Home Products Download Order Contacts

rec.photo.misc

Subject: Re: Opinions of my photo please



b.ingraham@shaw.ca wrote:
> I intended with my "bobsversion" version to show what I might have done
> had I seen the original scene and had a camera in hand. Actually, I
> would not have bothered at all, because there is little in the scene to
> cause me to raise camera to eye.

I rarely comment on the aesthetic quality of an image, and will not
here either. I only responded to those who said the image
was underexposed.

> My version is, you will note, a severely cropped portion of the
> original. It is excessively sharpened, because I wanted to point out
> the birds, which are just vague blurs in the original. The dark
> foreground is not great in my version, but it was worse in the
> original, especially the various lights.

Your version is even more saturated in the red channel. Put the
image in a photo editor and turn off the green and blue channels.
In the red channel, you have lost most of the detail in the clouds,
more so than the original image.

A little bit of saturation is OK, and the original was bordering
on OK in my opinion. But those who said it was underexposed are
definitely wrong as any more exposure would drive too many red channel
pixels into saturation. Of course, they may want that effect and
then all bets on what is best is not for me to decide. But if
you want sunset colors in the clouds, don't saturate the clouds
in any color. The water and buildings were underexposed (unless one
wanted silhouettes. I would bring up the brightness of the water, and
may have shot the scene with a split density filter.

> I wonder, too, if what you saw on your monitors was considerably
> different than what I saw on mine. I'm using an Apple Cinema monitor
> with a 1280X800 resolution. I changed it to 640X480 resolution, and the
> results were...horrible, with the sharpening and jaggies clearly
> evident. Honestly, on my monitor with the 1280X800 setting, it looks
> quite nice.

My assessment is a technical one based on the data values in the
image and is not dependent on any monitor. I also didn't comment
on the sharpening as this is a small image and the sharpening is
probably not the same in the full resolution version. I have
also noticed that sharpening artifacts appear quite different
on different monitors.

> It's interesting what some of the so-called "critics" will say in
> Usenet groups. Would they "speak their mind" in similar ways in a
> camera club meeting? I rather doubt it.

Image quality is in the eye of the beholder. When I give
a slide show (now digital projector show), if I don't hear some
oohs and aahs from the audience when an image comes up, I don't
show it again.

Roger
http://www.clarkvision.com



Reply


View All Messages in rec.photo.misc

path:
Opinions of my photo please =>Re: Opinions of my photo please =>Re: Opinions of my photo please =>Re: Opinions of my photo please =>Re: Opinions of my photo please =>

Replies:

Copyright 2006 WatermarkFactory.com. All Rights Reserved.