Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > People Photos

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 29, 2003, 6:37 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Now you two have gotten me wondering. I've uploaded the original, untouched (direct from camera) jpg with EXIF removed (to hide my camera's serial number.) No, I didn't use raw. I should switch, but I've got enough PS to learn that I haven't wanted to add even more complexity. My last dip into RAW turned out rather bad (due to me and lack of knowledge more than anything else.) I have no RAW tools other than what came with the camera.

http://www.marx7.org/~esmith/web_posts/minute_orig.JPG

Do what you can and show/tell me what you did! (Please? This is how I can learn.) I appreciate this, but also don't spend too much time on it (unless you want to.) I realize your time is valuable... anything you can do is a help.

I don't believe I did much contrast enhancement... maybe +4 or so (but I could be wrong.) I don't normally do much. I did not use USM, but the default Sharpen (I really need to internalize what USM does... I've been told it several times, but I don't truly "get it"... so I need to dig up some files and do it with different settings and see/learn what it does by doing.)

Be warned it is big (2,342,912 bytes). Here is the EXIF data, for what it's worth.
File Name 158_5864.JPG
Camera Model Name Canon EOS 10D
Shooting Date/Time 10/24/2003 2:32:21 PM
Shooting Mode Shutter Speed Priority AE
Tv( Shutter Speed ) 1/250
Av( Aperture Value ) 3.5
Metering Mode Evaluative
Exposure Compensation 0
ISO Speed 100
Lens 28.0 - 135.0 mm
Focal Length 28.0 mm
Image Size 3072x2048
Image Quality Fine
Flash Off
White Balance Auto
AF Mode One-Shot AF
Parameters
- Contrast Normal
- Sharpness Normal
- Color saturation Normal
- Color tone Normal
Color Space sRGB
File Size 2285KB
Custom Function
- C.Fn:01-0
- C.Fn:02-0
- C.Fn:03-0
- C.Fn:04-0
- C.Fn:05-0
- C.Fn:06-0
- C.Fn:07-0
- C.Fn:08-0
- C.Fn:09-0
- C.Fn:10-0
- C.Fn:11-0
- C.Fn:12-0
- C.Fn:13-0
- C.Fn:14-0
- C.Fn:15-0
- C.Fn:16-0
- C.Fn:17-0
Drive Mode Continuous shooting

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2003, 9:09 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
JanetKP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 247
Default

Eric, I doubt you could improve on that. Great!
JanetKP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2003, 11:01 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

the only issue i had with your shot was not your work but the others trying to "fix" what was not truely broken. the image was good right off the bat. a tiny bit of refinement is all.

shooting in lower light i would have upped the iso to 200 or more. i'm not afraid of "noise" as some are. a little NI cleans very well. in fact i shoot most of the time at 200. that could have gotten you i hair more DOF.

orig: http://www.pbase.com/image/22787846

mod: http://www.pbase.com/image/22787847

look at the first one and then use the next/previous to go back and forth to see the subtle differences
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2003, 2:23 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

I didn't think you meant that my edits or picture were bad (and don't worry about hurting my feelings if they were. I can take it.)

I agree, your changes do improve the image. They correct the thing I dislike about the "out of camera" shot (I often feel the 10D's images look like there is a slight hazy film is over the picture. Usually I fix this with a slight contrast bump, but maybe there is a better way.) And it preserve the colors. (His clothing is hand made in the way they did in the 1700s, with hand made dyes. So it matters.)

The only downside is that the shape of the fire coming out of the musket is different. The original is slimmer with the brighter yellow more concentrated in a straight(er) line.

I agree on the ISO200. I was shooting bluebirds at 10' with flash just before this and then wandered over there for the shot. I wasn't planning on taking the shot, but I couldn't resist when the opportunity came up. So I was completely unprepared for it (I have a much better lens in that range then the one I was using, for example.)

Thanks for posting those two. Could you comment on what you did? I need to learn these things.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2003, 4:00 PM   #25
-jb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric s
The only downside is that the shape of the fire coming out of the musket is different. The original is slimmer with the brighter yellow more concentrated in a straight(er) line.Eric
I also like the flame better in the original shot.

Photoshop has several tools that merge different parts of two images together. Put your original image on one layer and the new corrected image on a layer above it. Add a layer mask to the corrected image's layer and paint with black to let the original flame show through.

You could also use the history brush if you'd rather.

-jb
-jb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2003, 4:46 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

your both right. but it ain't bad for a 2 minute job though. more time and not working after i've just gotten home from the job that actually pays me. as the saying goes- "you had to be there" for me to get the colors as close as possible to original. i'm going to pull the picture tonight.
sjms 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 6:59 AM.