Am I Looking at this Wrong?

[Joe the Photog]

I am editting on a lap topnow, but is this accurate? I actually did very little editting on this one.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=397179&key=0

Overprocessed: The photo appears to suffer from either excessive use of a grain removal tool, leading to a washed out oil-painted look, or overuse of the shadow/highlight tool in Photoshop, which can give the image a 'fake' appearance and create halos around darker objects.

[JRMDC]

Here is what I see.

- the middle of the three visible rails on the right side has jaggies - it could be simple wear on the inner side of the rail
- the wire just above the building upper right has jaggies or something. It looks a little wierd
- I have no problems with shadows/highlights or any lighting issue
- one of the loops of wires just to the left of the nose has a bit of jaggy
- in general, all the wires to the left and the twisted wires higher up have some sharpening halos
- the shot overall seems so sharp, I wonder if you can simply back off the sharpening a bit and it might be fine

[Ween]

- the wire just above the building upper right has jaggies or something. It looks a little wierd

Not saying it isn't the case here, but I hate using wires to judge oversharpening based on their jaggies. I've notice that alot of wires have a jaggie appearance when I look at them with my eyeballs, so it's not a matter of overprocessing. I guess it's the way they're wrapped/wired/strung that gives that appearance and when they show up in an image, it's easy to mistake that for oversharpening...

[hoydie17]

Joe,

It's the leaves on the trees, specifically the ones above the engine. They have very little contrast with each other and it gives the impression that a program like NeatImage has been over used here.

I suspect that it was pretty breezy when you shot this? Leaves were moving in the breeze and it plays with the depth of field behind the engine.

Maybe a little sharpening using USM will help, undo all the sharpening you did during processing. Run a medium sharpening algorithm, and then apply USM filters, that should help a little bit.

You're being victimized by all the soft colors in the background, on the side of the building there's a patch of gray paint that just blends in way too well with the shadows of the trees. And that lack of contrast between different colors is lending itself to the "over processed" look as well.

Just the way I see it, but I think the screener who said this was out to lunch, and didn't look at it very carefully. A common problem.

Sean

[Ween]

Run a medium sharpening algorithm, and then apply USM filters, that should help a little bit.

Do tell. I haven't heard this technique (or at least worded this way) yet...

[hoydie17]

Originally Posted by Ween

Do tell. I haven't heard this technique (or at least worded this way) yet...

No technique to it really, just part of my regular workflow, I've been doing it like that for so long, I'm not sure how to explain it, it's become instinctive.

I usually sharpen the original RAW file, resize to the desired size, and then use USM to make adjustments to the image in the final format.

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking me to explain beyond that?

[Joe the Photog]

I see the point about the leaves and will see if there is anything I can do. It was pretty breezy, as I recall. About the power lines, if you look close, you will see they are wrapped around one another. And the roof is not straight at the edge. I also do see the rail problem too.


Joe

[LAHDPOP]

Originally Posted by hoydie17

It's the leaves on the trees, specifically the ones above the engine. They have very little contrast with each other and it gives the impression that a program like NeatImage has been over used here.

Maybe. I think that lack of contrast, or "smudged" look to the leaves is because of the heat from the exhaust stacks. Everywhere else in the photo, the leaves look fine.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog

I am editting on a lap topnow, but is this accurate? I actually did very little editting on this one.

Joe, those leaves do look a bit fake, as if they were painted. Any chance we can see the original?

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by hoydie17

No technique to it really, just part of my regular workflow, I've been doing it like that for so long, I'm not sure how to explain it, it's become instinctive.

I usually sharpen the original RAW file, resize to the desired size, and then use USM to make adjustments to the image in the final format.

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking me to explain beyond that?

Since sharpen is generally done with USM, everything you have said is a bit confusing. Are you saying there is some "medium sharpening" setting you use first, before resizing? What settting, in what menu? And your USM after resizing, what parameters do you use for that?

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog

About the power lines, if you look close, you will see they are wrapped around one another.
Joe

There is a set of power lines that are obviously a twisted set of lines. But the ones I was talking about were not those.

At any rate, I wonder whether the best strategy here is to appeal, simply saying that you processed little and whatever the issues are, they are caused by wind, etcetera.

[Joe the Photog]

Here's the image straight out of the camera, no processing at all, except, of course, to size it down to 800 pixels wide and 533 up and down.



The most serious issue I see after comparing the unsized, unprocessed image to the first saved copy I made, the 3072X2048, is the jagged rail which lets me see in hindsight that it was overshaprned. One problem I have had in the 18 months since I've had the F4L 70 to 200 is that I sometimes think I have used my lesser quality lens and do my sharpening for those, and not the L.

I'll go back to the original when time permitts because it is very rare to catch one of these CMC Steel units out in the open AND nose uncoupled.


Joe

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog

One problem I have had in the 18 months since I've had the F4L 70 to 200 is that I sometimes think I have used my lesser quality lens and do my sharpening for those, and not the L.

It is a sweet problem to have to deal with, no?

[Ween]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

Since sharpen is generally done with USM, everything you have said is a bit confusing. Are you saying there is some "medium sharpening" setting you use first, before resizing? What settting, in what menu? And your USM after resizing, what parameters do you use for that?

I was lost at 'algorithm.'

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by Ween

I was lost at 'algorithm.'

That is ebonics for "Al's got rhythm."

[Ween]

Originally Posted by JimThias

That is ebonics for "Al's got rhythm."

That's just 'Bad Motive' right there...

[hoydie17]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

Since sharpen is generally done with USM, everything you have said is a bit confusing. Are you saying there is some "medium sharpening" setting you use first, before resizing? What settting, in what menu? And your USM after resizing, what parameters do you use for that?

Heh, I have one of the most bastardized versions of Photoshop CS2 around. Although soon to change as soon as my copy of CS3 arrives, hopefully before I head to Sturgis, South Dakota so I can have it installed on my laptop to replace Elements 4.0

I've got no less than 8 or 9 third party addons that I've added into Elements, including Curvemeister, Wincurve (redundant I know), AutoEye, and some others that I use infrequently.

Sorry, I'm a techy geek, "Algorithm" is just an everyday vocab word for me.

Sean

Sean

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by Ween

That's just 'Bad Motive' right there...

Good one, Chris.

[rustyrail]

I agree with the questioning of the rejection reason as well, but I think this photo suffers from some major perspective/angle issues rather than processing problems. It's basically a roster shot that has been squished and compressed due to the focal range of the lens. My opinion; it doesn't work for this type of shot. Am I the only one that gets a headache just looking at it? Just like when people get criticized here for cropping to close to the edge of the frame, this one needs to breathe and relax. Though the lighting is optimal, but it's way too tight and scrunched up to be an effective roster shot.

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by rustyrail

I agree with the questioning of the rejection reason as well, but I think this photo suffers from some major perspective/angle issues rather than processing problems. It's basically a roster shot that has been squished and compressed due to the focal range of the lens. My opinion; it doesn't work for this type of shot. Am I the only one that gets a headache just looking at it? Just like when people get criticized here for cropping to close to the edge of the frame, this one needs to breathe and relax. Though the lighting is optimal, it's way too tight and scrunched up to be an effective roster shot.

I see what you are saying. I think Joe is not concerned with any of those technical/composition issues but rather just the "paparazzi" shot of a difficult to see engine in his area and all he can do is the super telephoto from that spot.

[rustyrail]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

I see what you are saying. I think Joe is not concerned with any of those technical/composition issues but rather just the "paparazzi" shot of a difficult to see engine in his area and all he can do is the super telephoto from that spot.

Understandable, we've all been there; trying desperately to get some rare locomotive or rare location into the database, but if the photo doesn't work, it doesn't work. It's one of those "what are you gonna do?" situations that we all have to live with.

Now, that photo may have great value to someone really into industrial switchers, and it could easily find a happy home on an MP15DC lover's website, but RP.net is not a "niche" website. Granted, you can find quite a few rare and interesting gems here, but for the most part it has to be the site's opinion of newsworthy and rare. I guess this is where the appeal process comes in to play. If you can present yourself well and sell your rejects like a pro, you're in!

[Joe the Photog]

I waited to go back to it, then went back all the way to the original and reworked the shot as if stright from the camera. The first time, I left it too soft --

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=400188&key=0

but the second time, or really the third time in all, it got in --

PhotoID: Photograph ©

Thanks for the help guys.


Joe

[a231pacific]

Joe,

Nothing against your shot, but that loco has been run hard and put away wet. Is there any part of it that isn't dented?

I see why the screener might have been confused, that twisted power line almost looks like a giant set of zaggies!

Michael Allen

[Joe the Photog]

Not to mention the numbers, Michael. It's kept it's old #960 in three different locations and only spray painted the new number on the cab. I'm surprised the thing even runs.


Joe