. Maybe changing the
batteries made a difference. Maybe just got a whole lot more careful
where I put my fingers.





--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #16  
Old July 22nd 12, 03:51 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default [SI] Pairs etc - Eric Stevens comments

On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 19:39:17 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

PAIRS_Wave Pattern_DaveC
--------------------------------
I love the texture in the waves but the appearance of the spray makes
me wonder whether or not it has been slightly oversharpened?


Dave and his wife, Cleary (my daughter), share one camera (Nikon D40).
I stated earlier that "This photo was excessively sharpened to
accent the water pattern to the right. Blame me if you don't like it,
because I taught them Photoshop processing techniques."

Ta for the comments.

Dave and Cleary do not have access to newsgroups, btw, so I will
copy/past and forward to them.


I've somehow missed that. I wasn't making a complaint so much as a
constructive criticism. I wasn't complaining about the sharpening in
general so much as saying that I thought to much of it may have been
applied to the spray. It didn't look quite natural but the waves still
did.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #17  
Old July 22nd 12, 05:16 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default [SI] Pairs etc - Eric Stevens comments

On 2012-07-21 16:18:52 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 17:31:54 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

Oops! Somehow part of this article has been sent off already. Never
mind, there is more.

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/pairs_triplets_

When this topic was first mooted someone made a remark which made me
think of reflections, images mirrored in the computer etc. From that
moment I was hooked on reflections and the like and never gave thought
to multiple objects. It's amazing how you can develop a blind spot.




Pairs-Savageduck-01
-----------------------
Technically excellent, as always. The three power plant stacks make a
magnificent shot but I found the clutter of masts and overhead gear
(Tell me, can birds fly through all these?) detracted from the three
piles in the foreground. In fact, to be honest, I found the clutter so
bad that the first time around I missed the three piles in the
foreground until somebody else pointed them out. Could you have
emulated your cousin Donald and run out into midair to take a
portrait-view photograph from further to the left. This would have cut
out all the clutter in the foreground. If you can do this please give
me warning so I can turn up with my camera.


MG made a similar comment, I just selected the one submitted. Among the
shots I took that day was this one;
http://db.tt/6xmaMQR6


Pairs-Savageduck-02
------------------------
Very similar boats, very similar names (both beginning with 'L'),
almost identical anchor winches: there is not much doubt that these
boats qualify as a near-enough pair. But, somehow, the picture seems a
little crowded.


It's a pair of working fishing boats, tied up at a working dock. They
didn't have time to tidy up for me.

Pairs-Savageduck-03
------------------------
Four of a kind but, again, it feels too crowded to me.


Crowded? It seems positively minimalist to me. Unless four kayaks too
many for you.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #18  
Old July 22nd 12, 06:05 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default [SI] Pairs etc - Eric Stevens comments

On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 23:09:54 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 14:51:39 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 19:39:17 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

PAIRS_Wave Pattern_DaveC
--------------------------------
I love the texture in the waves but the appearance of the spray makes
me wonder whether or not it has been slightly oversharpened?

Dave and his wife, Cleary (my daughter), share one camera (Nikon D40).
I stated earlier that "This photo was excessively sharpened to
accent the water pattern to the right. Blame me if you don't like it,
because I taught them Photoshop processing techniques."

Ta for the comments.

Dave and Cleary do not have access to newsgroups, btw, so I will
copy/past and forward to them.


I've somehow missed that. I wasn't making a complaint so much as a
constructive criticism. I wasn't complaining about the sharpening in
general so much as saying that I thought to much of it may have been
applied to the spray. It didn't look quite natural but the waves still
did.


No worries, mate.

Hey...critique or criticism or constructive criticism...it's all the
same, and all acceptable and welcome. I wouldn't have gone along with
my daughter and son-in-law submitting images here if they weren't
aware that all images are subject to both praise and pans and all in
between.

I don't think a comment about over-sharpening, in this case, is a
complaint. In processing, we often go for particular effect. Not
everyone sees that effect as complimentary. Be pretty dull if they
would, wouldn't it?


This is the first time I have ever commented on an [SI] and I have
found it to be surprisingly beneficial to my own thinking. Everyone
should try it (but not all at once).
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #19  
Old July 22nd 12, 06:08 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default [SI] Pairs etc - Eric Stevens comments

On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 21:16:12 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-07-21 16:18:52 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 17:31:54 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

Oops! Somehow part of this article has been sent off already. Never
mind, there is more.

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/pairs_triplets_

When this topic was first mooted someone made a remark which made me
think of reflections, images mirrored in the computer etc. From that
moment I was hooked on reflections and the like and never gave thought
to multiple objects. It's amazing how you can develop a blind spot.




Pairs-Savageduck-01
-----------------------
Technically excellent, as always. The three power plant stacks make a
magnificent shot but I found the clutter of masts and overhead gear
(Tell me, can birds fly through all these?) detracted from the three
piles in the foreground. In fact, to be honest, I found the clutter so
bad that the first time around I missed the three piles in the
foreground until somebody else pointed them out. Could you have
emulated your cousin Donald and run out into midair to take a
portrait-view photograph from further to the left. This would have cut
out all the clutter in the foreground. If you can do this please give
me warning so I can turn up with my camera.


MG made a similar comment, I just selected the one submitted. Among the
shots I took that day was this one;
http://db.tt/6xmaMQR6


You were still not out in midair. :-(


Pairs-Savageduck-02
------------------------
Very similar boats, very similar names (both beginning with 'L'),
almost identical anchor winches: there is not much doubt that these
boats qualify as a near-enough pair. But, somehow, the picture seems a
little crowded.


It's a pair of working fishing boats, tied up at a working dock. They
didn't have time to tidy up for me.

Pairs-Savageduck-03
------------------------
Four of a kind but, again, it feels too crowded to me.


Crowded? It seems positively minimalist to me. Unless four kayaks too
many for you.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #20  
Old July 22nd 12, 06:24 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default [SI] Pairs etc - Eric Stevens comments

On 2012-07-21 12:57:53 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 2012-07-21 12:59 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-07-21 09:13:34 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 2012-07-21 11:21 , tony cooper wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 10:55:51 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

In that sense, the window frame should have been cropped out at the
time
the photo was composed. As is, it cannot be cropped without cutting
into the chair. (Maybe I'll try a content-aware edit in CS5).

That really isn't necessary:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/shwubema97m6dyo/Browne.jpg

I selected some lower boards with the rectangular marquee, copied,
pasted, and moved the pasted part up over window corner. I did a
little bit of cloning and blurring to make the new section blend in
and not repeat the pattern of the copied section. A repair made in
just a couple of minutes.

With content aware edition, this took less than 10 seconds from
opening the file, selecting the area and applying content-aware-editing:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tj51axzinp...6SMLCAEDIT.jpg



Original:

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/143800474

It's

clear that content aware editing is very complex - since it
failed to do a good job here on a simple task. ;-).

I'll play with it more later.


Content aware fill just gives you a starting point.
Now duplicat the layer and go to filters-."Vanishing Point". Mark out a
perspective area using the siding lines as a guide, the expand the area
by pulling the middle top handle up, and the middle left handle to the
let, both beyond the canvas.
Next use the in-filter clone tool (adjust size using "[" "]") to cover
the bad content aware fill. Once done close out the vanishing point
filter and touch up. The fix result will be better.
http://db.tt/vDJbBHAy


Pretty good. There's a slight mis-alignment.


It could be done better. Just a quick & dirty fix, but more of a
reminder that there is a tool we forget about, The "Vanishing Point"
filter.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.