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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 19, 2006, 12:26 PM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 84
Default

I thought it might be better if I show you what I'm talking about. First of all--I am not trying to make myself out to be smarter, more knowledgeable, or holier than anyone else--these are just my observations, and I don't want to be seen as being condascending to anyone or to have my opinions wrongly received. Second--everyone processes things differently, we also don't have the same monitors, or eyes to view these photos with. Lastly, I process my photos for the final print, not so much for the viewof the dinkylittle jpeg, that due to size limitations of forums, we are allowed to post.It has been my experience that thephotos that I havemanipulated to the point of looking striking on the internet, don't look worth a poop as a print. I will post some examples below of what I'm talking about...

Here is the eagle pic as posted originally



Here is the pic again after I made some adjustments that I just didn't take the time to do when I posted the original. This is much better, but it was a matter of time available and the desire to share.



Now here is a third example that I created ( and I am not being facetious ) by using only an auto image enhancement in PSP8. This is what I meant when I made reference to the amount of over sharpened, over contrasted, over saturated, images earlier. I am not saying that this was what you meant to me, but you cannot argue that these type of images show up all of the time, and it's all but impossible to find a kind way to acknowlege someone's workflow when they post such images, that to them have "pop". This is just not realistic.






I will make sure though from now on to make some adjustments to my images before I post them--It doesn't make any sense to show less than you're best. I love these forums, and I like the people here and in other places, but I often do not have the time to post as I should--this was one of those times.

Tom W


Tom W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2006, 10:19 PM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 84
Default

HOLY CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I get to work tonight, and I look at this post through my crappy little 15 inch ten year old monitor, and I see what you mean.

The original looks completly washed out, the second one which by the way is fabulous at home, still looks washed out here, and the third one that looks utterly ridiculous on my monitor at home looks perfect here on this one. My first reaction was that this monitor is way out of whack, but then that means that a lot of your monitors are out of whack as well. Then I thought, well maybe my monitor at home has the contrast levels set too high. Nope my monitor matches my printer. I am stumped and I am gonna have to figure out the problem. If this is what you guys are seeing as well--I understand your concerns!!!!!!!!!!!!

This looks like a job for.........dunh da dunh! (whichever cartoon superhero used that line).

Does the scenario I just described look the same to you on your monitors???

Please reply I would like to figure this out.

Tom W
Tom W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2006, 12:07 AM   #13
djb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,289
Default

Tom, to me at home the 1st pick looks okay but maybe just a tad "soft". the 2nd pic is the best and the 3rd is just too contrasty which hides detail.

dennis
djb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2006, 1:06 AM   #14
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 84
Default

Dennis,

That was what I had at home as well.

Tom W
Tom W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2006, 5:14 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
JakeTPegg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,767
Default

Tom, I agree with Dennis
Quote:
Tom, to me at home the 1st pick looks okay but maybe just a tad "soft". the 2nd pic is the best and the 3rd is just too contrasty which hides detail.

Fantastic angle of the eagle, also his expression is something !!
JakeTPegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2006, 8:14 AM   #16
KEM
Senior Member
 
KEM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,458
Default

Hi Tom,
I see the Eagle differences on my 17" Microtek LCD monitor as :
#1 Soft...(matt like)
#2 Better.... for the eagle shot anyway.
#3 To much contrast.

I really like the Canadian geese in the original post. Some photos require a softer "Matt like" appearance verses the sharper "glossy" look to give it the feel the photographer is trying to portray. I do like what you did with this photo, it works well with the backdrop, colors of the geese and time of year.
-Kent


KEM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2006, 11:33 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Buzzsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,274
Default

Quote:
Tom, to me at home the 1st pick looks okay but maybe just a tad "soft". the 2nd pic is the best and the 3rd is just too contrasty which hides detail.

dennis

I agree, the first one was way too soft, I'd just change the contrast settings in my camera back to normal, but thats up to you. The second one looks the best and the last one looks like you were really trying to make a saturization point. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it looks like a few of us agree on these pictures, I wish more people would chime in as well. :-)
Buzzsaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2006, 10:49 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Buzzsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,274
Default

Tom,

Did you ever get resolution on the issue? I think it might be as simple as changing the settings in your camera back to normal.
Buzzsaw 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 5:22 PM.