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
|
|||
|
|||
Thirsty Moth
Two weeks ago I saw this thirsty moth. As usual all constructive
comments are appreciated. The image was saved in medium quality. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150704_Lomgwood_0299.jpg -- PeterN |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Thirsty Moth
On 2015-07-22 02:29:14 +0000, PeterN said:
Two weeks ago I saw this thirsty moth. As usual all constructive comments are appreciated. The image was saved in medium quality. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150704_Lomgwood_0299.jpg Peter, Peter, Peter.... You used the TC-17 didn't you? Then you made the usual severe crop, over-sharpened, and you have left noise which is neither grain nor bokeh. To me it is another fortuitous capture spoilt. I am also a little baffled by the oddity in white under the bulb. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Thirsty Moth
PeterN:
Two weeks ago I saw this thirsty moth. As usual all constructive comments are appreciated. The image was saved in medium quality. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150704_Lomgwood_0299.jpg Here's what it /looks/ like to me. It looks over-sharpened/over-processed. Are you using Photoshop or brand X? Mac or an imitation? It has a lot of noise in the background, maybe from the sharpening. The lower left quadrant has artifacts of some sort. You marred it with a copyright notice in the ROI rather than at an edge. If you don't want it downloaded, don't upload it! Finally, you failed to identify the species. It's Epargyreus clarus, Silver-spotted Skipper http://eol.org/pages/184797/overview. Nice pic, though! -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Thirsty Moth
PeterN wrote:
Two weeks ago I saw this thirsty moth. As usual all constructive comments are appreciated. The image was saved in medium quality. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150704_Lomgwood_0299.jpg Way overworked. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Thirsty Moth
| Here's what it /looks/ like to me. It looks | over-sharpened/over-processed. Are you using Photoshop or brand X? Mac | or an imitation? It's in the EXIF data: Make: NIKON CORPORATION Model: NIKON D800 Softwa Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) But that implies it was taken as JPG. I haven't researched different cameras, but JPGs I see seem to generally show over-compression when viewed at full size. They look great viewed small, but when viewed full size it's clear that a lot of data is already gone in the initial save. So even if this image were not oversharpened, little rectangles would probably still be visible at full size. Isn't the whole idea of saving as JPG outdated? Wasn't that format a poor choice in the first place, due simply to the need to have a universally supported format for casually taken photos? Why would anyone who's actually going to work on the photo not shoot RAW? I'm curious about the opinions of more experienced people about these questions. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Thirsty Moth
In article , Mayayana
wrote: | Here's what it /looks/ like to me. It looks | over-sharpened/over-processed. Are you using Photoshop or brand X? Mac | or an imitation? It's in the EXIF data: Make: NIKON CORPORATION Model: NIKON D800 Softwa Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) But that implies it was taken as JPG. no it doesn't. the exif data is preserved when editing. I haven't researched different cameras, but JPGs I see seem to generally show over-compression when viewed at full size. They look great viewed small, but when viewed full size it's clear that a lot of data is already gone in the initial save. So even if this image were not oversharpened, little rectangles would probably still be visible at full size. only if it's a low quality jpeg. Isn't the whole idea of saving as JPG outdated? of course not. where did you get that ridiculous idea? Wasn't that format a poor choice in the first place, due simply to the need to have a universally supported format for casually taken photos? Why would anyone who's actually going to work on the photo not shoot RAW? they would shoot raw, however, they still need to convert it to a jpeg to post the image. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Thirsty Moth
| But that implies it was taken as JPG. | | no it doesn't. | the exif data is preserved when editing. So RAW contains EXIF data? I didn't know that. Personally I always save anything as TIFF or BMP until such time as I need to transfer a small file for online use. I don't pay much attention to EXIF data. So it hadn't occurred to me that RAW may embed EXIF data. So... you have EXIF data in all of your images, and RAW contains EXIF data? Do you take most images in RAW and save them that way until posting them online or printing? | I haven't | researched different cameras, but JPGs I see | seem to generally show over-compression when | viewed at full size. They look great viewed small, | but when viewed full size it's clear that a lot of | data is already gone in the initial save. So even if | this image were not oversharpened, little rectangles | would probably still be visible at full size. | | only if it's a low quality jpeg. | | Isn't the whole idea of saving as JPG outdated? | | of course not. Because JPG is by definition low quality. At the time cameras were coming out PNG was not widely supported, and PNG doesn't compress as well. JPG was/is supported on all major OSs. JPG was really designed to optimize file size with "tolerable" loss of quality. Great for the Web, but questionable for photographs. I got thinking about this last week because I was testing out some image resizing code and had some test images. They were not top quality, but they're pretty good: Panasonic DMC-ZS25 4608x3456 at just under 6 MB each. I expect they'd look fine printed as postcard size, but when zooming in, and in some cases at normal size viewing, I can see rectangles. I doubt that any camera taking JPGs saves the images with no loss at all. I'm not sure it's even possible to save a JPG with zero loss, even at the "100" quality level. (Though I'm not certain about that.) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Thirsty Moth
On 2015-07-22 13:44:54 +0000, "Mayayana" said:
| But that implies it was taken as JPG. | | no it doesn't. | the exif data is preserved when editing. So RAW contains EXIF data? I didn't know that. If RAW didn't have EXIF and other metadata, where did you think it magically came from? Personally I always save anything as TIFF or BMP until such time as I need to transfer a small file for online use. I don't pay much attention to EXIF data. So it hadn't occurred to me that RAW may embed EXIF data. Why BMP? So... you have EXIF data in all of your images, and RAW contains EXIF data? Do you take most images in RAW and save them that way until posting them online or printing? All my shooting is RAW, and occasionalty RAW+JPEG. Since my workflow is Lightroom+ Photoshop I have no need to print from JPEG, and so I don't have to concern myself with compression artifacts in the prints. For posting online I export to JPEG from Lightroom. | I haven't | researched different cameras, but JPGs I see | seem to generally show over-compression when | viewed at full size. They look great viewed small, | but when viewed full size it's clear that a lot of | data is already gone in the initial save. So even if | this image were not oversharpened, little rectangles | would probably still be visible at full size. | | only if it's a low quality jpeg. | | Isn't the whole idea of saving as JPG outdated? | | of course not. Because JPG is by definition low quality. At the time cameras were coming out PNG was not widely supported, and PNG doesn't compress as well. JPG was/is supported on all major OSs. JPG was really designed to optimize file size with "tolerable" loss of quality. Great for the Web, but questionable for photographs. I got thinking about this last week because I was testing out some image resizing code and had some test images. They were not top quality, but they're pretty good: I make any critical resizing to ACR/Lightroom processed RAW in PS, or with On1 Perfect Resize. All JPEGs for online posting are resized via the Lightroom export dialog. The result for me is, I don't have any JPEGs saved in Lightroom, they are only found in Dropbox, Adobe Creative Cloud, and my archives for those two cloud services. Panasonic DMC-ZS25 4608x3456 at just under 6 MB each. I expect they'd look fine printed as postcard size, but when zooming in, and in some cases at normal size viewing, I can see rectangles. I doubt that any camera taking JPGs saves the images with no loss at all. I'm not sure it's even possible to save a JPG with zero loss, even at the "100" quality level. (Though I'm not certain about that.) -- Regards, Savageduck |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Thirsty Moth
In article , Mayayana
wrote: | But that implies it was taken as JPG. | | no it doesn't. | the exif data is preserved when editing. So RAW contains EXIF data? I didn't know that. of course it does. anything coming out of a camera contains exif data (unless it's a super-****ty camera). Personally I always save anything as TIFF or BMP until such time as I need to transfer a small file for online use. I don't pay much attention to EXIF data. So it hadn't occurred to me that RAW may embed EXIF data. why would anyone use bmp? So... you have EXIF data in all of your images, and RAW contains EXIF data? Do you take most images in RAW and save them that way until posting them online or printing? i shoot raw but others might not. posting obviously must be jpg but for printing, they're directly printed from raw. there's nothing wrong with shooting jpeg, especially if the images are going to not be processed all that much. for example, ebay photos. | Isn't the whole idea of saving as JPG outdated? | | of course not. Because JPG is by definition low quality. no it isn't. high quality jpeg is indistinguishable from the original. At the time cameras were coming out PNG was not widely supported, and PNG doesn't compress as well. png still doesn't compress well. JPG was/is supported on all major OSs. JPG was really designed to optimize file size with "tolerable" loss of quality. Great for the Web, but questionable for photographs. nonsense. jpeg is *designed* for photographs. what do you think the second letter represents? where jpeg doesn't work well are synthetic images, such as computer generated graphics. I got thinking about this last week because I was testing out some image resizing code and had some test images. They were not top quality, but they're pretty good: Panasonic DMC-ZS25 4608x3456 at just under 6 MB each. I expect they'd look fine printed as postcard size, but when zooming in, and in some cases at normal size viewing, I can see rectangles. then set the quality higher. I doubt that any camera taking JPGs saves the images with no loss at all. I'm not sure it's even possible to save a JPG with zero loss, even at the "100" quality level. (Though I'm not certain about that.) it's close enough to 0 to where it is not noticeable (assuming you choose the highest quality). |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Thirsty Moth
On 7/21/2015 10:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-07-22 02:29:14 +0000, PeterN said: Two weeks ago I saw this thirsty moth. As usual all constructive comments are appreciated. The image was saved in medium quality. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150704_Lomgwood_0299.jpg Peter, Peter, Peter.... You used the TC-17 didn't you? Yep! Then you made the usual severe crop, over-sharpened, and you have left noise which is neither grain nor bokeh. A serious, but not severe crop. Oversharpen, yes, I see that now that you point it out. To me it is another fortuitous capture spoilt. I already see some corrections I have to make. I am also a little baffled by the oddity in white under the bulb. That is a rainwater drop, that I messed up. thanks for your comments. -- PeterN |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Super Zoom's Moth | Dudley Hanks[_4_] | Digital Photography | 1 | November 18th 10 01:40 AM |
Just a pretty moth | Nervous Nick | Digital Photography | 2 | April 5th 07 08:14 AM |
What type of moth? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 8 | May 30th 06 05:51 PM |