Cat's eye

On Jul 28, 8:54 pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:

What was painted in?

You tell us? Let's see the RAW image and you'll be able to explain it a
little better.

Rita


As the late, great Richard Pryor would say, "I ain't got to show you
****!'

But, in the interest of fairness and making you look like a dumbass
here is the RAW file:
http://members.aol.com/annika1980/_IMG_8227.cr2

Now maybe you can explain what it is that I supposedly "painted in?"

Annika1980 wrote:

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

What was painted in?

You tell us? Let's see the RAW image and you'll be able to explain it a
little better.

As the late, great Richard Pryor would say, "I ain't got to show you
****!'

But, in the interest of fairness and making you look like a dumbass
here is the RAW file:
http://members.aol.com/annika1980/_IMG_8227.cr2

Now maybe you can explain what it is that I supposedly "painted in?"

The other one looked more smeary from noise reduction but here's my
quick stab at analyzing it: http://edgehill.net/temp/bret
The first one is yours, the third was my attempt to match (too much
shadows, wrong WB with CS1 max noise reduction, much increased
contrast), the middle one is default ACR settings, both of my versions
were reduced 71% with USM radius 0.3 & 150%

My attempt still has significantly more noise, the default still has a
bit more detail. I know you sometimes use a technique that I sometimes
use: 2 layers, one noise reduced & mask out the detailed part to give a
smooth as butter background, I can see the noise around the lower
whiskers where I suspect you used this technique.

Overall your version looks real good, I wasn't able to easily match it!
Consider it a compliment that I went to the trouble. Thanks for the
opportunity to examine it.

You can click my versions for un-resharpened full pixel crops or go
he http://edgehill.net/temp/bret/crop to compare.

--
Paul Furman Photography
http://edgehill.net
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com vehemently accused in
:

Annika1980 wrote:

OK, here's two I took today:

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/82972561/original
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/82972558

Oh wait, you said "cat" not "rat."

Damn, Boy! You got these so over-Photoshopped that they look
like cartoon animations. I'm sorry to say it, but the quality
of your images is really regressing, which is a disappointment
to me. Start doing it proper in-camera and you will find you
need Photoshop less.






Rita


I'm with Rita on this one: the "original" size images look like you
put a bath-shower-glass filter between you and the rodent. Kind of
looks like one of the PS "artistic" filters, maybe a la Monet?

Is that a result of downsizing then upsizing?

Willa
--
http://www.pbase.com/willarojo

“I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to
live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad.”
Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

“We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph line from
Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing
important to communicate.”
Thoreau, Walden
******
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

Paul Furman wrote:

Overall your version looks real good, I wasn't able to easily match
it! Consider it a compliment that I went to the trouble. Thanks for
the opportunity to examine it.

I must say that your version looks a lot better to me even though you are
sadly getting close to what Bret did. I would skip the aggressive attempts
to reduce noise and work that image with curves. Noise really isn't as
evil as people make it out to be and can work in your favor. Bret's anal
fixation with Photoshop is what is ruining a perfectly good image.

I added a fourth version without trying to match anybody, starting with
the default raw conversion, and as you suggest with curves masked to
retain the nice green background) though I probably would have done more
in the raw conversion than with curves, CS3 has curves in the raw
converter, I'm on CS1. Then I de-noised the background & masked that out
with a very fine eraser on the whiskers, I got sloppy on the bottom
whiskers too so you can see them with a cloud of grit.

Bret did go a little heavy on contrast but not bad at all. Send me your
version & I'll post it cropped to match for comparison.

--
Paul Furman Photography
http://edgehill.net
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:

OK, here's two I took today:

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/82972561/original
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/82972558

Oh wait, you said "cat" not "rat."

Damn, Boy! You got these so over-Photoshopped that they look like
cartoon animations. I'm sorry to say it, but the quality of your images
is really regressing, which is a disappointment to me. Start doing it
proper in-camera and you will find you need Photoshop less.


What? Bret learn to use a camera? Pah!

;-)

wrote:
On Jul 28, 8:54 pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:
wrote:
As far as
being Bret, well figgy has put up my IP address so many times for
everyone to see....................isn't that proof enough of who I am
and where I come from?
I really don't care. The issue is you are getting equally gushy about
images that are great and ones that are pure Photoshopped crap. This leads
me to believe your bias towards Bret is so much that you wear blinders. No
biggy, just be honest with yourself and all will become apparent.

Rita


But I honestly believe he is the best
nature and wildlife photographer.

have another look at the OP and compare...

Paul Furman wrote:

The first one is yours, the third was my attempt to match (too much
shadows, wrong WB with CS1 max noise reduction, much increased
contrast), the middle one is default ACR settings, both of my versions
were reduced 71% with USM radius 0.3 & 150%



Number 2 was by far the best and most natural photo. The others, particularly
numbers 1 and 3 looked crap.

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

Noise really isn't as
evil
as people make it out to be and can work in your favor.

Especially when it appears monochrome as in some manufacturer's products.

On Jul 28, 8:56 am, Alan Browne
wrote:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?p...402894&size=lg

Go fer it Bret.

OK, here's my latest cat's eye pic.
I even made it artsy-fartsy just for you.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/83233492/original

Annika1980 wrote:
On Jul 28, 8:56 am, Alan Browne
wrote:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?p...402894&size=lg

Go fer it Bret.

OK, here's my latest cat's eye pic.
I even made it artsy-fartsy just for you.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/83233492/original

;-)

Sure beats the crap out of
http://www.pbase.com/paris_polson/examples

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.