Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only

On 2012.09.03 12:53 , -hh wrote:

Source material:

http://huntzinger.com/photo/2005/germany/baseline-4.jpg
http://huntzinger.com/photo/2005/germany/baseline-5.jpg

That is not "source material" that is pixilated crap. Actually those
photos give crap a bad name.

Fix it.

No. It's crap. Well, not even that good.

Provide the original 100% crops w/o JPG artifacts. Or the original
camera files (taken in a reasonable quality mode), or original raw files.

The stuff above isn't worth my time or anyone else's.

--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.

On 2012.09.03 16:02 , -hh wrote:
On Sep 3, 2:02 pm, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-09-03 09:53:39 -0700, -hh said:

Le Snip

Here's a practical exercise for you then:

Source material:

http://huntzinger.com/photo/2005/germany/baseline-4.jpg
http://huntzinger.com/photo/2005/germany/baseline-5.jpg

Fix it.



Here's the interpretation that I did many moons ago; mostly it is just
brighter on the stone tower; the less pixelation is (obviously)
because I was working from the full sized originals and down-sizing
was my last step:

http://huntzinger.com/photo/2005/ger...)m+20_b+20.jpg

Yeah, odd that you ask us to "fix" pixelated crap samples but you
present what you made from originals.

--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.

On 2012.09.03 18:41 , -hh wrote:
On Sep 3, 6:23 pm, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
-hh wrote:
http://huntzinger.com/photo/2005/ger...)m+20_b+20.jpg

Giggle snort.

With the full sized original you couldn't do any better than that?

Probably, but I've not revisited it yet. What I've been showing was
originally taken with a 2003 vintage Canon A80 Powershot (4MP) and the
post-processing was done way back in 2005 ... seven (7) years ago.

Regardless. Giving us your crappy pixelated "source material" (your
words) but then your results comes from originals is pretty shallow.


--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.

On Sep 3, 7:58*pm, Alan Browne
wrote:
On 2012.09.03 16:02 , -hh wrote:









On Sep 3, 2:02 pm, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-09-03 09:53:39 -0700, -hh said:

Le Snip

Here's a practical exercise for you then:

Source material:

http://huntzinger.com/photo/2005/germany/baseline-4.jpg
http://huntzinger.com/photo/2005/germany/baseline-5.jpg

Fix it.

Here's the interpretation that I did many moons ago; mostly it is just
brighter on the stone tower; the less pixelation is (obviously)
because I was working from the full sized originals and down-sizing
was my last step:

http://huntzinger.com/photo/2005/ger...)m+20_b+20.jpg

Yeah, odd that you ask us to "fix" pixelated crap samples but you
present what you made from originals.

And pixelation has to do with adjusting dynamic range ... how?

Oh right: it doesn't.

This learning opportunity wasn't about pixelation or jpg artifacts.


-hh

On Sep 3, 7:56*pm, Alan Browne
wrote:
On 2012.09.03 12:53 , -hh wrote:

Source material:

http://huntzinger.com/photo/2005/germany/baseline-4.jpg
http://huntzinger.com/photo/2005/germany/baseline-5.jpg

That is not "source material" that is pixilated crap. *Actually those
photos give crap a bad name.

Fix it.

No. *It's crap. *Well, not even that good.

Indeed, by today's standards, it isn't particularly noteworthy, but it
is online to serve as an example of compensating for the hardware
limitations of dynamic range. From this perspective, it is a
perfectly fine example to work from, and its small file size means
minimal bandwidth & CPU processing time - - particularly in the
context of what PC hardware was like 7 years ago when this was first
put online.


Provide the original 100% crops w/o JPG artifacts. *Or the original
camera files (taken in a reasonable quality mode), or original raw files.

Sorry, but the originals are jpegs.


The stuff above isn't worth my time or anyone else's.

Translation: Alan couldn't fix the dynamic range problem, so he
contrives other reasons to complain.

So just what image manipulation tool should be put down in the "Failed
to Accomplish" column?


-hh

On Sep 3, 8:00*pm, Alan Browne
wrote:
On 2012.09.03 18:41 , -hh wrote:

On Sep 3, 6:23 pm, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
-hh wrote:
http://huntzinger.com/photo/2005/ger...)m+20_b+20.jpg

Giggle snort.

With the full sized original you couldn't do any better than that?

Probably, but I've not revisited it yet. *What I've been showing was
originally taken with a 2003 vintage Canon A80 Powershot (4MP) and the
post-processing was done way back in 2005 ... seven (7) years ago.

Regardless. *Giving us your crappy pixelated "source material" (your
words) but then your results comes from originals is pretty shallow.

You've already made the same complaint three times Alan. The bottom
line is that this exercise isn't about pixelation. It is about
addressing the medium's limitations of dynamic range.

If a post-processing exercise happens to have become pixelated isn't
important: what's important is if the dynamic range issue could be
addressed.

And FYI, this isn't the first time that I've used these images as a
learning opportunity...here's an example from another contributor from
December 2005:

http://huntzinger.com/photo/2005/germany/mm_retouch.png

Golly, no pixelation in Matt's image, even though he was working from
the very same originals(!!!). So why is that, Alan? I'm no expert,
but perhaps some of the more recent endeavors aren't really being
caused by JPG artifacts inasmuch as they're due to being oversharpened
first?


-hh

On Sep 3, 8:14*pm, tony cooper wrote:
On Mon, 3 Sep 2012 15:35:36 -0700 (PDT), -hh

wrote:
On Sep 3, 6:15*pm, tony cooper wrote:
...

Here's all of the post-processing interpretations so far, with the 3
submissions along the top, mine bottom right, and the originals being
the two bottom left & center:

http://huntzinger.com/photo/2005/ger...pretations.jpg

-hh

Why do you have this as something "tony cooper...wrote"? *I didn't do
a interpretation.

Just to give you the opportunity to bitch and complain, Tony :-)


-hh

On 2012-09-03 17:18:49 -0700, -hh said:

On Sep 3, 8:00*pm, Alan Browne
wrote:
On 2012.09.03 18:41 , -hh wrote:

On Sep 3, 6:23 pm, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
-hh wrote:
http://huntzinger.com/photo/2005/ger...)m+20_b+20.jpg

Giggle snort.

With the full sized original you couldn't do any better than that?

Probably, but I've not revisited it yet. *What I've been showing was
originally taken with a 2003 vintage Canon A80 Powershot (4MP) and the
post-processing was done way back in 2005 ... seven (7) years ago.

Regardless. *Giving us your crappy pixelated "source material" (your
words) but then your results comes from originals is pretty shallow.

You've already made the same complaint three times Alan. The bottom
line is that this exercise isn't about pixelation. It is about
addressing the medium's limitations of dynamic range.

If a post-processing exercise happens to have become pixelated isn't
important: what's important is if the dynamic range issue could be
addressed.

And FYI, this isn't the first time that I've used these images as a
learning opportunity...here's an example from another contributor from
December 2005:

http://huntzinger.com/photo/2005/germany/mm_retouch.png

Golly, no pixelation in Matt's image, even though he was working from
the very same originals(!!!). So why is that, Alan? I'm no expert,
but perhaps some of the more recent endeavors aren't really being
caused by JPG artifacts inasmuch as they're due to being oversharpened
first?


-hh

I think you are being a little disingenuous here. You have supplied
files which have issues beyond dynamic range problems, not the least of
which are pixelation and artifacts introduced prior to any of us
getting them.

Without any sharpening on my part, I see the pixelation & artifacts in
the damaged files yo shared, so the over sharpening might or might not
lie with you, but I believe they are due to the over compression and
low quality you have given us to work with, and that is certainly a
distraction when trying to fix an image.

You are telling us that Matt worked from the same originals you offered
us, not your originals. If that is so, he has made a pretty good fix.

It should be simple enough for you to post the unmolested originals via
DB, then let's see what can be done without a stacked deck.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

-hh wrote:
On Sep 3, 8:00*pm, Alan Browne
wrote:
On 2012.09.03 18:41 , -hh wrote:

On Sep 3, 6:23 pm, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
-hh wrote:
http://huntzinger.com/photo/2005/ger...)m+20_b+20.jpg

Giggle snort.

With the full sized original you couldn't do any better than that?

Probably, but I've not revisited it yet. *What I've been showing was
originally taken with a 2003 vintage Canon A80 Powershot (4MP) and the
post-processing was done way back in 2005 ... seven (7) years ago.

Regardless. *Giving us your crappy pixelated "source material" (your
words) but then your results comes from originals is pretty shallow.

You've already made the same complaint three times Alan. The bottom
line is that this exercise isn't about pixelation. It is about
addressing the medium's limitations of dynamic range.

But when you provide a pixelated image to work on
pixelation automatically becomes part of the exercise.
Nobody should (though we might note that some did)
ignore the pixelation during editing. Making it worse
is not acceptable.

Regardless it is a bit ridiculous to now say this or
that was or was not what the exercise was
about... because when you presented it that was *not*
part of the specification. The only one who knew you
were concerned with limited dynamic range was *you*!

If a post-processing exercise happens to have become pixelated isn't
important: what's important is if the dynamic range issue could be
addressed.

Bull pucky. If your "fix" causes unacceptable
pixelation, it's not a fix.

Again, nobody had a clue that you wanted to address
dynamic range.

And FYI, this isn't the first time that I've used these images as a
learning opportunity...here's an example from another contributor from
December 2005:

http://huntzinger.com/photo/2005/germany/mm_retouch.png

Golly, no pixelation in Matt's image, even though he was working from
the very same originals(!!!). So why is that, Alan? I'm no expert,
but perhaps some of the more recent endeavors aren't really being
caused by JPG artifacts inasmuch as they're due to being oversharpened
first?

Same problem as your image too, he blurred it to the
point where there is no detail. The pixelation is gone,
but so is anything interesting about the sky, the
horizon or the forest.

Well, it's also very apparent that a number of our
"experts" are in need of some practice in using
selections to work with different parts of an image when
applying sharpening, or brightness and contrast, etc
etc.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

sid wrote:
This just took about 15 mins of my life that I'll never get back

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/92601884/5-sid.jpg

Well well, another not too bad edit that is vastly
better than *either* of the two that -hh has posted (has
and someone else's from years ago).

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)