Dawn in Foster City with the Panasonic FZ8

http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/10...x/P1040662.JPG
http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/10...c/P1040664.JPG
http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/10...o/P1040666.JPG
http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/10...o/P1040667.JPG

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

John Navas wrote:
http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/10...x/P1040662.JPG

Maybe the rest are better, but I see no sense posting shots like these
at full-res, when they show sharpening halos, lots of (very spotty)
noise in the sky, and NR-obliterated detail in low-contrast areas (eg
in the bottom-right corner, look at the mess above and left of the bin
- some really noisy areas, some areas smoothed unrealistically).

A few tips:
1. Turn off in-camera NR, or whatever you are using.
2. Turn off in-camera sharpening, or whatever you are using...
3. While still at full-res, experiment with NR to get a suitable
result and don't save over the original.
4. Use a layer containing the NR version, and a layer without.
Selectively erase the NR-ed areas where they have damaged detail, eg
the somewhat-dark-but-detailed areas.
5. Reduce to about half size, experiment with algorithms to get best
result - I like Lanczos for most (eg via Irfanview).
6. Very carefully sharpen. In PS I generally settle on around .3 to .
7 of a pixel, 100%, maybe 3-5 levels is about right but ymmv. If you
can see halos, you have gone too far.

If you can't see the halos and squashed detail in that image, I give
up.

Don't get me wrong, it's a nice enough image but you are pushing it
way too far, and your workflow/camera settings are doing it damage.

These issues have been mentioned to you before, I note, not just by
me.

wrote:
John Navas wrote:
http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/10...x/P1040662.JPG

Maybe the rest are better, but I see no sense posting shots like these
at full-res, when they show sharpening halos, lots of (very spotty)
noise in the sky, and NR-obliterated detail in low-contrast areas (eg
in the bottom-right corner, look at the mess above and left of the bin
- some really noisy areas, some areas smoothed unrealistically).

The tree strikes me as a bit too central as well. Nice image when not
viewed close up.

David

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 08:32:22 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote in
:

wrote:
John Navas wrote:
http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/10...x/P1040662.JPG

Maybe the rest are better, but I see no sense posting shots like these
at full-res, when they show sharpening halos, lots of (very spotty)
noise in the sky, and NR-obliterated detail in low-contrast areas (eg
in the bottom-right corner, look at the mess above and left of the bin
- some really noisy areas, some areas smoothed unrealistically).

The tree strikes me as a bit too central as well. Nice image when not
viewed close up.

I rather like the tree image myself -- it's my own favorite of the four.

Feedback on these photos on DPReview was all:
(1) focused on them as photos, rather than technical nitpicking.
(2) complimentary.

With regard to technical nitpicking:

"Any digital image seen at 100% that is either from an in-camera JPG
or from a RAW file which has had USM applied properly by the user
will show halos. One therefore can not use 100% magnification images
to form a reliable conclusion about real-world image quality."
-Michael Reichmann, The Luminous Landscape (luminous-landscape.com)

Mark's determination to just run them down with off-the-mark nitpicking
(much like the person complaining the sign wasn't readable in my image
of Alcatraz despite letters too small to be resolved by any camera at
that focal length and resolution) is part of how and why Mark's earned a
coveted spot in my twit filter.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

John Navas wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 08:32:22 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote in
:

wrote:
John Navas wrote:
http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/10...x/P1040662.JPG
Maybe the rest are better, but I see no sense posting shots like these
at full-res, when they show sharpening halos, lots of (very spotty)
noise in the sky, and NR-obliterated detail in low-contrast areas (eg
in the bottom-right corner, look at the mess above and left of the bin
- some really noisy areas, some areas smoothed unrealistically).
The tree strikes me as a bit too central as well. Nice image when not
viewed close up.

I rather like the tree image myself -- it's my own favorite of the four.

Feedback on these photos on DPReview was all:
(1) focused on them as photos, rather than technical nitpicking.
(2) complimentary.

With regard to technical nitpicking:

"Any digital image seen at 100% that is either from an in-camera JPG
or from a RAW file which has had USM applied properly by the user
will show halos. One therefore can not use 100% magnification images
to form a reliable conclusion about real-world image quality."
-Michael Reichmann, The Luminous Landscape (luminous-landscape.com)

Mark's determination to just run them down with off-the-mark nitpicking
(much like the person complaining the sign wasn't readable in my image
of Alcatraz despite letters too small to be resolved by any camera at
that focal length and resolution) is part of how and why Mark's earned a
coveted spot in my twit filter.


I have to agree. The shot was at ISO 100, and 1/60 second. Not a bad
image for a small camera. One might fault composition. I would have,
at least, tried a shot from about 30 feet to the photographer's right in
order to put the brightest area behind the tree to make a more dramatic
contrast, but I might not have liked the result. Some of the critics
here are more like movie critics, who tend to notice the technical
aspects, and the acting ability of the characters, and the directing, or
special effects, and forget the plot entirely. Many movies that gross
the highest are panned by the critics, but I feel they have worth,
simply because they do what they are intended to do, entertain!
Photography is much like that.

Ron Hunter wrote:
John Navas wrote:

With regard to technical nitpicking:

* *"Any digital image seen at 100% that is either from an in-camera JPG
* *or from a RAW file which has had USM applied properly by the user
* *will show halos. One therefore can not use 100% magnification images
* *to form a reliable conclusion about real-world image quality."
* *-Michael Reichmann, The Luminous Landscape (luminous-landscape.com)

Which since Navas provided 100% images, he only has himself to blame
for then receiving *technical* criticism.


One might fault composition. *

Which was also noted on posts here ... but no suggestions to change
anything were offered at Dpreview.

I would have, at least, tried a shot from about 30 feet to the
photographer's right in order to put the brightest area behind
the tree to make a more dramatic contrast, but I might not
have liked the result. *

The tree was compositionally dead-center, which also suggests trying a
few compositions that use the classical rule of thirds would have been
in order too.


Some of the critics
here are more like movie critics, who tend to notice the technical
aspects, and the acting ability of the characters, and the directing, or
special effects, and forget the plot entirely. *Many movies that gross
the highest are panned by the critics, but I feel they have worth,
simply because they do what they are intended to do, entertain!
Photography is much like that.

Its a shot that will generally gather positive feedback because of its
nice orange colors. However, that's predominantly a "good luck"
aspect of a shot, of being at the right place at the right time. The
meta-question is what do you do from there, specifically if one did a
job worthy of the conditions that you were afforded with, or if you
ended up with something that's merely 'nice' when reduced down to ~20%
and viewed on a webpage.


-hh

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:35:33 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

John Navas wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 08:32:22 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote in
:

wrote:
John Navas wrote:
http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/10...x/P1040662.JPG
Maybe the rest are better, but I see no sense posting shots like these
at full-res, when they show sharpening halos, lots of (very spotty)
noise in the sky, and NR-obliterated detail in low-contrast areas (eg
in the bottom-right corner, look at the mess above and left of the bin
- some really noisy areas, some areas smoothed unrealistically).
The tree strikes me as a bit too central as well. Nice image when not
viewed close up.

I rather like the tree image myself -- it's my own favorite of the four.

Feedback on these photos on DPReview was all:
(1) focused on them as photos, rather than technical nitpicking.
(2) complimentary.

With regard to technical nitpicking:

"Any digital image seen at 100% that is either from an in-camera JPG
or from a RAW file which has had USM applied properly by the user
will show halos. One therefore can not use 100% magnification images
to form a reliable conclusion about real-world image quality."
-Michael Reichmann, The Luminous Landscape (luminous-landscape.com)

Mark's determination to just run them down with off-the-mark nitpicking
(much like the person complaining the sign wasn't readable in my image
of Alcatraz despite letters too small to be resolved by any camera at
that focal length and resolution) is part of how and why Mark's earned a
coveted spot in my twit filter.


I have to agree. The shot was at ISO 100, and 1/60 second. Not a bad
image for a small camera. One might fault composition. I would have,
at least, tried a shot from about 30 feet to the photographer's right in
order to put the brightest area behind the tree to make a more dramatic
contrast, but I might not have liked the result. Some of the critics
here are more like movie critics, who tend to notice the technical
aspects, and the acting ability of the characters, and the directing, or
special effects, and forget the plot entirely. Many movies that gross
the highest are panned by the critics, but I feel they have worth,
simply because they do what they are intended to do, entertain!
Photography is much like that.

Bad composition plus bad techniques do not a great picture make.

In article ,
John Navas wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 08:32:22 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote in
:

wrote:
John Navas wrote:
http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/10...x/P1040662.JPG

Maybe the rest are better, but I see no sense posting shots like these
at full-res, when they show sharpening halos, lots of (very spotty)
noise in the sky, and NR-obliterated detail in low-contrast areas (eg
in the bottom-right corner, look at the mess above and left of the bin
- some really noisy areas, some areas smoothed unrealistically).

The tree strikes me as a bit too central as well. Nice image when not
viewed close up.

I rather like the tree image myself -- it's my own favorite of the four.

Feedback on these photos on DPReview was all:
(1) focused on them as photos, rather than technical nitpicking.
(2) complimentary.

With regard to technical nitpicking:

"Any digital image seen at 100% that is either from an in-camera JPG
or from a RAW file which has had USM applied properly by the user
will show halos. One therefore can not use 100% magnification images
to form a reliable conclusion about real-world image quality."
-Michael Reichmann, The Luminous Landscape (luminous-landscape.com)

Mark's determination to just run them down with off-the-mark nitpicking
(much like the person complaining the sign wasn't readable in my image
of Alcatraz despite letters too small to be resolved by any camera at
that focal length and resolution) is part of how and why Mark's earned a
coveted spot in my twit filter.


Everybody on the internet is a twit.

A properly applied USM never shows a halo. USM is an anti-blur that,
when properly tuned, can exactly correct for a mild and consistent blur.
The only fault remaining is amplified noise. A halo indicates that the
level is too high or the diameter is too large.

As for the photos - The sunrise and tree image is my favorite too but it
is severely damaged. The center of attention is long, thin branches
which have been garbled. You need a better camera or you need to take
photos of trees with fatter branches. Zoom in.

--
I don't read Google's spam. Reply with another service.

On 2008-02-24, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:49:55 GMT, in rec.photo.digital John Navas
wrote:

With regard to technical nitpicking:

"Any digital image seen at 100% that is either from an in-camera JPG
or from a RAW file which has had USM applied properly by the user
will show halos. One therefore can not use 100% magnification images
to form a reliable conclusion about real-world image quality."
-Michael Reichmann, The Luminous Landscape (luminous-landscape.com)


And this is neither, correct? It's been edited in PS, so there's no need
for in camera sharpening. And it's not a raw conversion, though I totally
disagree with the statement that proper USM use creates such haloed images.

Sometimes that kind of ridiculous journalistic pontification can only
be taken as a challenge...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2039/...299cef66_o.jpg

This is straight off a (Berkowitz-assessment: obsolete) D200, only
adjusted the temperature in ACR, then a 115/0.7/0 USM in Photoshop.

--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:35:33 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote in :

I have to agree. The shot was at ISO 100, and 1/60 second. Not a bad
image for a small camera. One might fault composition. I would have,
at least, tried a shot from about 30 feet to the photographer's right in
order to put the brightest area behind the tree to make a more dramatic
contrast, but I might not have liked the result.

I considered that, but unfortunately there was an ugly lamppost that
would have marred a shot taken that way.

Some of the critics
here are more like movie critics, who tend to notice the technical
aspects, and the acting ability of the characters, and the directing, or
special effects, and forget the plot entirely.

Or are dSLR bigots that are desperate to put down any image from a small
sensor camera no matter how good.

Many movies that gross
the highest are panned by the critics, but I feel they have worth,
simply because they do what they are intended to do, entertain!
Photography is much like that.

Sure, but these self-appointed critics aren't representative of the
world at large.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)