wiskerke Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 My guess is that it's in here somewhere: Blacks -30 Clarity +42 Contrast +16 Exposure +1.15 shadows +17 Vibrance +14 And the one that sticks out is that Clarity slider. Combined with contrast at +16 it does weird things to the micro contrast. The blacks at -30 probably add some to it as well. (-viewed with PIE 6.99 free) Those settings are probably all ok for some areas in the image, but not for the whole image in one go. wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 17 minutes ago, wiskerke said: My guess is that it's in here somewhere: Blacks -30 Clarity +42 Contrast +16 Exposure +1.15 shadows +17 Vibrance +14 And the one that sticks out is that Clarity slider. Combined with contrast at +16 it does weird things to the micro contrast. The blacks at -30 probably add some to it as well. (-viewed with PIE 6.99 free) Those settings are probably all ok for some areas in the image, but not for the whole image in one go. wim Yes as well as the Exposure +1.15 showing up the luminance noise (and the Shadows +17 don't help either). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 22 minutes ago, MDM said: Yes as well as the Exposure +1.15 showing up the luminance noise (and the Shadows +17 don't help either). That depends a lot on the sensor. It would not be a problem at all with a Sony for an image like this. With a one of my old Canons, this would have meant major surgery ;-) wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted November 21, 2017 Author Share Posted November 21, 2017 2 hours ago, MDM said: May I respectfully disagree Ed (I absolutely agreed with you in an earlier post so no growling or biting please ). I would be surprised if this passes QC due to the excessive noise as well as the softness in parts of the image, very evident when downloaded to one's computer and viewed at 100% But there is only one way to find out - submit it on its own and see what QC say. By the way Betty, my comments are intended as purely objective based on your saying "Happy for all advice and criticisms". I understand that, MDM. That’s why I posted it, to get the broad spectrum of criticism, I take it all as constructive. I have reprocessed it. Selective noise control, selective sharpening. Eased up on other settings (Wim), I’ll give it a try. After all, it’s holidays time so I can do 10 days. I have a long string off passes, though, so I’d not enjoy it. Betty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted November 21, 2017 Author Share Posted November 21, 2017 2 hours ago, spacecadet said: A bit more luminance NR than usual (ie, some) might work. I sometimes put the LR sharpness up to 40 as well and downsize if I like the image enough, and I like this one a lot. Thank you, and all of the rest of you for seeing the whole image and liking it. It does have some warts. Betty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 Not at all, Michael -- I value your opinion. I can't see the noise or softness, but it may well be the case. Regarding the flair, I don't think that will be a problem with QC. Edo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted November 21, 2017 Author Share Posted November 21, 2017 I'll let you know. I'm trying it. Yikes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nacke Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 Betty, The picture I viewed does not work, in my opinion. There may be ways to fix it? Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 4 hours ago, wiskerke said: <Yes as well as the Exposure +1.15 showing up the luminance noise (and the Shadows +17 don't help either). > That depends a lot on the sensor. It would not be a problem at all with a Sony for an image like this. With a one of my old Canons, this would have meant major surgery ;-) wim 3 hours ago, Ed Rooney said: Not at all, Michael -- I value your opinion. I can't see the noise or softness, but it may well be the case. Edo I've been using Nikons for the last 9 years after having gone with Canon for a few years after I first went from film to DSLR but have no experience with Sony or Fuji. Although the full frame Nikons are really amazing at low ISO, way better than the Canons I was using back then, I see luminance noise in bland areas such as dark sky or shadow areas at ISO 400 (or lower if I'm being really fussy) with all of the Nikons, probably increasing with MP size. This would not upset anybody at this level although I use a bit of luminance noise reduction at ISO 400 if I have done any sharpening to keep the bland areas looking clean. However, even one stop underexposure and the noise starts to interfere with detail. I still get usable images, depending on size and purpose, up to about ISO 6400 but not stuff I would generally submit to Alamy. What is interesting about Ed's comment is that this seems to be quite common - some people see noise in images where others don't. I don't know if this is partly due to the monitor used - I know I see luminance noise a lot more clearly on my 27 inch matte monitor than I do on a shiny iMac or MacBookPro screen. It may also be partly an eyesight thing. I had lens replacement surgery almost exactly a year ago and my vision is now truly amazing in comparison to what it used to be. I would certainly not have been seeing things so clearly a year ago. Or there may be some other factor. It will remain a mystery for now I think. Whatever the case, Betty's image looks to me like it has a layer of fine grit all across it which is destroying the detail. The flare is undoubtedly having an additional effect with very significant softening (e.g. the detail in the brickwork is almost gone in places) and this is to be expected I guess with such strong back light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 4 hours ago, Betty LaRue said: I understand that, MDM. That’s why I posted it, to get the broad spectrum of criticism, I take it all as constructive. I have reprocessed it. Selective noise control, selective sharpening. Eased up on other settings (Wim), I’ll give it a try. After all, it’s holidays time so I can do 10 days. I have a long string off passes, though, so I’d not enjoy it. Betty Well I'm very glad you took it as constructive criticism as that was how it was intended. It's always difficult to know how anybody will take criticism but there is no point in writing anything if not the truth (as one sees it of course). Anway I hope it passes in its new form. Just as an aside, do you know that you have included all your metadata in the JPEG you uploaded, including your address, email and phone number? I don't know if this was intentional or if it matters to you but I just thought I would point it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted November 21, 2017 Author Share Posted November 21, 2017 Just now, MDM said: Well I'm very glad you took it as constructive criticism as that was how it was intended. It's always difficult to know how anybody will take criticism but there is no point in writing anything if not the truth (as one sees it of course). Anway I hope it passes in its new form. Just as an aside, do you know that you have included all your metadata in the JPEG you uploaded, including your address, email and phone number? I don't know if this was intentional or if it matters to you but I just thought I would point it out. Yes, I know it’s there. I know Alamy strips it out so I never thought it was a problem. This dates from when I began, and of course you know I didn’t much know what to do. The form was there so I thought I was supposed to fill it out. I have all of my templates with this information and it would be a huge pain to go back and amend it. I assumed everyone filled that out. No? Betty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 1 hour ago, Betty LaRue said: Yes, I know it’s there. I know Alamy strips it out so I never thought it was a problem. This dates from when I began, and of course you know I didn’t much know what to do. The form was there so I thought I was supposed to fill it out. I have all of my templates with this information and it would be a huge pain to go back and amend it. I assumed everyone filled that out. No? Betty Name - yes. Address not anymore. If it's not going to Alamy, I stick an email address in with a simple Photoshop action. In the old days, it used to be: copyright (or copyright sign) your name, city. I probably have one of those slide stamp things somewhere. Aauww they still exist. wim edit: if someone wants to know where I live, it's much easier to type my name in Google Maps. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shergar Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 If Betty just uploads this one image and it fails it would be nice if Alamy should cut her some slack and waive the ban . I'm sure there's a lot more than those that have posted on this thread that are interested in the outcome and we will all learn something from it. Happy thanksgiving Betty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted November 22, 2017 Author Share Posted November 22, 2017 1 hour ago, Shergar said: If Betty just uploads this one image and it fails I think Alamy should cut her some slack and waive the ban . I'm sure there's a lot more than those that have posted on this thread that are interested in the outcome and we will all learn something from it. Happy thanksgiving Betty. Thank you, Shergar! Turkey thawing in the refrigerator, cornbread made and dried for the dressing along with dried white bread, two pastry crusts made, put in pie plates and in the freezer to bake pumpkin pies the day of. I like to prepare ahead as much as possible. And a Happy Thanksgiving to you, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 6 hours ago, wiskerke said: edit: if someone wants to know where I live, it's much easier to type my name in Google Maps. ;-) A clue: he's near some water Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losdemas Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 3 hours ago, spacecadet said: A clue: he's near some water ...and some windmills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 1 minute ago, losdemas said: ...and some windmills Not that close at all. 1mile / 1.6km S The other ones are 0.7m / 1.1km W 2m / 3.3km N 1.5m / 2.4 km NE ;-) wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stokie Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 I think the flare is great and makes the picture, but at 100% it looks too soft and i'm not sure downsizing would fix it? Now that you've submitted it, it will be interesting to see if it passes. Have you just uploaded that one image or is it in a batch? John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 The main problem I see are the spots, the biggest issue is the blue one right over the 'd' and 'F' in 'Fedex". That could be tricky to fix. Even downsized it shows quite evidently. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted November 22, 2017 Author Share Posted November 22, 2017 IT PASSED!!! Yay! I uploaded it with 4 or 5 others only. I didn’t want to hide it in a large sub. Jill, the spots, even the large one, is what helps make the image unique. All a part of the over-the-top flare. I like the spots as much as the rays. But I can sure understand if you don’t like them. This is probably one of those images you either love or hate. Betty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 12 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said: IT PASSED!!! Yay! I uploaded it with 4 or 5 others only. I didn’t want to hide it in a large sub. Jill, the spots, even the large one, is what helps make the image unique. All a part of the over-the-top flare. I like the spots as much as the rays. But I can sure understand if you don’t like them. This is probably one of those images you either love or hate. Betty Not that I don't like them, just thought they might give you some QC issues, but obviously not. Good going, as it is a great shot. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 ohmygosh! Michael and Betty: It's my awareness that's in question here, not my eyesight. I did not realize that we could view that image at 100%, which I always do when editing. Had I blown the image up, I would never have suggested uploading it. Nothing wrong with the flare, but what I see at 100% is NOT sharp . . . and I can see noise. So sorry. (But great you got away with it, Betty.) I will never comment on sharpness again! I guess I don't get any pie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted November 22, 2017 Author Share Posted November 22, 2017 3 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said: ohmygosh! Michael and Betty: It's my awareness that's in question here, not my eyesight. I did not realize that we could view that image at 100%, which I always do when editing. Had I blown the image up, I would never have suggested uploading it. Nothing wrong with the flare, but what I see at 100% is NOT sharp . . . and I can see noise. So sorry. (But great you got away with it, Betty.) I will never comment on sharpness again! I reworked that image, Edo. I doubt very much the iteration you are looking at would have passed. I also downsized it to 3000 x 2000. I judiciously selectively sharpened some areas a tad, also applied noise reduction in a few areas. I guess it worked. I probably spent two hours reworking the image. I tried darkening the sky making it bluer but it looked unnatural concidering the white sun. I had to toss that one and start over. Concidering the amount of time I put into it, I’m very happy it passed. The one I uploaded to Dropbox was pretty much a quick and dirty version because I wanted an opinion on the flare without spending a lot of time on the image to have the general opinion tell me the flare was over the top. Of course, you good people evaluated all parts of the image. And I’m glad, because it told me what I needed to work on. Its all good. And I thank everyone who gave advice, criticism, and opinions. You all don’t know how close I was to simply tossing it. Betty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 17 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said: ohmygosh! Michael and Betty: It's my awareness that's in question here, not my eyesight. I did not realize that we could view that image at 100%, which I always do when editing. Had I blown the image up, I would never have suggested uploading it. Nothing wrong with the flare, but what I see at 100% is NOT sharp . . . and I can see noise. So sorry. (But great you got away with it, Betty.) I will never comment on sharpness again! I guess I don't get any pie. I'm glad to hear that Ed. I did wonder if we were looking at the same image. I actually downloaded it using the button on the right side and viewed it in Photoshop rather than blowing it up situ as it is better than looking at it in a browser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 3 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said: I reworked that image, Edo. I doubt very much the iteration you are looking at would have passed. I also downsized it to 3000 x 2000. I judiciously selectively sharpened some areas a tad, also applied noise reduction in a few areas. I guess it worked. I probably spent two hours reworking the image. I tried darkening the sky making it bluer but it looked unnatural concidering the white sun. I had to toss that one and start over. Concidering the amount of time I put into it, I’m very happy it passed. The one I uploaded to Dropbox was pretty much a quick and dirty version because I wanted an opinion on the flare without spending a lot of time on the image to have the general opinion tell me the flare was over the top. Of course, you good people evaluated all parts of the image. And I’m glad, because it told me what I needed to work on. Its all good. And I thank everyone who gave advice, criticism, and opinions. You all don’t know how close I was to simply tossing it. Betty Betty would you mind uploading the version that passed just out of interest to see how much work you did on it to get it to pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.