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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
This morning
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150614_9309%20owl.jpg
Helpful comments appreciated. -- PeterN |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
This morning
PeterN wrote:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150614_9309%20owl.jpg Helpful comments appreciated. Wow! How nice. Don't have any comments. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
This morning
On 2015-06-14 22:03:17 +0000, PeterN said:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150614_9309%20owl.jpg Helpful comments appreciated. First, this s a great capture!! Nicely done. I see nothing unusual in the EXIF data other than the flash firing. What flash did you use? I believe all of my issues with this image lie with post processing and what are artifacts introduced by either by over-sharpening, or issues related to cropping and resizing. I suspect that you cropped to your presentation size, or resized after the crop. There is introduced noise in the irises and the tips of the feathers which look over-sharpened especially around the eyes and beak. I think you might have had a more satisfying result with a different treatment. I think you can guess my next request. ;-) -- Regards, Savageduck |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
This morning
In article ,
RichA wrote: On Sunday, 14 June 2015 18:01:44 UTC-4, peterN wrote: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150614_9309%20owl.jpg Helpful comments appreciated. It's a close-up of a white owl, but on my screen (set for HD) the detail seems to be made up of little dots. The sharp edges seem to have a granular sharpening artifact and there is no real detail in the feathers, the eyes, etc. It's almost like the view you get when you use focus peaking in an EVF. that's because it's oversharpened, which is what focus peaking does. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
This morning
| I believe all of my issues with this image lie with post processing and
| what are artifacts introduced by either by over-sharpening Interestingly, the thumbnail, still the original, is actually nice and clear. Perhaps not quite as sharply defined as one might like -- it's hard to tell with such a small image -- but I guess sharp definition might be difficult. It's like taking a picture of a snow drift. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
This morning
On 6/14/15 PDT 5:45 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| I believe all of my issues with this image lie with post processing and | what are artifacts introduced by either by over-sharpening Interestingly, the thumbnail, still the original, is actually nice and clear. Perhaps not quite as sharply defined as one might like -- it's hard to tell with such a small image -- but I guess sharp definition might be difficult. It's like taking a picture of a snow drift. Thumbnail? Did not see one. The link posted took me straight to a normal websized image. Agree with Duck that there may be artifacting due to sharpening or resizing. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
This morning
On 2015-06-15 03:16:30 +0000, John McWilliams said:
On 6/14/15 PDT 5:45 PM, Mayayana wrote: | I believe all of my issues with this image lie with post processing and | what are artifacts introduced by either by over-sharpening Interestingly, the thumbnail, still the original, is actually nice and clear. Perhaps not quite as sharply defined as one might like -- it's hard to tell with such a small image -- but I guess sharp definition might be difficult. It's like taking a picture of a snow drift. Thumbnail? Did not see one. Neither did I. The link posted took me straight to a normal websized image. Yup! Agree with Duck that there may be artifacting due to sharpening or resizing. That is my opinion. I suspect Peter is using one of his personal "artistic" post procressing procedures. It is quite possible to get reasonably defined plumage without artifacts, even from a D300. https://db.tt/69cZXLUi -- Regards, Savageduck |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
This morning
In article , John McWilliams
wrote: Agree with Duck that there may be artifacting due to sharpening or resizing. may? the artifacts were significant. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
This morning
In article , PeterN wrote:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150614_9309%20owl.jpg Helpful comments appreciated. As usual, way too much sharpening. Not sure why you do that, is the original so fuzzy really? Or is it your own eyesight that is making you over-sharpen every image? You shot it at 1/60, f/13 and ISO 1000. You would get the exact same light value with 1/320, f/5.6 and ISO 640, which would help if your hands are unsteady. The 80-400 has image stabilization as well. -- Sandman |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
This morning
On 15/06/2015 8:03 AM, PeterN wrote:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150614_9309%20owl.jpg Helpful comments appreciated. Oversharpened, leading to moiree-like effects with the feathers around the beak and eyes. Other than that, a great shot! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
This Morning in the Park | Savageduck[_3_] | Digital Photography | 22 | April 30th 15 01:49 PM |
this morning | PeterN[_4_] | Digital Photography | 32 | January 5th 14 11:34 AM |
Morning glory | Douglas. | 35mm Photo Equipment | 4 | March 16th 07 08:33 PM |
CHRISTMAS MORNING WITH THE 20D ! | Annika1980 | Digital Photography | 13 | December 31st 06 04:36 PM |
CHRISTMAS MORNING WITH THE 20D ! | Annika1980 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 28 | December 29th 06 05:20 AM |