|
|
Saad Salem
{K:89003} 2/11/2009
|
thank you so much ,appreciate every word spoken or written on my shots,have my best wishes and regards,
Saad.
|
|
|
|
|
pooria asa
{K:1752} 2/11/2009
|
perfect Saad.wonderful shot.
the lines the colors, composition.every thing is perfect.
regards,
pooria.
|
|
|
|
|
Saad Salem
{K:89003} 1/31/2009
|
yes Ivona,but in Iraq,they are useless with only two hours a day of power,be thankful to your cables,I can not imagine a street without them,be well dear,
Saad.
|
|
|
|
Ivona Lozic
{K:6799} 1/31/2009
|
Nice shoot.. but those stupid electric cables... I know, u couldn't avoid them, they are all around us...
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 1/31/2009
|
And BTW, the strong luminace on some contours of birds is definitely not what it looks like when the light gets difracted there. Sorry Saad, it simply doesn't look like that.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 1/31/2009
|
I don't know what size of your original image is, Saad. Only you can tell me. So, if you attache something as the original and don't tell me that it was downsized for attaching it, I simply have to assume that it was really the original. I don't guess anything additional at all, and so an original is for me an original with no resizing and nothing else too. This was what I had to start from.
With the new information that you tell me now, some things I thought have to be dismissed and some other things remain. So, it was not the mixture of upscaling, sharpening and leveling but rather the latter two. Taste is of course one thing but echo contours are not taste - they are facts. It is very well possible to do something with the own taste and still avoid that kind of artifacts.
BTW, underexposure would help you to get this kind of look. It would be much easier then to enhance the image since it would have the "preliminaries" already well done. But to shoot it overexposed and to turn it then to the look of underexposure and on the top of that to wish crispy contours too... It hardly works, Saad.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Saad Salem
{K:89003} 1/28/2009
|
Dear Nick,the original that I sent to you,is a resized from the original,as you Know the attachment should be not more than 750*750 pixel ,and I still have a semi dead line,that takes 5 minutes to upload such attachment,so it seems that I have re sized it less than that,and the posted shot is resized from the original to size 850*xxx.
did you thinked that the shot of D3 is that small and I have to upsize it ?
this shot is a reply to JD,who thankfully told me the way he edit his shot in full details,and he posts a very excellent edited shot,me and many others wanted to know how he did that editing,so when he post the way,I have to choose this bad shot as you said,and applied JD,editing style on it in a very hurry and short time,produced to versions,and posted it as a dedication to him,the shot is burned too much as you could see at the wall,and dodged very much in the sky mainly the cloud,and yes I tried to do his way ,but not 100%
cause I applied my special taste on the shot,and kept original in the shot ,the flying birds,cause the light is being transparent in their wings,thank you for the detailed input,
cheers,
Saad.
|
|
|
|
|
Saad Salem
{K:89003} 1/28/2009
|
thank you dear Malules,my best wishes,
Saad.
|
|
|
|
|
Saad Salem
{K:89003} 1/28/2009
|
thank you dear Malules,my best wishes,
Saad.
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 1/28/2009
|
All imaging software is thought for making images that *are* already healthy a bot better. You can't expect to turn the sliders all the way up and convert such an image like this to a good one. It will the always have problems! Do not trust miraculous automatic "betterings" but learn each and every possibility and use them manually and reasonably. Above all of course deal only with the good images you shot. The less you have to tweak on an image the better it is.
I also tried to get it at least a bit better, but there is not much one could do about it. The adjustment of levels up to a certain degree brought some additional details and the cloning of the parts of the trees made the composition a bit tighter, but not really much. BTW, the sky on the uncropped image is much better for that long cloud that adds some impact. Cropping the left part off tightens up the bottom of the image (the wall) but unfortunately reduces the impact of that cloud. So the composition is problematic. Some steps to the right and a small turn of the camera to the left could bring the higher part of the wall to the bottom left, as it is on your cropped image. A better expsure could also raise its quality. And of course staying away from sizing images up! Downsizing is OK (in general) but upsizing is not fun at all.
Which all boils down to: Don't post images that you have to "correct" first so strongly. It only shows that you didn't like the image. Better to post those that you don't need to retouch that much and you already like as you shot them. Or else you will always have such problems, Saad.
Cheers!
Nick
P.S.: BTW too, your camere seems to have a weak level of sharpening/pixelation artefacts. Not as strong but it is there.
|
Adjusted levels, cloned trees off |
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 1/28/2009
|
Thanks a lot fornthe original shot, Saad! Now I know the problem(s). OK, let's start.
Generally speaking the quality of the original is... well, very bad. Overexposed, unfinished composition, washed out colors, etc, etc. First thing to always keep in mind: don't take such inacceptable images and expect to turn them to good images by using aome kind of "magic", be it ACDsee or anything else. It simply doesn't work. The correction and editing tools were never meant to turn any possible image to a good image. They are thought for adding some more quality to images that *are* already well shot with the camera.
Second thing is, you cropped the image and then upscaled the remaining part to a size even greater than the original. It is clear that you will have pixelation when doing this. When you increase the size of an image and retain the same resolution, then you actually... increase the size if individual pixels into the range of visibility. Of course the indivisual pixels remain the same size, but: Imagine the following situation. You have an image of 100x100 pixels and you increase its size to 200x200 (and keep resolution unchanged.) So, how the additional pixels are to be generated? The retouching software has no idea what to put, say, between two pixels that were adjucent to each other on the original image. So it has to... guess! There are many different methods of that "guessing" but one thing they have in common: They devastate nice smooth and sharp contours. I attached an example where an image is sized up using bicubic method (top row), a sharper variation of bicubic (middle row) and simple pixel repeatition (bottom row). See what happens? The middle column is the the enlargement. All three of them show that kind of bad contours the ine or the other way. Now, go ahead and sharpen the enlarged images (right column), and see how the artificially introduced "echo" of the contours is made even stronger, and how pixelisation starts showing. I added also one of the bords on your image for a direct comparison.
Third thing was that the exposure was really not good too. Then the software you used in order to "retouch" it compressed the available tonal range for raising contrast, but it overshooted with that exactly as it did with sharpening.
So, all in all the image suffered very strongly but it can't be made as healthy as the advertisement about "superb quality" of the software might suggest.
(to be continued)
|
Example image |
|
|
|
Malules Fernandez
{K:54810} 1/27/2009
|
Great capture, dear Saad.
regards,
malules
|
|
|
|
|
Saad Salem
{K:89003} 1/27/2009
|
yes Nick,and with pleasure.
|
Original for Nick |
|
|
|
|
Saad Salem
{K:89003} 1/27/2009
|
thank you my friend Musa,have all the best wishes,
Saad.
|
|
|
|
|
Saad Salem
{K:89003} 1/27/2009
|
thank you so much Susie,my best wishes,
Saad.
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 1/27/2009
|
It is very obvious that it is edited, Saad! Could you please attach the original without any editing at all?
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
mousa Jubran
{K:5780} 1/27/2009
|
احب الحمام .
اجد المتعة في تصوير الحمام .لقطة جميلة يا صديقي.
تمنياتي لك بالتوفيق
موسى
|
|
|
|
|
Susie Peek-Swint
{K:7303} 1/26/2009
|
I love the different stages of the birds in flight with wonderful backlighting on the wings ~ great timing and capture Saad!
|
|
|
|
|
Saad Salem
{K:89003} 1/26/2009
|
thank you my dear Nick,this is an edited shot the original is far different than this,my best regards,
Saad.
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 1/26/2009
|
The flying ones look very nicely "semi-transparent", Saad! The sunlight was captured quite well on them, and the blue sky and white cloud as background makes their contours very well defined. Some of the other ones, on the bottom, could be a bit more detailed with (possibly) a bit more exposure. But the others already show texture and details.
The wires are a bit too much here. Many times I find them good but here the somehow disturb the free sight to the birds.
Again... strong pixelation. Unfortunately. There must be a way to get rid of that.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Saad Salem
{K:89003} 1/25/2009
|
thank you Ania,best wishes,
Saad.
|
|
|
|
Ania Zielińska-Hoşaf
{K:61374} 1/25/2009
|
Very nice contrast with blue sky... Great shot, Saad! :)
Best,
Ania
|
|
|
|
|
Saad Salem
{K:89003} 1/24/2009
|
dear Steven,you are right about one big circle,about 4mm in diameter in the shot,I didn't know from where it came from,at my previous reply I was totly unaware of it,thank you again for getting my attentions,
Saad.
|
|
|
|
|
Saad Salem
{K:89003} 1/24/2009
|
thank you dear Harry,it is for JD,he gave all the members the way he edit his shots in his last post,you could check it,
about the D3,why you buy something with one hundred,while you can by it by fifty ?
Omit D3 from you mind completely,it is heavy,bulky,difficult to handle,and the lenses adds further burden over its weight,be wise as always,and think of D700.
it give the same image quality,has the same CMOS,
lighter,more easy to manipulate,and above all ,half the price.
yours,
Saad.
|
|
|
|
|
Saad Salem
{K:89003} 1/24/2009
|
you have mentioned the reason for me to post this shot,and yes its value is in that the wings becomes translucent to the light,about the dust speckles they were intentional,due to burning of clouds,
thank you for your interest,and for capturing my points in the shot,
be well,
Saad.
|
|
|
|
Wolf Zorrito
{K:78768} 1/24/2009
|
Excellent dear Saad, color version I prefer. 105 mm nikkor is super lens, have it as well. Now I save money for the D3 ;-)
Very good in all aspect, comp and timing.
Congrats
|
|
|
|
|
Saad Salem
{K:89003} 1/24/2009
|
thank you Sarkar,my best wishes,
Saad.
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Fennell
{K:80} 1/24/2009
|
Saad - this is a great image, and I think it works best in colour. Have you noticed that there's a small dust speck at the top of the image? Perhaps you could clone it out. I really like the way the backlighting illuminates the birds' wings.
|
|
|
|
|
Saad Salem
{K:89003} 1/24/2009
|
thank you my dear friend,my regards to both of you,I wished to offer more.
Saad.
|
|
|
|
Aungsita Chatterjee
{K:19843} 1/24/2009
|
hihi nice caption........... excellent snap.
regards bubai.
|
|
|
|
Srna Stankovic
{K:172232} 1/24/2009
|
So very beautiful and JD deserves this dear Saad :-)
Hug,
Srna
|
|
0 
