The big cat is coming to get you!

Richard Neilsen wrote:
I dont believe that the eyes have been manipulated in any way, I am
just saying that that is what a cats eyes would look like if a photo
was taken that close up with a flash, hense the way they reflect in
the dark.

I wasn't referring to the reflection effect from the pupil. I was referring
to the severely over-sharpened look everywhere else.

My other point is, why is everyone so negative against this guy? I
would be inclined to think it is tall poppy syndrome myself.

There is a long history here. I would have the same reaction as you, were
it not for having witnessed Douglas' antics over several years.


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Nice one - personally I'd have cropped a little less (assuming it is
cropped), so as to get the mouth in. That part just doesn't quite look right
to me, but that's just my personal opinion - perhaps she had a big slobbery
tongue, in which case chopping that out is probably good.
Perhaps you could title it in the theme of "Are you being served" -
something along the lines of "has anyone seen my pussy?" - sorry, I've
watched too much pommy comedy.

"D-Mac" wrote in message
...
Ha, ha ha.... Her name is rastus. She's 16years old and my constant
companion. She loves nothing more than a feed of fresh whiting... When the
Pelican doesn't get it first!

http://www.annika1980.com/D-Macs/cat.htm

Douglas

"Graham Fountain" wrote in message
...
Nice one - personally I'd have cropped a little less (assuming it is
cropped), so as to get the mouth in. That part just doesn't quite look
right to me, but that's just my personal opinion - perhaps she had a big
slobbery tongue, in which case chopping that out is probably good.
I will add, it does look oversharpened - at first I thought it was just
over-cropping, so I let that slide, but after reading the rest of the
responses, yes it does look a little oversharp to me - if as you say though,
it was from a very old p&s digicam (presumably low MP), then a lot of that
could have been from the camera. I think i'd like to see a version that
hasn't been sharpened in photoshop - pretty sure that would be better. But
otherwise, I think it is a nice shot. I'm curious about what you did about
lighting - i haven't managed to get decent pussy photos - on camera flash
gives the dreaded green-eye, and they don't stay in the same place long
enough to set up other lighting. Handheld off camera flash perhaps?
Perhaps you could title it in the theme of "Are you being served" -
something along the lines of "has anyone seen my pussy?" - sorry, I've
watched too much pommy comedy.

"D-Mac" wrote in message
...
Ha, ha ha.... Her name is rastus. She's 16years old and my constant
companion. She loves nothing more than a feed of fresh whiting... When
the
Pelican doesn't get it first!

http://www.annika1980.com/D-Macs/cat.htm

Douglas

D-Mac wrote:
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...
D-Mac wrote:
Ha, ha ha.... Her name is rastus. She's 16years old and my constant
companion. She loves nothing more than a feed of fresh whiting...
When the Pelican doesn't get it first!

http://www.annika1980.com/D-Macs/cat.htm

Douglas

What's with the crinkled green tin-foil you crammed into that poor
cat's eyes??? What, did you freeze this poor cat's iris until it
crystalized???

Your image-editing "choices" never cease to amaze...

When doing editing of this kind, it's always wise to occasionally
refer back to the original image as you make changes, since it's
otherwise too easy to morph the image into an utterly destroyed,
fake-looking chunk of goo...like this cat's eyes look.

The cat photo is as shot, cropped to about 90% of original size and
sharpened with 200% or unsharp mask at 0.2 radius. Not a single
alteration to the eyes or any other part of the image. Don't you
understand about UV light and cat's eyes in the dark? Man, don't do
this. You are starting to look as idiotic as Bret Hogan.

Who was referring to the glow from the pupil? Not me. I'm talking about
everything other than that. Here's an enlargement from www.annika1980.com:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/75512024/original
(Bret didn't seem to mind if I borrowed a portion of this image for
reference purposes)
Now put your glasses on...put down the tequilla, and tell me this looks like
an accurate rendering of cat's fur...cat's iris...or a cat's nose flesh. I
have yet to meet a kitty who is made out of crystalized clay.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
: On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 00:01:58 GMT, "D-Mac"
: wrote:
:
:
: I'm sure you're not interested in my opinion, but I give that shot
: 9/10 for the composition, which is very effective (plus, I like cats),
: but only 2/10 for the sharpening, which is too heavy-handed for the
: resolution you've posted it at, & the tone curve, which is a bit
: 'toppy', making it look a bit flat & washed out. That's a shame,
: because other than that, it's a very nice photo.
:
Sharpening is subjective. My printers can handle massive sharpening while
computer images very little. I use a sharpening layer in the form of an
action I have for PS. I can fine tune it much neater than with the
sharpening tool of PS... For printing.

I'm a babe in the woods as far as computer images for display on the
Internet are concerned. No money from them, you see?

Douglas

Lionel wrote:

Sharpening Tips: It can be very hard to judge how much sharpening to
apply to an image. One way of taking the guesswork out of sharpening
in Photoshop is to zoom right in (200%) to the most detailed part of
the image, sharpen until it starts looking unnatural, haloed, then
back the control off a notch or two.
A more advanced trick that's useful for difficult images is to to raw
convert to a 16 bit format (I like ProPhoto), convert to LAB, &
sharpen the same way, but with only the luma channel enabled. This
allows you to sharpen further before getting the unpleasant colour
'jaggies' that occur in over-sharpened RGB images.
I also sometimes 'level' an image in LAB mode, using only the Luma
channel, as it seems to give a more natural looking result than simple
RGB levelling.

I believe the equivalent can be done in RGB by duplicating the layer,
setting it's mode to luminosity & sharpening only that. I often do my
curves adjustment layers that way to avoid overdone saturation, I've
heard of sharpening that way and should experiment with it.

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:59:18 GMT, Paul Furman
wrote:

Lionel wrote:

Sharpening Tips: It can be very hard to judge how much sharpening to
apply to an image. One way of taking the guesswork out of sharpening
in Photoshop is to zoom right in (200%) to the most detailed part of
the image, sharpen until it starts looking unnatural, haloed, then
back the control off a notch or two.

I had a job for about 20 years where I spent a lot of time just adjusting
variables to get them in the best place for the conditions they were
affecting. I used a technique that was as you describe above. Our control
points were measurable, so I would move the control in one direction until
the conditions were noticeably bad, and mark where that position was. Then I
would move the control in the other direction until the conditions were
equally bad, and mark that position. Then I would average the two with my
pocket calculator. (first point + second point) divided by 2, and set the
control at that average position, before going on to the next control. In
this manner, I could get the best conditions per pass with literally dozens
of controls, and, after several interations, achieve a remarkably stable
condition set.

Lionel wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
Lionel wrote:
Sharpening Tips:

I believe the equivalent can be done in RGB by duplicating the layer,
setting it's mode to luminosity & sharpening only that.


I've tried doing that, but I find it much easier to visualise the
sharpening on a monochrome image than on an RGB image.

Ah, OK that makes sense. Might be useful with curves too... throw a
temporary desaturation adjustment layer in to adjust contrast.

I often do my
curves adjustment layers that way to avoid overdone saturation,

Yes, exactly.

I've heard of sharpening that way and should experiment with it.

Do, it's makes for a much cleaner image, IMO.

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
: On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:59:18 GMT, Paul Furman
: wrote:
:
: Lionel wrote:
:

:
: I've tried doing that, but I find it much easier to visualise the
: sharpening on a monochrome image than on an RGB image. That said,
: you've just given me the idea of doing it your way, but channel mixing
: the duplicate layer to monochrome before sharpening. I'll give it a
: try the next time I'm processing a difficult image & see if it helps.
: It's obviously better to switch colour modes as little as possible.
:
: I often do my
: curves adjustment layers that way to avoid overdone saturation,
:
: Yes, exactly.
:
: I've
: heard of sharpening that way and should experiment with it.
:
: Do, it's makes for a much cleaner image, IMO.
:

You could of course use "lab colour" and sharpen only the monochrome part if
the image or individual channels.