DayDreamer
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,739
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Christmas probably got in the way.
Just messaged him.
Thank you David
Oops just crossed with Stu.
Last edited:
and the site receives a small commission
THE PP GAME!
- Thread starter Phil Young
- Start date
Thank you David
Oops just crossed with Stu.
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Nice on Graham.
Post up a RAW old chap!
Post up a RAW old chap!
DayDreamer
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,739
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Graham has the Christmas Number One
overbez
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,088
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Merry Christmas everyone,
thankyou Stu and everyone - hope it wasn't just the flip that did it.... all the lines into the scene were coming from that right hand side, the water, the reeds and the hill line, from the other corner was just the barrier of the rock, so as a scene I felt it was worth a flip.
Managed a walk out over xmas on a day that wasn't rainy and windy......
RAW file from link below.
Link removed
Or from Dropbox
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9it7o1tx8ppytsd/DSC_8614.NEF
Lets go for a short one, Saturday evening..
thankyou Stu and everyone - hope it wasn't just the flip that did it.... all the lines into the scene were coming from that right hand side, the water, the reeds and the hill line, from the other corner was just the barrier of the rock, so as a scene I felt it was worth a flip.
Managed a walk out over xmas on a day that wasn't rainy and windy......
RAW file from link below.
Link removed
Or from Dropbox
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9it7o1tx8ppytsd/DSC_8614.NEF
Lets go for a short one, Saturday evening..
Last edited:
DayDreamer
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,739
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I always get this & click 'for more information' then on next screen 'disregard & continue' and all OK
DayDreamer
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,739
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
When I click link I get left hand warning - when I click 'more information' I get the right hand warning - then I just carry on 'disregard & continue' and file there to download. Must be either my W8.1 or antivirus AVG?
Solo man
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,628
- Name
- Lee
- Edit My Images
- No
When I click link I get left hand warning - when I click 'more information' I get the right hand warning - then I just carry on 'disregard & continue' and file there to download. Must be either my W8.1 or antivirus AVG?
Thanks John, I've followed your instructions....
I've never had that warning come up before though...
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Not done much to this. Just think it worked best kept simple.
LR5:
PS CC:
LR5:
- Crop ut foreground
- Straighten a little
- reduce blues luminance
- apply lens profile
- remove CAs
- Sharpen a little
- export as 16bit TIFF
PS CC:
- Saturation layer to darken blue and cyan
- apply 85 warm up filter
- High Pass sharpen
- convert to 8bit
- apply sRGB profile
- Upload.
Phil-D
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,553
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Here's mine:-
yachts pp game screen shot by Phil D 245, on Flickr
Cropped and cloned the two main shadows as I found them distracting
yachts pp game by Phil D 245, on Flickr
yachts pp game screen shot by Phil D 245, on Flickr
Cropped and cloned the two main shadows as I found them distracting
yachts pp game by Phil D 245, on Flickr
Flying giraffe
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,189
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
increase clarity and general sliders
lower expo in sky only
put sky through a filter to bring out the detail
clone shadows
brighten slightly
done
DSC_8614 by flyinggiraffe232, on Flickr
lower expo in sky only
put sky through a filter to bring out the detail
clone shadows
brighten slightly
done
DSC_8614 by flyinggiraffe232, on Flickr
- Messages
- 6,343
- Name
- Nick
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Click on image for a larger, 1100 pixel high version.
NOT MY IMAGE - overbez - yachts DSC_8614-Edit PS3 ClCrPSS3.43 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
In Lightroom,
Exposure +0.50
Contrast +20
Highlights -100
Shadows +98
Whites +25
Blacks -40
Clarity +35
Vibrance +10
Sharpening (default)
Amount 25, Radius 1, Detail 25, Masking 0
Noise reduction (default)
Luminance 0
Colour 25, Detail 50, Smoothness 50
Remove Chromatic Aberration
Apply 3 radial filters to sky
1: Large, covering most of the clouds, Highlights -100, Shadows 100, Saturation 36
EDIT: Highlights corrected to -100 from 100 in line above
2: Quite large, covering light area of nearest cloud, Exposure -0.30, Highlights -100, Shadows -100, Clarity 7
3: Smaller, covering darkest area on bottom left of nearest cloud, Exposure +0.39
Crop sides and top but leave bottom alone to provide source material for cloning if required.
Pass across to Photoshop CS2 as 16-bit tiff in ProPhoto colour space.
Clone out shadows.
Crop bottom.
Do standard finishing off process, involving:
Very mild defogging: USM, Amount 7%, Radius 30 pixels, Threshold 0
Very mild Curve: down 3 at 25% across, up 1 at 75% across
Resize to 1100 pixels high
Smart Sharpen with Radius 0.3 pixels, in this case with fairly small Amount of 43%.
Convert to RGB colour profile
Convert depth to 8-bit
Save as JPEG.
NOT MY IMAGE - overbez - yachts DSC_8614-Edit PS3 ClCrPSS3.43 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
In Lightroom,
Exposure +0.50
Contrast +20
Highlights -100
Shadows +98
Whites +25
Blacks -40
Clarity +35
Vibrance +10
Sharpening (default)
Amount 25, Radius 1, Detail 25, Masking 0
Noise reduction (default)
Luminance 0
Colour 25, Detail 50, Smoothness 50
Remove Chromatic Aberration
Apply 3 radial filters to sky
1: Large, covering most of the clouds, Highlights -100, Shadows 100, Saturation 36
EDIT: Highlights corrected to -100 from 100 in line above
2: Quite large, covering light area of nearest cloud, Exposure -0.30, Highlights -100, Shadows -100, Clarity 7
3: Smaller, covering darkest area on bottom left of nearest cloud, Exposure +0.39
Crop sides and top but leave bottom alone to provide source material for cloning if required.
Pass across to Photoshop CS2 as 16-bit tiff in ProPhoto colour space.
Clone out shadows.
Crop bottom.
Do standard finishing off process, involving:
Very mild defogging: USM, Amount 7%, Radius 30 pixels, Threshold 0
Very mild Curve: down 3 at 25% across, up 1 at 75% across
Resize to 1100 pixels high
Smart Sharpen with Radius 0.3 pixels, in this case with fairly small Amount of 43%.
Convert to RGB colour profile
Convert depth to 8-bit
Save as JPEG.
Last edited:
Seajay
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,493
- Name
- Cathy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Last edited:
Rhodese
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,154
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Congratulations that man, well done Graham.
Here we go then, just a quickie from me today I’m afraid.
Open in ACR, auto, open in PS.
Copy layer.
Remove shadows with content aware, clone out buoys and the gull.
Convert to black and white.
New layer fill with 50% grey and change blend mode to soft light.
On the new layer, with the gradient tool selected pull a 50% black grad from the top to the shoreline.
Change the foreground to white or hold the X key down and pull a 30% grad up from the bottom to the end of the jetty , angle it slightly starting right of centre.
With black back as the foreground colour burn in a little on the sky.
Flatten and create a border with the stroke command.
CLICK 4 BIG AND ZOOM.
Rhodese.
Here we go then, just a quickie from me today I’m afraid.
Open in ACR, auto, open in PS.
Copy layer.
Remove shadows with content aware, clone out buoys and the gull.
Convert to black and white.
New layer fill with 50% grey and change blend mode to soft light.
On the new layer, with the gradient tool selected pull a 50% black grad from the top to the shoreline.
Change the foreground to white or hold the X key down and pull a 30% grad up from the bottom to the end of the jetty , angle it slightly starting right of centre.
With black back as the foreground colour burn in a little on the sky.
Flatten and create a border with the stroke command.
CLICK 4 BIG AND ZOOM.
Rhodese.
Last edited:
overbez
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,088
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- Yes
well done everyone.. sorry not the most inspirational of photos, but that big cloud was crying out for getting into a shot. The jetty in from the lower left had to be included, I tried to time the yachts for no overlap, but couldn't do anything about the shadows from behind me.
David, certainly brought the cloud to life, but the crop leaves very little at the bottom... doesn't really work for me, although it makes the cloud seem much larger and more dominating
Phil - lovely edit, good cloning, the slight crop off the bottom I can live with, but the crop off the top takes away most of the main attraction for me.
Neil - now we're getting somewhere... all "required" elements there, possibly a tad "dirty" in the cloud, and a bit bright on the yacht sails. But the overall look is right for me.
Nick (@GardenersHelper), that's some first entry into the game. as good as Neils but "cleaner" in the cloud, although I would be happy to trade some cleanliness for a slightly heavier look. But that's personal tastes.
Hi Cathy..
Rhodese - Great B&W entry. Nice unique effort here. Good detail and drama in the clouds, I never spotted a gull - you know what would have happened if I had!
But... My choice this time goes to Nick - cracking first edit - great detailed explanation showing really nice localised adjustments, contributing to a fab final image.
2nd to Rhodese, Pulled a great B&W image out where everyone else went colour.
Nick, you now take charge for the next round - post a jpg preview, and a RAW for download - give it about 2-3 days, and come back and pick a winner.
Here's mine
Done with SNS, then cloning in CS2
David, certainly brought the cloud to life, but the crop leaves very little at the bottom... doesn't really work for me, although it makes the cloud seem much larger and more dominating
Phil - lovely edit, good cloning, the slight crop off the bottom I can live with, but the crop off the top takes away most of the main attraction for me.
Neil - now we're getting somewhere... all "required" elements there, possibly a tad "dirty" in the cloud, and a bit bright on the yacht sails. But the overall look is right for me.
Nick (@GardenersHelper), that's some first entry into the game.
as good as Neils but "cleaner" in the cloud, although I would be happy to trade some cleanliness for a slightly heavier look. But that's personal tastes.Hi Cathy..
Rhodese - Great B&W entry. Nice unique effort here.
Good detail and drama in the clouds, I never spotted a gull - you know what would have happened if I had!But... My choice this time goes to Nick - cracking first edit - great detailed explanation showing really nice localised adjustments, contributing to a fab final image.
2nd to Rhodese, Pulled a great B&W image out where everyone else went colour.
Nick, you now take charge for the next round - post a jpg preview, and a RAW for download - give it about 2-3 days, and come back and pick a winner.
Here's mine
Done with SNS, then cloning in CS2
Last edited:
- Messages
- 6,343
- Name
- Nick
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Gosh. Thank you Graham.
I understand about preferring a heavier look. I'm afraid my style tends towards low contrast (and mild colours too actually), which makes my images quite (put politely) “subtle” or some such, or more accurately I suspect for many, “insipid”. Recognising this, I did push a bit harder with your image to try to give it a bit more impact, but ...
…. I just went off joyful to my wife to tell her about your decision, and she came and looked at all the attempts, and slated mine something rotton – she picked up on something I regretted soon after posting my attempt, but no changes are allowed of course; I messed up the colour balance, giving the sky an unrealistic colour. Mind you, that wasn't as bad as what she said next, after I showed her the image I'm going to use for this round (“Are you really sure you want to use that?”), followed by, when I showed her my several attempts with it, “They are all horrible.” (I paraphrase). And she explained why. And she was right.
Oh well, I've got a couple of days to try again.
So, here is the image.
JPG version of image posted for Talk Photography PP Game, 28 Dec 2013 P1070974 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
And here is the RAW version. https://www.dropbox.com/s/elg2267dgktdojf/P1070974.RW2
Now, you may wonder why I would suggest something like this. Surely it is only suited for the bin? Normally of course that is where stuff like this would go, but sometimes if the subject is unusual or is exhibiting some interesting behaviour, if I've only got something of poor quality to work with then I'll try to make something out of it. And with close-ups, at least close-ups of flying and jumping invertebrates, the subject may have disappeared before you can get your act together and get a decent shot in the bag. So although this particular image isn't of instrinsic interest because of the subject matter or behaviour exhibited, it is pretty “real world” in terms of what is sometimes needed. Basically, can it be rescued sufficient to display without embarrassment for web viewing? (For me, these days that means 1100 pixels high, but in this case something smaller might be all that is practical.)
I noticed from looking back over the past 10 cycles of the game that nine of them have involved images captured with dSLRs, and quite nicely exposed images by and large. Just to make this a bit more interesting, this image was captured with my current tool of choice for close-ups, a bridge camera with a sensor 1/12 the area of an APS-C sensor and 1/32 the area of a full frame sensor. That has some implications for how the image will respond to your attentions.
So, I'm off now to see if I can improve on “horrible”. I hope you will too. I'll call it on Monday evening.
I understand about preferring a heavier look. I'm afraid my style tends towards low contrast (and mild colours too actually), which makes my images quite (put politely) “subtle” or some such, or more accurately I suspect for many, “insipid”. Recognising this, I did push a bit harder with your image to try to give it a bit more impact, but ...
…. I just went off joyful to my wife to tell her about your decision, and she came and looked at all the attempts, and slated mine something rotton – she picked up on something I regretted soon after posting my attempt, but no changes are allowed of course; I messed up the colour balance, giving the sky an unrealistic colour. Mind you, that wasn't as bad as what she said next, after I showed her the image I'm going to use for this round (“Are you really sure you want to use that?”), followed by, when I showed her my several attempts with it, “They are all horrible.” (I paraphrase). And she explained why. And she was right.
Oh well, I've got a couple of days to try again.So, here is the image.
JPG version of image posted for Talk Photography PP Game, 28 Dec 2013 P1070974 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
And here is the RAW version. https://www.dropbox.com/s/elg2267dgktdojf/P1070974.RW2
Now, you may wonder why I would suggest something like this. Surely it is only suited for the bin? Normally of course that is where stuff like this would go, but sometimes if the subject is unusual or is exhibiting some interesting behaviour, if I've only got something of poor quality to work with then I'll try to make something out of it. And with close-ups, at least close-ups of flying and jumping invertebrates, the subject may have disappeared before you can get your act together and get a decent shot in the bag. So although this particular image isn't of instrinsic interest because of the subject matter or behaviour exhibited, it is pretty “real world” in terms of what is sometimes needed. Basically, can it be rescued sufficient to display without embarrassment for web viewing? (For me, these days that means 1100 pixels high, but in this case something smaller might be all that is practical.)
I noticed from looking back over the past 10 cycles of the game that nine of them have involved images captured with dSLRs, and quite nicely exposed images by and large. Just to make this a bit more interesting, this image was captured with my current tool of choice for close-ups, a bridge camera with a sensor 1/12 the area of an APS-C sensor and 1/32 the area of a full frame sensor. That has some implications for how the image will respond to your attentions.
So, I'm off now to see if I can improve on “horrible”. I hope you will too. I'll call it on Monday evening.
- Messages
- 6,343
- Name
- Nick
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I noticed from looking back over the past 10 cycles of the game that nine of them have involved images captured with dSLRs, and quite nicely exposed images by and large. Just to make this a bit more interesting, this image was captured with my current tool of choice for close-ups, a bridge camera with a sensor 1/12 the area of an APS-C sensor and 1/32 the area of a full frame sensor. That has some implications for how the image will respond to your attentions.
There are a couple of other things I should have mentioned.
First, the aperture was f/8. This is the smallest available aperture on the FZ200 and is I believe equivalent to roughly f/22 for APS-C and f/32 for full frame in terms of the dof it provides and in terms of the impact of diffraction. So, we are deep into diffraction territory here, with all that implies for loss of detail and sharpness, and this compounds some of the other issues.
And then, flash. The exif data says flash was used for this capture. However, I believe this must have been a shot taken before the flash had fully recharged, which is why it is so dark. As to whether any flash at all was output, or just a bit, I don't know.
Phil-D
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,553
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Nick, welcome and well done, a very worthy winning entry. I'm only a learner and like to see if I can pick the winner(I think it adds to the learning). I had yours down as favourite to win
Graham, thank you for the comments. Yes, I was undecided about the crop but went with it anyway
Graham, thank you for the comments. Yes, I was undecided about the crop but went with it anyway
DayDreamer
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,739
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes a very well done Nick
- Messages
- 6,343
- Name
- Nick
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thanks Phil and John (LOL for the Mexican wave of little fellows!)
Phil, it was looking at the lovely warm, late-afternoon light in your version that made me realise how cold and artificial mine looked (as SWMBO kindly pointed out when comparing your version and mine!) When it comes to post processing, like the rest of photography really, I think we are all permanent learners. Well, unless we get stuck in a rut or lose inspiration/momentum/interest, which I did for the latter half of 2013. Joining in here is a conscious part of the process of trying to re-engage with photography, perhaps with a bit of a different slant than before.
Phil, it was looking at the lovely warm, late-afternoon light in your version that made me realise how cold and artificial mine looked (as SWMBO kindly pointed out when comparing your version and mine!) When it comes to post processing, like the rest of photography really, I think we are all permanent learners. Well, unless we get stuck in a rut or lose inspiration/momentum/interest, which I did for the latter half of 2013. Joining in here is a conscious part of the process of trying to re-engage with photography, perhaps with a bit of a different slant than before.
Phil-D
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,553
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Download and save raw image then convert with Adobe DNG converter
Open in ACR
Temp 4900
Exp +2.75
Contrast -13
Shad. +26
blacks +58
clarity +73
Vib. +22
Sharpen 85
Noise Reduction:-
Lum 77
Lum detail 76
Colour 88
Col. detail 49
Crop then clone out the plantation
I had a look on youtube at selective sharpening. I would have liked to try make the head and front legs stand out more..........but then again.......I don't think I'm ready for that just yet
pp game fly by Phil D 245, on Flickr
Open in ACR
Temp 4900
Exp +2.75
Contrast -13
Shad. +26
blacks +58
clarity +73
Vib. +22
Sharpen 85
Noise Reduction:-
Lum 77
Lum detail 76
Colour 88
Col. detail 49
Crop then clone out the plantation
I had a look on youtube at selective sharpening. I would have liked to try make the head and front legs stand out more..........but then again.......I don't think I'm ready for that just yet
pp game fly by Phil D 245, on Flickr
DayDreamer
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,739
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
B****r it I got the closing day wrong 
I blame Christmas & having too much to eat
Here would have been my entry which was arrived at by huge amounts of fiddling around in CS2, PE10 & LR & wasn't completely finished
I blame Christmas & having too much to eat
Here would have been my entry which was arrived at by huge amounts of fiddling around in CS2, PE10 & LR & wasn't completely finished
overbez
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,088
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- Yes
B****r it I got the closing day wrong
Ne'er mind John.... Really nice effort.
drama in the cloud, shadows removed Can;t say I'm a massive fan of the texture though. But looking through that (as best as I can), the rest of it is well up to standard.
DayDreamer
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,739
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ne'er mind John.... Really nice effort.
I was an 'olde' paper texture but got to try differing things - it's my New Years Resolution.
Another is to stop drinking --- oops just forgot I don't drink - well apart from coffee & I aint gonna stop drinking that
Last edited:
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
As usual, maintaining quality and avoiding anything that is destructive has been my priority.
LR5.3:
PS CC:
That's it.
Click for big, then again to zoom.
10 mins approx
LR5.3:
- Crop
- apply lens profile and remove CA
- sharpen and NR
- Export into PS with "Edit in PS"
PS CC:
- Convert to smart object/smart filter
- edit in ACR as smart filter using Radial Filter to darken background and add additional NR to darkened areas.
- edit in ACR as smart filter to reduce green saturation and luminance, and increased yellow sat a little
- save as 8bit JPEG with sRGB embedded
That's it.
Click for big, then again to zoom.
10 mins approx
Last edited:
overbez
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,088
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Oh David... you make it look soooo easy... Tough one - I spent more than 10 minutes on it!
Lightzone
Zonemapper to pull black and white points out
slight detail increase
increase sat on yellows on insect only
noise reduction on all but insect
noise reduction on all but insect
(yep - did it twice)
PS
despeckle
noise reduction on all but insect
(yep - really)
Picasa
vignette
You can click for big - if you really want to!
Tough one - I spent more than 10 minutes on it!Lightzone
Zonemapper to pull black and white points out
slight detail increase
increase sat on yellows on insect only
noise reduction on all but insect
noise reduction on all but insect
(yep - did it twice)
PS
despeckle
noise reduction on all but insect
(yep - really)
Picasa
vignette
You can click for big - if you really want to!
Last edited:
Solo man
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,628
- Name
- Lee
- Edit My Images
- No
Looks like everyone's doing a similar edit......
Mine done in Lightroom 4...
Cropped, adjusted contrast, exposure, highlights, and decreased saturation...
Used adjustment brush and increased contrast and clarity.
Sharpened slightly, and applied some noise reduction
Flipped image.
Mine done in Lightroom 4...
Cropped, adjusted contrast, exposure, highlights, and decreased saturation...
Used adjustment brush and increased contrast and clarity.
Sharpened slightly, and applied some noise reduction
Flipped image.
Phil-D
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,553
- Edit My Images
- Yes
jonneymendoza
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,530
- Edit My Images
- No
Nice thread
DayDreamer
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,739
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
jonneymendoza
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,530
- Edit My Images
- No
How does it work? I post a PIC I edit and u guess how I did it?Indeed it is - will you be 'aving a go
Rhodese
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,154
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well done Nick, congratulations.
Opened in PhotoDirector4, see screen grabs.
Exported and opened in ACR, see screen grab.
Open in PS, crop 2x3 putting the fly on bottom left third.
Copy layer.
Fill in the spaces on the top and R/H side that were left after cropping by, copying and pasting selections into new layers and then in free transform, stretch over the spaces.
Remove the light grass by, select/ fill /content aware.
Burn in on the front of the fly.
Flatten.
New layer.
Create the border using stroke, white, 20 pixels, drop opacity to 10%, then in fx, bevel and emboss and add an outer glow.
Flatten.
SAVE.
Save for web.
I was going to title it "HEEELP MEE, HEEELP MEE." then I thought who would remember that film?
CLIK 4 BIG AND ZOOM.
Rhodese.
Opened in PhotoDirector4, see screen grabs.
Exported and opened in ACR, see screen grab.
Open in PS, crop 2x3 putting the fly on bottom left third.
Copy layer.
Fill in the spaces on the top and R/H side that were left after cropping by, copying and pasting selections into new layers and then in free transform, stretch over the spaces.
Remove the light grass by, select/ fill /content aware.
Burn in on the front of the fly.
Flatten.
New layer.
Create the border using stroke, white, 20 pixels, drop opacity to 10%, then in fx, bevel and emboss and add an outer glow.
Flatten.
SAVE.
Save for web.
I was going to title it "HEEELP MEE, HEEELP MEE." then I thought who would remember that film?
CLIK 4 BIG AND ZOOM.
Rhodese.
Last edited:
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Read the very first post by Phil.
- Messages
- 6,343
- Name
- Nick
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm thinking of giving it until about 7pm in case anyone else wants to join in. If anyone does want to participate but can't do so by then, please let me know and I'll hold off for a while.
- Messages
- 6,343
- Name
- Nick
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thank you Phil, David, Graham, Lee and Rhodese for putting your time into what was a deliberately awkward task. It has been fascinating and instructive to have a close look at your reworks and consider the techniques you used. Thanks again.
In order to compare all our versions I have resized them all to 1100 pixels high. This is a bit unfair on Lee, as it means his image had to be upsized, while the others were downsized. The fairer alternative would have been to have downsized all of the images to the 688 pixel height of Lee's version. I did do this but didn't feel the images were large enough to get a decent look at issues of detail retention and noise. So, my apologies Lee, but I used the larger versions to make the comparisons.
There is, inevitably I suppose, a lot of personal taste/opinion/prejudice in what follows; I dearly hope I don't offend anyone – perceptions and preferences/tastes do vary widely of course, and legitimately so.
PHIL
Download and save raw image then convert with Adobe DNG converter
Open in ACR
Temp 4900, Exp +2.75, Contrast -13, Shad. +26, blacks +58,
clarity +73, Vib. +22
Sharpen 85
Noise Reduction:-
Lum 77, Lum detail 76
Colour 88, Col. detail 49
Crop then clone out the plantation
I had a look on youtube at selective sharpening. I would have liked to try make the head and front legs stand out more..........but then again.......I don't think I'm ready for that just yet
You took an aventurous approach, in the sense that you used a fairly aggressive crop from what was a low quality (small sensor and underexposed) original. This has the advantage (from my perspective) of giving a composition I like; very simple, and with the subject offset from the centre so as to be looking into the picture rather than out of it. Detail retention seems better than I would have expected. The colours of the subject are possibly a tad undersaturated – I'm looking at the legs (front and rear) and the head. I am quite keen on mild colours, but even so I think perhaps these are just a little too mild. I wonder whether, if they had a bit more “substance”, the subject might stand out a bit more from the background. The colours are also perhaps a touch on the cold (blue) side. The noise in the background is nicely fine-grained, but perhaps just slightly more obtrusive in some areas (for example at the top right) than I feel comfortable with. It is marginal in daylight, but more evident in the subdued light that I use for my processing and image evaluation. (I am using a quite good, hardware calibrated monitor btw.)
I tried your numbers in Lightoom and I think that shed some light on what I was seeing.
I think the Contrast -13, Shad. +26, blacks +58 all worked in the same direction, reducing colour intensity and micro-contrast (especially the blacks +58), the reduced micro-contrast reducing the perceived level of detail in the image.
The clarity +73 is a huge amount (by my standards; I generally use 10, or at most 15), and has a discernable negative impact on the noise. It has also significantly increased the blacknesses in the subject, which may be why you used Contrast -13, Shad. +26, blacks +58 to reverse that effect. FWIW I try to get the light in the image to “sing” using Highlights, Shadows, Whites and Blacks (often all four of them, sometimes possibly counter-intuitively, for example taking Whites and Highlights in opposite directions, and/or taking Blacks and Shadows in opposite directions), and then use a light touch on Clarity to add just a little edge to the micro-contrast.
I'm puzzled by the noise reduction. When I use your settings of Lum 77, Lum detail 76 (with your crop and Sharpen 85) the noise is killed pretty much totally, along with a lot of detail. To my eye it doesn't look like the version you posted. With Luminance Detail 76, I have to dial back Luminance to around 25 to get roughly the combination of detail and noise I see in the posted version.
Colour 88, Col. detail 49 puzzles me as well. I think the default Color 25, Detail 50, Smoothness 50 is sufficient. I don't think increasing it does much if any harm in this case, but FWIW I pretty much always leave this at the default values for my images.
DAVID
LR5.3:
Presumably you upped the Exposure?
I'm puzzled by apply lens profile and remove CA. I have not noticed any lens profiles in Lightroom for any Panasonic equipment. And aren't lens profiles specific to particular interchangeable lenses? The FZ200 has a fixed lens. I'd like to know which lens profile you used so I can try it and see what the effect is.
I didn't spot any CA in the image. Could you help me please and point me at it?
GRAHAM
Lightzone
Zonemapper to pull black and white points out
slight detail increase
increase sat on yellows on insect only
noise reduction on all but insect
noise reduction on all but insect
(yep - did it twice)
PS
despeckle
noise reduction on all but insect
(yep - really)
Picasa
vignette
Your composition is a bit more centred than David's, and I very much like the way the colour and light work on the fly's abdomen. The contrast over the rest of the subject seems too strong for my taste, with a fair amount of black where I would normally expect colours, albeit quite possibly dark colours. In the lighter, right hand areas of the background the noise has been pretty much eliminated. I don't see any noise speckle to the left of the image either, but the background there has a slightly blotchy appearance that I'm not quite comfortable with. The image detail seems less sharp than in David's version, for example the dew drops on the grass head on the centre left, but also I think on the main subject when compared to Phil and David's versions. However, this is not a simple “like for like” comparison as I'm not sure how much of the detail loss is simply because the subject is smaller in your version.
LEE
Mine done in Lightroom 4...
Cropped, adjusted contrast, exposure, highlights, and decreased saturation...
Used adjustment brush and increased contrast and clarity.
Sharpened slightly, and applied some noise reduction
Flipped image.
Yours is another high contrast version Lee, with some distinctly dark areas on the subject as with Graham's rendition, but yours doesn't have the blackness that Graham's has in some places. The grass head is the lightest in any of the versions, and its colouring is quite mild and low contrast, compared for example to the much stronger colour and contrast of the fly. The contrast between the darker, richer-coloured subject and the lighter, milder grass head is sufficient to give the image a slightly unbalance feel to my eye, tending to pull my eye away from the fly towards the grass head which seems, to my eye, to compete with the fly rather than complementing it. The level of detail looks good, for example on the grass head as well as the subject (and that despite the image having been upsized). Similarly to Phil's version, the noise is fine-enough grained for me not to find it too distracting in daylight, but it stands out more in my subdued light working conditions.
RHODESE
Opened in PhotoDirector4, see screen grabs.
Exported and opened in ACR, see screen grab.
Open in PS, crop 2x3 putting the fly on bottom left third.
Copy layer.
Fill in the spaces on the top and R/H side that were left after cropping by, copying and pasting selections into new layers and then in free transform, stretch over the spaces.
Remove the light grass by, select/ fill /content aware.
Burn in on the front of the fly.
Flatten.
New layer.
Create the border using stroke, white, 20 pixels, drop opacity to 10%, then in fx, bevel and emboss and add an outer glow.
Flatten.
SAVE. Save for web.
Very interesting placement of the subject; it works well for me. The means of getting that placement is interesting, with fill to the top and the right. However, the fill to the top jars a bit for me. The “bend” in lower boundary of the dew-covered blade above the fly was the first thing that struck me as odd-looking, and then I saw the horizontal line, ending on the right with a discontinuity of the vertical lighter green broad line to the left of the dark area, as it starts bending over to the right. And when I looked a bit closer I saw that the texture above and a bit below the horizontal line was different from the texture in the rest of the image, a bit rougher; not objectionable, but different. Once I had noticed these things I found it difficult to get them out of my mind/sight and they were a bit disruptive of my enjoyment. That said, I think the compositional effect of opening up that space and placing the subject where it is, given its orientation, is excellent.
The noise in the image is nicely subdued, whilst the micro-contrast/level of visible detail is good; a difficult combination to achieve. The colours are a bit orangy for my taste on the abdomen and on and around the lower sections of the fly's two feet that are nearest to us. The droplets up towards the tip of the blade look well defined and glow nicely. The subject and the blade it is on have good clarity and stand out well against the simple background with its unobtrusive colour, texture and lack of distracting detail. The more I look at it, the more I like the way the light has been rendered.
How did you do the noise reduction? I don't see mention of that in your text and I didn't spot anything about it in the screen grabs. Was it global or selective?
THE WINNER
My winner? Rhodese, for a (to my eye) well envisioned, simple and pleasing composition, a treatment of light that gives the subject and its immediate surroundings (the blade it is on, and the drops) a “presence” that I find appealing, and a good combination of detail and noise control. As long as I disregard the extension of the top of the image it is a picture that I can stare at and contemplate with great pleasure.
My runner up is David, for producing a rendition with what looks to me to be nicely balanced colour, detail, distribution of light and noise control.
Rhodese, over to you.
Well done everyone. And thanks again for the opportunity to dig a bit deeper into these things than it is usually polite to do, and I do hope I haven't overstepped the mark on that score.
My version
Folowing my wife's harsh comments on my attempts, I did another one. I did it prior to anyone else posting so as to avoid being influenced by or stealing ideas from your versions. My thinking at that stage was that because the original was of such poor quality it would be unwise to crop the image much (this is after all an image from a small sensor camera, and grossly underexposed). However, this left the subject a bit too central for my liking. It would not have taken much of a crop on the left to decentre the subject enough for my taste, but I couldn't find a crop that left an edge that I was comfortable with. I found one further in, but that would have been too much of a crop for comfort. I therefore decided to stretch the image on the right instead. Having now seen Rhodese's version, this one of mine still seems rather too central to me.
This approach, with or without the stretching, leaves the subject relatively small in the image compared to cropped versions. I am comfortable with this, as I tend to go for “subject in its environment” shots as well as “here is a good, detailed look at a subject” shots, but experience has shown me that “environmental/contextual” shots are not very popular. For most people doing and commenting on this sort of stuff, the subject pretty much filling the frame is as far out as they want to go, and very often they go in much closer and look at parts of the subject (heads, or even just eyes), and these are the shots that get the strongest reactions. For this reason I tend to refer to my stuff as “close-ups” rather than “macros”, the term most people use. Some of my “close-ups”, or example showing the whole of a (rather small) fruit fly or springtail, are in fact higher magnification than some people's “macros” of part of a subject. But in my mind at least the term “close-up” indicates a different feel for the balance between subjects and enviroments.
(Click on image for larger version, then right click and select Original)
Nick P1070974-Take2 - Edit-3-Edit PS1 WaPSS3.43 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
In Lightroom
White balance, Temp 5500 (daylight temp), Tint +15.
Exposure: +2.60, Contrast: +5, Highlights: -100, Whites: +35
Clarity: +10, Vibrance: +5
Noise Reduction (default)
Luminance: 0
Colour: 25, Detail: 50, Smoothness: 50
Radial filter
On light grass head left edge: Exposure -0.09, Highlights -100
On fly's head: Exposure +0.10
Pass across to Photoshop CS2 as 16-bit TIFF in ProPhoto colour space
In Lightroom
Apply Luminance Noise Reduction: Luminance 79, Detail 0, Contrast 0
Pass across to Photoshop CS2 as 16-bit TIFF in ProPhoto colour space.
Copy non- noise reduced version as upper layer on top of noise reduced version.
Use eraser with 84% opacity to reveal noise reduced layer on plain parts of background.
User eraser with lower opacities to somewhat reveal noise reduced layer on some mid-ground areas with particularly prominent noise.
But, apply no noise reduction to the subject.
Flatten image.
Increase canvas size on the right.
Stretch right hand third or so of image over to the right, so fly (or at least, its “centre of gravity”) is offset to the left of centre of the image. (To combat what I assume is a bug in CS2, this has to be done by duplicating the (now) single layer of the image, doing the canvas resize and image stretch, and then, on the top layer, running the eraser (with a soft brush, 100% opacity) down the join between the stretched area on the right and the untouched area on the left. This gets rid of the very narrow line along the join that is visible at some magnifications.)
Apply standard finishing:
Very mild defog. Unsharp Mask: Amount 7%, Radius 30 pixels, Threshold 0.
Mild curves. Three points down at 25% across, one point up at 75% across.
Resize to 1100 pixels high.
Smart Sharpen: Radius 0.3 pixels, in this case with Amount 63%.
Convert to RGB profile.
Convert to 8-bit.
Save as JPEG Compression 10
My comparison version
I was fascinated by how the image had held up with cropping, so I decided to re-do my version with the same crop as David's, so I could do a more direct comparison of detail retention and noise between my version and everyone else's.
Apart from doing the crop in Lightroom, the processing was I believe the same as the above up to copying the second, noise-reduced version across to CS2. The rest of the process was the same as above, with the following exceptions.
I think I used 100% opacity with the eraser on the background. I did some low (20% or so) opacity erasing on the fly.
I didn't do the stretch.
I used Amount 100% rather than 63% for the Smart Sharpening. This is normal for me in the sense that (I know this doesn't sound like it makes sense) I tend to use higher Amounts the larger the subject is in the frame. It's not a formulaic thing, I do it by eye each time, but that is the way it tends to work out.
Anyway, here is what I got.
Nick - with Pookeyhead crop - P1070974-Edit-3-Edit PS1 PSS3 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
In order to compare all our versions I have resized them all to 1100 pixels high. This is a bit unfair on Lee, as it means his image had to be upsized, while the others were downsized. The fairer alternative would have been to have downsized all of the images to the 688 pixel height of Lee's version. I did do this but didn't feel the images were large enough to get a decent look at issues of detail retention and noise. So, my apologies Lee, but I used the larger versions to make the comparisons.
There is, inevitably I suppose, a lot of personal taste/opinion/prejudice in what follows; I dearly hope I don't offend anyone – perceptions and preferences/tastes do vary widely of course, and legitimately so.
PHIL
Download and save raw image then convert with Adobe DNG converter
Open in ACR
Temp 4900, Exp +2.75, Contrast -13, Shad. +26, blacks +58,
clarity +73, Vib. +22
Sharpen 85
Noise Reduction:-
Lum 77, Lum detail 76
Colour 88, Col. detail 49
Crop then clone out the plantation
I had a look on youtube at selective sharpening. I would have liked to try make the head and front legs stand out more..........but then again.......I don't think I'm ready for that just yet
You took an aventurous approach, in the sense that you used a fairly aggressive crop from what was a low quality (small sensor and underexposed) original. This has the advantage (from my perspective) of giving a composition I like; very simple, and with the subject offset from the centre so as to be looking into the picture rather than out of it. Detail retention seems better than I would have expected. The colours of the subject are possibly a tad undersaturated – I'm looking at the legs (front and rear) and the head. I am quite keen on mild colours, but even so I think perhaps these are just a little too mild. I wonder whether, if they had a bit more “substance”, the subject might stand out a bit more from the background. The colours are also perhaps a touch on the cold (blue) side. The noise in the background is nicely fine-grained, but perhaps just slightly more obtrusive in some areas (for example at the top right) than I feel comfortable with. It is marginal in daylight, but more evident in the subdued light that I use for my processing and image evaluation. (I am using a quite good, hardware calibrated monitor btw.)
I tried your numbers in Lightoom and I think that shed some light on what I was seeing.
I think the Contrast -13, Shad. +26, blacks +58 all worked in the same direction, reducing colour intensity and micro-contrast (especially the blacks +58), the reduced micro-contrast reducing the perceived level of detail in the image.
The clarity +73 is a huge amount (by my standards; I generally use 10, or at most 15), and has a discernable negative impact on the noise. It has also significantly increased the blacknesses in the subject, which may be why you used Contrast -13, Shad. +26, blacks +58 to reverse that effect. FWIW I try to get the light in the image to “sing” using Highlights, Shadows, Whites and Blacks (often all four of them, sometimes possibly counter-intuitively, for example taking Whites and Highlights in opposite directions, and/or taking Blacks and Shadows in opposite directions), and then use a light touch on Clarity to add just a little edge to the micro-contrast.
I'm puzzled by the noise reduction. When I use your settings of Lum 77, Lum detail 76 (with your crop and Sharpen 85) the noise is killed pretty much totally, along with a lot of detail. To my eye it doesn't look like the version you posted. With Luminance Detail 76, I have to dial back Luminance to around 25 to get roughly the combination of detail and noise I see in the posted version.
Colour 88, Col. detail 49 puzzles me as well. I think the default Color 25, Detail 50, Smoothness 50 is sufficient. I don't think increasing it does much if any harm in this case, but FWIW I pretty much always leave this at the default values for my images.
DAVID
LR5.3:
- Crop
- apply lens profile and remove CA
- sharpen and NR
- Export into PS with "Edit in PS"
- Convert to smart object/smart filter
- edit in ACR using radial filter to darken background and add additional NR to darkened areas.
- edit in ACR to reduce green saturation and luminance, and increased yellow sat a little
- save as 8bit JPEG with sRGB embedded
Presumably you upped the Exposure?
I'm puzzled by apply lens profile and remove CA. I have not noticed any lens profiles in Lightroom for any Panasonic equipment. And aren't lens profiles specific to particular interchangeable lenses? The FZ200 has a fixed lens. I'd like to know which lens profile you used so I can try it and see what the effect is.
I didn't spot any CA in the image. Could you help me please and point me at it?
GRAHAM
Lightzone
Zonemapper to pull black and white points out
slight detail increase
increase sat on yellows on insect only
noise reduction on all but insect
noise reduction on all but insect
(yep - did it twice)
PS
despeckle
noise reduction on all but insect
(yep - really)
Picasa
vignette
Your composition is a bit more centred than David's, and I very much like the way the colour and light work on the fly's abdomen. The contrast over the rest of the subject seems too strong for my taste, with a fair amount of black where I would normally expect colours, albeit quite possibly dark colours. In the lighter, right hand areas of the background the noise has been pretty much eliminated. I don't see any noise speckle to the left of the image either, but the background there has a slightly blotchy appearance that I'm not quite comfortable with. The image detail seems less sharp than in David's version, for example the dew drops on the grass head on the centre left, but also I think on the main subject when compared to Phil and David's versions. However, this is not a simple “like for like” comparison as I'm not sure how much of the detail loss is simply because the subject is smaller in your version.
LEE
Mine done in Lightroom 4...
Cropped, adjusted contrast, exposure, highlights, and decreased saturation...
Used adjustment brush and increased contrast and clarity.
Sharpened slightly, and applied some noise reduction
Flipped image.
Yours is another high contrast version Lee, with some distinctly dark areas on the subject as with Graham's rendition, but yours doesn't have the blackness that Graham's has in some places. The grass head is the lightest in any of the versions, and its colouring is quite mild and low contrast, compared for example to the much stronger colour and contrast of the fly. The contrast between the darker, richer-coloured subject and the lighter, milder grass head is sufficient to give the image a slightly unbalance feel to my eye, tending to pull my eye away from the fly towards the grass head which seems, to my eye, to compete with the fly rather than complementing it. The level of detail looks good, for example on the grass head as well as the subject (and that despite the image having been upsized). Similarly to Phil's version, the noise is fine-enough grained for me not to find it too distracting in daylight, but it stands out more in my subdued light working conditions.
RHODESE
Opened in PhotoDirector4, see screen grabs.
Exported and opened in ACR, see screen grab.
Open in PS, crop 2x3 putting the fly on bottom left third.
Copy layer.
Fill in the spaces on the top and R/H side that were left after cropping by, copying and pasting selections into new layers and then in free transform, stretch over the spaces.
Remove the light grass by, select/ fill /content aware.
Burn in on the front of the fly.
Flatten.
New layer.
Create the border using stroke, white, 20 pixels, drop opacity to 10%, then in fx, bevel and emboss and add an outer glow.
Flatten.
SAVE. Save for web.
Very interesting placement of the subject; it works well for me. The means of getting that placement is interesting, with fill to the top and the right. However, the fill to the top jars a bit for me. The “bend” in lower boundary of the dew-covered blade above the fly was the first thing that struck me as odd-looking, and then I saw the horizontal line, ending on the right with a discontinuity of the vertical lighter green broad line to the left of the dark area, as it starts bending over to the right. And when I looked a bit closer I saw that the texture above and a bit below the horizontal line was different from the texture in the rest of the image, a bit rougher; not objectionable, but different. Once I had noticed these things I found it difficult to get them out of my mind/sight and they were a bit disruptive of my enjoyment. That said, I think the compositional effect of opening up that space and placing the subject where it is, given its orientation, is excellent.
The noise in the image is nicely subdued, whilst the micro-contrast/level of visible detail is good; a difficult combination to achieve. The colours are a bit orangy for my taste on the abdomen and on and around the lower sections of the fly's two feet that are nearest to us. The droplets up towards the tip of the blade look well defined and glow nicely. The subject and the blade it is on have good clarity and stand out well against the simple background with its unobtrusive colour, texture and lack of distracting detail. The more I look at it, the more I like the way the light has been rendered.
How did you do the noise reduction? I don't see mention of that in your text and I didn't spot anything about it in the screen grabs. Was it global or selective?
THE WINNER
My winner? Rhodese, for a (to my eye) well envisioned, simple and pleasing composition, a treatment of light that gives the subject and its immediate surroundings (the blade it is on, and the drops) a “presence” that I find appealing, and a good combination of detail and noise control. As long as I disregard the extension of the top of the image it is a picture that I can stare at and contemplate with great pleasure.
My runner up is David, for producing a rendition with what looks to me to be nicely balanced colour, detail, distribution of light and noise control.
Rhodese, over to you.
Well done everyone. And thanks again for the opportunity to dig a bit deeper into these things than it is usually polite to do, and I do hope I haven't overstepped the mark on that score.
My version
Folowing my wife's harsh comments on my attempts, I did another one. I did it prior to anyone else posting so as to avoid being influenced by or stealing ideas from your versions. My thinking at that stage was that because the original was of such poor quality it would be unwise to crop the image much (this is after all an image from a small sensor camera, and grossly underexposed). However, this left the subject a bit too central for my liking. It would not have taken much of a crop on the left to decentre the subject enough for my taste, but I couldn't find a crop that left an edge that I was comfortable with. I found one further in, but that would have been too much of a crop for comfort. I therefore decided to stretch the image on the right instead. Having now seen Rhodese's version, this one of mine still seems rather too central to me.
This approach, with or without the stretching, leaves the subject relatively small in the image compared to cropped versions. I am comfortable with this, as I tend to go for “subject in its environment” shots as well as “here is a good, detailed look at a subject” shots, but experience has shown me that “environmental/contextual” shots are not very popular. For most people doing and commenting on this sort of stuff, the subject pretty much filling the frame is as far out as they want to go, and very often they go in much closer and look at parts of the subject (heads, or even just eyes), and these are the shots that get the strongest reactions. For this reason I tend to refer to my stuff as “close-ups” rather than “macros”, the term most people use. Some of my “close-ups”, or example showing the whole of a (rather small) fruit fly or springtail, are in fact higher magnification than some people's “macros” of part of a subject. But in my mind at least the term “close-up” indicates a different feel for the balance between subjects and enviroments.
(Click on image for larger version, then right click and select Original)
Nick P1070974-Take2 - Edit-3-Edit PS1 WaPSS3.43 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
In Lightroom
White balance, Temp 5500 (daylight temp), Tint +15.
Exposure: +2.60, Contrast: +5, Highlights: -100, Whites: +35
Clarity: +10, Vibrance: +5
Noise Reduction (default)
Luminance: 0
Colour: 25, Detail: 50, Smoothness: 50
Radial filter
On light grass head left edge: Exposure -0.09, Highlights -100
On fly's head: Exposure +0.10
Pass across to Photoshop CS2 as 16-bit TIFF in ProPhoto colour space
In Lightroom
Apply Luminance Noise Reduction: Luminance 79, Detail 0, Contrast 0
Pass across to Photoshop CS2 as 16-bit TIFF in ProPhoto colour space.
Copy non- noise reduced version as upper layer on top of noise reduced version.
Use eraser with 84% opacity to reveal noise reduced layer on plain parts of background.
User eraser with lower opacities to somewhat reveal noise reduced layer on some mid-ground areas with particularly prominent noise.
But, apply no noise reduction to the subject.
Flatten image.
Increase canvas size on the right.
Stretch right hand third or so of image over to the right, so fly (or at least, its “centre of gravity”) is offset to the left of centre of the image. (To combat what I assume is a bug in CS2, this has to be done by duplicating the (now) single layer of the image, doing the canvas resize and image stretch, and then, on the top layer, running the eraser (with a soft brush, 100% opacity) down the join between the stretched area on the right and the untouched area on the left. This gets rid of the very narrow line along the join that is visible at some magnifications.)
Apply standard finishing:
Very mild defog. Unsharp Mask: Amount 7%, Radius 30 pixels, Threshold 0.
Mild curves. Three points down at 25% across, one point up at 75% across.
Resize to 1100 pixels high.
Smart Sharpen: Radius 0.3 pixels, in this case with Amount 63%.
Convert to RGB profile.
Convert to 8-bit.
Save as JPEG Compression 10
My comparison version
I was fascinated by how the image had held up with cropping, so I decided to re-do my version with the same crop as David's, so I could do a more direct comparison of detail retention and noise between my version and everyone else's.
Apart from doing the crop in Lightroom, the processing was I believe the same as the above up to copying the second, noise-reduced version across to CS2. The rest of the process was the same as above, with the following exceptions.
I think I used 100% opacity with the eraser on the background. I did some low (20% or so) opacity erasing on the fly.
I didn't do the stretch.
I used Amount 100% rather than 63% for the Smart Sharpening. This is normal for me in the sense that (I know this doesn't sound like it makes sense) I tend to use higher Amounts the larger the subject is in the frame. It's not a formulaic thing, I do it by eye each time, but that is the way it tends to work out.
Anyway, here is what I got.
Nick - with Pookeyhead crop - P1070974-Edit-3-Edit PS1 PSS3 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Yep. Sorry.. thought it was obvious.. didn't bother listing it
TBH...it's something I just do on auto pilot. I didn't even bother checking what RAW it was. If there is no native profile support, this would have done nothing. CA removal however, is independent of profile, and would have been applied. Whether it was necessary is again, something I don't check for. It's part of my work flow, as it's not destructive, and if any linear CA is present, it will be removed.
Well done Rhodese.... post up a RAW