PHOTO: People in boats; harbor: Overfiltered

Displaying 1 to 9 of 9 matches.
Joesboy
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:57AM
One Two


 


In this particular locale I keep getting the overfiltered/overprocess response, both are processed using the Nikon Standard Picture Control and D-lighting to pull the shodows up a bit. What about these causess the reviewer to label them as overprocessed or overfiltered. Should I "flatten" them? This seems to be highly dependent on the reviewer as tens of the same types of images from the same locale have been accepted. I will also add that in equatorial regions, this is very typical light, not that that means anyting


Thanks


Bob

(Edited on 2013-01-28 11:15:43 by donald_gruener)
slobo
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Sun Jan 27, 2013 9:50AM
One: there are lots of artifacts in shadow areas. Your exif data is not showing ISO setting but I assume it is high because it is shot at f=8 and 1/2000 sec. I assume ISO to be at least 800.Try processing without D-lighting.

Two: Too much Noise Reduction killed fine detail. It is not too bad but still more than iStock likes to see. Try reprocessing with less NR.

(Edited on 2013-01-27 09:55:48 by slobo)
Difydave
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Sun Jan 27, 2013 10:08AM
^Agreed. Also are you sharpening? The first shot looks sharpened to me at first impression, the second the same and it also has quite a pronounced halo around the boat.
Joesboy
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sun Jan 27, 2013 10:52AM
Well, this is enlightning - ISO was 200 and F8 on both shots but I see the artifacts in the boat shadows on one, but no, I didn't sharpen, strange as that may seem. i need to go to 200% to see NR effects but I can see them. Neednew eyeballs, glasses or maybe she'll let me buy a better monitor, that's it new toys, not my fault.  Anyway, it really is that bright down there. Was also reduced to using the backup D50 and its not quite as good as the newer camra, but it went belly-up earlier in the trip so off to 200% land and the eye doctor --- Thanks for the help
Difydave
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:14AM

Are you sure there's not a default setting somewhere you've missed? Can't see anything about sharpening in the EXIF, but some software picks up the camera settings etc.


As I say more a "general impression of" than anything.


Life is easier with a better monitor. I'd change my own eyes for ones that didn't need glasses, but I've sort of got attached to this pair!
Joesboy
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:14PM
Posted By Difydave:

Are you sure there's not a default setting somewhere you've missed? Can't see anything about sharpening in the EXIF, but some software picks up the camera settings etc.

Well, yes there almost always is. I use the Nikon software and built into their Picture Control are default sharpening, contrast etc which i usually deactivate, sharpening was turned off here. But I have to tune that to the camera, in this case I was set up for the D300 which is quite different than the D50, seems to be especially so for landscape shots. Also, the D50 is CCD and the D300 is CMOS, the D50 seems to have high spatial frequency fractal like noise that results in what looks a lot like artifacting and jaggies from sharpening. The only recourse is usually to downsize, sometimes to postage stamp size.

Thanks again
slobo
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Sun Jan 27, 2013 6:00PM
Posted By Joesboy:
Well, this is enlightning - ISO was 200 and F8 on both shots


in which case first shot is significantly underexposed. Bringing detail from underexposed shadows usually results in artifacts as we see them.


your first shot is f8, 1/2000


second one f8 1/250. That is 4 times slower than the first one yet weather conditions are similar.
donald_gruener
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer SpotlightMember has had a File Of The WeekForum Moderator
Posted Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:21AM
Just wanted to add that these are both really really mushed up, smeary to the point of looking almost like digital paintings rather than photos. Slobo's opinion was "not too bad" but these are a long ways from acceptable. I'm not sure how to enable you to see that. Maybe if you could somehow view the unprocessed original file side by side with your end result?
Joesboy
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:09PM
Posted By donald_gruener:
Just wanted to add that these are both really really mushed up, smeary to the point of looking almost like digital paintings rather than photos. Slobo's opinion was "not too bad" but these are a long ways from acceptable. I'm not sure how to enable you to see that. Maybe if you could somehow view the unprocessed original file side by side with your end result?

I will do that, thanks. Both have been accepted (marginally?) after heeding the advice above, but I can still benefit from advice.
This thread has been locked.
Displaying 1 to 9 of 9 matches.
Not a member?Join