Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 17, 2007, 6:14 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
ennacac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,198
Default

Tell me what you think about the original image processed


Image processed with Benjamins method


Tom
ennacac is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 17, 2007, 6:32 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
WackyRoger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chama, New Mexico
Posts: 6,206
Default

Tom now that to me is a tuff choice. After looking at them numerous times I would have to choose #2 but then again I would be real proud of #1 if I had taken it.

TOTALLY WACKY roger
WackyRoger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2007, 7:46 PM   #3
TDN
Senior Member
 
TDN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,288
Default

Well for this particular shot I'd say nr 1, because here we're interested in the bird, not in the background.

Benjamins method divides the attention more accross the entire frame rather than keep it on the bird.


I do think if you took a shot where the subject was bigger, I'd prefer his method.

Depends on the situation really..
TDN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2007, 8:22 PM   #4
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

tom,
i don't really know.... but if it was mine, i'd do a layer mask over the bird and blur all the rest slightly because there's too much detail and confusion in the image. just enough for it to look like DOF effect.

roy
  Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2007, 8:54 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 127
Default

TomI think Bens technique gives the photo allot more pop and looks better

Jim
87olds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2007, 10:24 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
nznhut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 303
Default

Number 1, definitely. The subject matter doesn't lend itself to Ben's technique, which is great for certain subjects and styles, but not Mr. Rooster in his setting.

Number 1 is natural, not harsh or cartoonish, a definitely nice pic
nznhut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2007, 11:28 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

Very interesting - I agree that some subjects react better than others for this process. I think I'd take the background from the first one, blur it a bit like Roy suggested, then take the bird from the second one and put them together. In many ways, the differences for this one are small.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2007, 3:15 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
bilybianca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hassleholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,435
Default

And my opinion is the contrary. I think the background looks better after processing (even though I think it might be worth a try to blur i a tad). But IMO the bird itself looks overprocessed in #2. Maybe 50/50 of the two?

Kjell
bilybianca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2007, 7:28 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
bluwing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 592
Default

Hi,

I am in the minority here. I like bens method better. The first picture looks like it was taken on an overcast day. The second picture looks like it was taken on bright sunny day.

Also in the second one the bird does stand out better. I think Bens process is more for portrait use than widlife or landscapes.

this is how I would have done it. I hope that you don't mind Tom. I used your first picture.

Rudy
Attached Images
 
bluwing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2007, 7:37 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
thkn777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,831
Default

For me #2 is too "strong". I am with the others suggesting a somewhat blurred background. Since I found that I use something similar to Ben on my own pics (was actually surprised to find that someone else does such crazy things :? ) I gave it a try.

This is also done with layers. Original layer is #1. Second layer is based on #1, applied a gauss deconvolution (sharpening) with a very small radius. This was only to emphasize the already good sharpness. Then I used a adaptive blur filter (about 50/50/12) several times to separate the bird and sharp foreground from the background. Applied max and min filter (ony a tad), increasedshadows to show the birds feathers a tad more in the darker regions. Layer was set to "hard light" (!!) and I played with opacity till I thought it was ok. Since the picture was too dark now I made a 3rd layer and set it to "negative multiply" and again played with controls. The result looked a tad too sharp and had too much contrast in the snowy foreground thus I enlarged by 2, de-pixelized and resized to original size making things look a tad smoother without loosing too much detail. Duplicated the final result and used "soft light" with about 25% opacity. The bird is now a lot more isolated from the background and it makes (for me) much more dramatic because of the added "depth" from the blurred background.

This is great picture and I very much enjoyed looking at it, be it the original or my modification. I like the colors and the more sunny overall impression inthe modifiedpicture - everybody has it's personal preferences I guess. Hope you don't mind stealing your pic for that - since I started with my dSLR and have an increased amount of post-processing I am very interested in different techniques.

Here you go - I hope you like it:



Yours,
Th.
thkn777 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:52 PM.