Old 03-24-2009, 12:57 AM   #26
Mark Bau
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ween View Post
Well, you have much more info to work with using the full size image vs. one sized to 1024 px. It's why when you rotate a 3MP image you see a lot more image degradation than you do when you rotate a 10MP image.

Also, Save For Web is another way to lose info. I think many here use Save As and save at maximum resolution (12 in PS)...
Yes but its all relative, if you rotate a 10 MB image and don't downsize you still have a large file and the quality will be unchanged. If you downsize that same image to 2 MB it will obviously be a smaller file and a smaller image but the image quality itself shouldn't degrade unless you also change the ppi. Changing an image from say 180 ppi to 10 ppi wont change its look on screen (if you don't resample) but it will drastically change it if you print it. In the case of correcting a colour cast, if an image needs say 20 blue in the midtones to get a grey area truly neutral it doesn't matter what size it is, it still needs 20 blue.

Adobe definately recommends using the "save for web" command over the "save as" command. Something about a better algorithm.
Mark Bau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2009, 01:22 AM   #27
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Bau View Post
Adobe definately recommends using the "save for web" command over the "save as" command. Something about a better algorithm.
News to me. Doesn't make sense, but still...
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2009, 02:26 AM   #28
SamD
Senior Member
 
SamD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 254
Default

I've having a very hard time understanding the first rejection. Cloudy/common maybe or something technical, but backlit? the light seems pretty clearly behind and to the right of the camera, which is where you want it in that shot.
SamD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2009, 08:30 AM   #29
Wizzo
Senior Member
 
Wizzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 545
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Bau View Post
Can you tell me your workflow? I've just spent 10 minutes trying to create jaggies by resizing and I can't get the jaggies to appear, this photo has lots of catenary. I'm starting with a 3072 pixels wide image @ 180 pixels per inch. I am then resizing to 1000 pixels wide, the only time I get a suggestion of jaggies is if I am looking at the image at other that 100%.
It doesn't happen every time, but wires against the sky is a favourite for it to occur on.
Workflow up to that point

RAW file converted to TIFF (no compression)
TIFF opened in PS 7
White balance and levels adjusted as required
Sharpened (usually 70/0.7/2)
Resized

If sharpening takes place after resiazing, the result is about the same.

The last shot I had this happen had 2 wires very close to each other

Image © Stephen Dance
PhotoID: 274331
Photograph © Stephen Dance


- they actually criss crossed several times against the sky. On the TIFF, at full size they were perfectly straight. After resizing (with no sharpening) I had jaggies, any sharpening applied after that just made the problem worse. A quick Google brought me an explanation. With details that small resizing results in too few pixels to render properly and the algorithm used by PS can't cope properly. One solution was to apply some Gaussian blur (0.4) to the wires and then resize. Not perfect, but better than the jaggies
__________________
STEVE

Press here to see my pics on railpictures.net

More pics here D1059 on Flickr
Wizzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2009, 10:05 AM   #30
gummigoof
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Central Iowa
Posts: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamD View Post
I've having a very hard time understanding the first rejection. Cloudy/common maybe or something technical, but backlit? the light seems pretty clearly behind and to the right of the camera, which is where you want it in that shot.
Well, it'd have been much more strongly backlit if the sun had been unobstructed; the sun was in the southwest while the lead unit is facing just slightly east of true north. The clouds were rather variable of thickness that day, though, not to mention rather fast-moving, and more than once the brightest part of the sky was not necessarily in the direction of the sun. Of course, the next day was even more fun- I was dodging severe thunderstorms on the way up there from Duluth.

Neither one of the two submissions had received any sharpening treatment before being uploaded, which I'm now sure was a contributing factor. I'd experimented with it on the second shot, as attached to another post in this thread, but I haven't really done so with the first yet. I'd kind of gathered that the cloudiness and lighting issues would leave it unlikely to be accepted no matter what I did in Photoshop, so I haven't really spent any time with it yet.
gummigoof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2009, 02:04 PM   #31
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizzo View Post
One solution was to apply some Gaussian blur (0.4) to the wires and then resize. Not perfect, but better than the jaggies
Was it the Gaussian blur that created a halo around the doubled wire, or sharpening? These days I take much more time than I used to do before to select out the sky and not sharpen it when there are lines up there, especially catenary.

Nice shot, BTW, reminds me of another shot with a vertical wall framing on the side.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2009, 02:20 PM   #32
Wizzo
Senior Member
 
Wizzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 545
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
Was it the Gaussian blur that created a halo around the doubled wire, or sharpening? These days I take much more time than I used to do before to select out the sky and not sharpen it when there are lines up there, especially catenary.

Nice shot, BTW, reminds me of another shot with a vertical wall framing on the side.
My eyes must be getting too old as try as I might I can't see a halo . Believe me though, the wires looked awful after resizing the first time with no blurring.

Here is the info I found on the resizing problem

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...ze-for-web.htm

It also explains why an image can benefit from sharpening both before and after resizing.
__________________
STEVE

Press here to see my pics on railpictures.net

More pics here D1059 on Flickr
Wizzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2009, 07:48 PM   #33
Mark Bau
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizzo View Post
My eyes must be getting too old as try as I might I can't see a halo . Believe me though, the wires looked awful after resizing the first time with no blurring.

Here is the info I found on the resizing problem

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...ze-for-web.htm

It also explains why an image can benefit from sharpening both before and after resizing.
Sorry but I can't take any notice of a person that writes a tutorial that shows the floodlit building at night where the photo on the right which was downsized 90% displayed at what? 400%!!!! Both of these photos should be at 100% (the one on the right would be very small) All bets are off when a photo is displayed at other than 100%.
Mark Bau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2009, 08:54 PM   #34
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Bau View Post
Sorry but I can't take any notice of a person that writes a tutorial that shows the floodlit building at night where the photo on the right which was downsized 90% displayed at what? 400%!!!! Both of these photos should be at 100% (the one on the right would be very small) All bets are off when a photo is displayed at other than 100%.
Where are you getting 400% from? I see an original at 200x309 and a downsized version displayed at its downsized size of 180x278.

Perhaps you read "Downsized to 90%" as "Downsized 90%"?

But then where does the 400% come from?
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2009, 04:58 AM   #35
Mark Bau
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
Where are you getting 400% from? I see an original at 200x309 and a downsized version displayed at its downsized size of 180x278.

Perhaps you read "Downsized to 90%" as "Downsized 90%"?

But then where does the 400% come from?
We're stumbling over words here, bottom line is that both shots should be displayed at 100% otherwise you can't make any meaningful comparison. Any photo displayed at bigger than 100% is going to look like crap. I just had another look at the floodlit building shot, the original image, on the left has jaggies/moire which, if anything, are slightly improved on the shot on the right but definitely not worse.

Last edited by Mark Bau; 03-25-2009 at 05:05 AM.
Mark Bau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2009, 05:20 AM   #36
jdirelan87
Senior Member
 
jdirelan87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Metro DC
Posts: 725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Bau View Post
We're stumbling over words here, bottom line is that both shots should be displayed at 100% otherwise you can't make any meaningful comparison. Any photo displayed at bigger than 100% is going to look like crap. I just had another look at the floodlit building shot, the original image, on the left has jaggies/moire which, if anything, are slightly improved on the shot on the right but definitely not worse.
There is alot of talking and very little walking with you Mark Bau. I apologize if I missed a link earlier, but can we see some of your stuff before you come on here barking out orders and claiming to know what you are talking about?

'Harsh' criticism like the stuff you have been dealing lately is generally reserved for those who know how it use a camera.
jdirelan87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2009, 05:38 AM   #37
Mark Bau
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdirelan87 View Post
There is alot of talking and very little walking with you Mark Bau. I apologize if I missed a link earlier, but can we see some of your stuff before you come on here barking out orders and claiming to know what you are talking about?

'Harsh' criticism like the stuff you have been dealing lately is generally reserved for those who know how it use a camera.
Well I have photos on RP and you can see 100's of my shots on my Victorian Railways history website, any colour photos that are not credited are mine.

http://www.victorianrailways.net/

I don't like to blow my own horn but seeing as you are questioning me, I have have been published in TRAINS, Railfan & Railroad, CTC board, Pacific Rail News as well as others you wouldn't have heard of. I have been exhibited in galleries in Denver, and have done custom archival printing for the Colorado history museum. I have been a user of photoshop since version 3 and have studied photoshop at college level, even teaching it at a community college.

It might be more helpful to join the discussion and debate specific points as others have done than accuse me of "barking out orders"
Mark Bau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2009, 06:00 AM   #38
jdirelan87
Senior Member
 
jdirelan87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Metro DC
Posts: 725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Bau View Post
It might be more helpful to join the discussion and debate specific points as others have done than accuse me of "barking out orders"
I wasn't accusing you of barking out orders, I was asking to see some proof that you know what you are talking about. Anybody who comes to the forums and doesn't have a link to their photos are begging to have their legitimacy questioned (cough cough Mike B.). Not asking to see some credentials is how stuff like this happens;

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05197/539012-66.stm
jdirelan87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2009, 06:48 AM   #39
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Bau View Post
Well I have photos on RP and you can see 100's of my shots on my Victorian Railways history website, any colour photos that are not credited are mine.

http://www.victorianrailways.net/

I don't like to blow my own horn but seeing as you are questioning me, I have have been published in TRAINS, Railfan & Railroad, CTC board, Pacific Rail News as well as others you wouldn't have heard of.
Congrats...Trains, R&R, etc. But do you realize half the shots in an average release of one of those mags would be rejected on RP? Being published doesn't mean squat, other than the editor saw one of your images that he thought would be appropriate for a story or one of the features in their magazine. Plenty of us here have been published in railroad magazines, but we don't feel the need to brag about it. Also, I think RP holds a higher standard to railroad photography than ANY magazine on the market right now. Just pick up any issue of Trains and you'll see what I mean.

Now, that being said...I checked out your website and you DO have some nice images. But, judging by your recent critique of the average images accepted to RP, one would expect to see some truly creative images on your website. What I saw was wedgie after wedgie, standard shot after standard shot...the exact thing you've been criticizing RP for lately.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2009, 07:01 AM   #40
jdirelan87
Senior Member
 
jdirelan87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Metro DC
Posts: 725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
Congrats...Trains, R&R, etc. But do you realize half the shots in an average release of one of those mags would be rejected on RP? Being published doesn't mean squat, other than the editor saw one of your images that he thought would be appropriate for a story or one of the features in their magazine. Plenty of us here have been published in railroad magazines, but we don't feel the need to brag about it. Also, I think RP holds a higher standard to railroad photography than ANY magazine on the market right now. Just pick up any issue of Trains and you'll see what I mean.

Now, that being said...I checked out your website and you DO have some nice images. But, judging by your recent critique of the average images accepted to RP, one would expect to see some truly creative images on your website. What I saw was wedgie after wedgie, standard shot after standard shot...the exact thing you've been criticizing RP for lately.
Thanks for typing what I was to lazy to
jdirelan87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2009, 07:58 AM   #41
Mark Bau
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
Congrats...Trains, R&R, etc. But do you realize half the shots in an average release of one of those mags would be rejected on RP? Being published doesn't mean squat, other than the editor saw one of your images that he thought would be appropriate for a story or one of the features in their magazine. Plenty of us here have been published in railroad magazines, but we don't feel the need to brag about it. Also, I think RP holds a higher standard to railroad photography than ANY magazine on the market right now. Just pick up any issue of Trains and you'll see what I mean.

Now, that being said...I checked out your website and you DO have some nice images. But, judging by your recent critique of the average images accepted to RP, one would expect to see some truly creative images on your website. What I saw was wedgie after wedgie, standard shot after standard shot...the exact thing you've been criticizing RP for lately.
This thread is getting sillier and sillier, I was asked to prove my credentials and when I make reference to things I've done you say it doesn't mean squat and that I am "bragging about it" Being published may indeed mean squat but you could say the same about having a pic on RP, or having 3000 plus one line posts in RP forums, what's your point?

You wont find many "creative" images on my historical website, photos are there for their historical content and remember, most of my pics on my website were take 25+ years ago, what was the standard of your photography 25+ years ago?
Mark Bau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2009, 08:57 AM   #42
Wizzo
Senior Member
 
Wizzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 545
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Bau View Post
Sorry but I can't take any notice of a person that writes a tutorial that shows the floodlit building at night where the photo on the right which was downsized 90% displayed at what? 400%!!!! Both of these photos should be at 100% (the one on the right would be very small) All bets are off when a photo is displayed at other than 100%.
Mark - apart from the photos on the tutorial, would you say that the information it contains is substantially accurate ? The photos may have been blown up, but I recognised the effect in my own shots when I saw it.

I haven't had the benefit of formalised education in the use of Photoshop and I certainly don't know enough to teach it. I've only been using it for 18 months - 2 years. My only source of knowledge is books, magazines, this forum and what else I can find on the Internet. Sometimes the information is written in a form that doesn't make things blindingly obvious. The tutorial I linked to was one of those that immediately made clear what was happening when resizing a shot and why.

As you teach Photoshop and are into railway photography you are in a fortunate position - could you write your own tutorial on processing railway pics, pointing out the common problems and how to fix them - eg white balance, levelling, sharpening etc. Maybe have a more advanced tutorial to show what else PS is capable of ? The site owners might even consider hosting it as a guide to digital railway photography ?
__________________
STEVE

Press here to see my pics on railpictures.net

More pics here D1059 on Flickr
Wizzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2009, 09:01 AM   #43
jdirelan87
Senior Member
 
jdirelan87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Metro DC
Posts: 725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Bau View Post
You wont find many "creative" images on my historical website, photos are there for their historical content and remember, most of my pics on my website were take 25+ years ago, what was the standard of your photography 25+ years ago?
Wow, this statement makes no sense. When asked to show some of your work, you produced that site, now you are back peddling and saying you have some better stuff up your sleeve? Why not show that link to us now, or why not show that link to us in the first place?

Second, why would Jim's, mine or your standard of photography be any different 25 years ago then today? There has been no technological advancement in the last 25 years that has change the fundamentals of what makes a good picture (made it easier to do so maybe). The only thing that has changed in the last 25 years is your personal skills as a photographer. So then you must be saying you have gotten better as a photographer in the last 25 years. Understandable, but that brings me back to my first point, why not show us your hot shit stuff in the first place?

Sorry if I'm coming on strong, but when somebody randomly blows onto the forums with guns blazing saying stuff like this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Bau View Post
Sorry but I can't take any notice of a person that writes a tutorial that...
about a respected photographer and forum contributor, you better have more than a couple pages of 25 year old wedgies backing you up.
jdirelan87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2009, 09:44 AM   #44
Mark Bau
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdirelan87 View Post
Wow, this statement makes no sense. When asked to show some of your work, you produced that site, now you are back peddling and saying you have some better stuff up your sleeve? Why not show that link to us now, or why not show that link to us in the first place?

Second, why would Jim's, mine or your standard of photography be any different 25 years ago then today? There has been no technological advancement in the last 25 years that has change the fundamentals of what makes a good picture (made it easier to do so maybe). The only thing that has changed in the last 25 years is your personal skills as a photographer. So then you must be saying you have gotten better as a photographer in the last 25 years. Understandable, but that brings me back to my first point, why not show us your hot shit stuff in the first place?

Sorry if I'm coming on strong, but when somebody randomly blows onto the forums with guns blazing saying stuff like this:


about a respected photographer and forum contributor, you better have more than a couple pages of 25 year old wedgies backing you up.
This thread really is getting so silly. You are getting very territorial, lets just stick to the facts/issues.

How am I back peddaling? My website was listed after you asked to 'see my stuff" I didn't pretend or represent it as anything.

What exactly is "hot shit" stuff? Do you create "hot shit stuff"?

I hope that both you and Jim have improved your photographic standard over the last 25 years, otherwise you're just standing still and not learning anything anymore, that is creative death.

Don't worry about apoligising for coming on too strong, I enjoy a robust discussion (as if you couldn't tell) as long as people don't just talk for the sake of talking but can back up what they say.

With regard to the photoshop tutorial, the floodlit building comparison shots are worthless and anyone that knows much about digital imaging couldn't help but agree.

You have not offered much to this discussion, just flinging mud around.

This thread is going nowhere so I'll let you have the last word in this thread. I'm done with it.
Mark Bau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2009, 10:00 AM   #45
Wizzo
Senior Member
 
Wizzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 545
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Bau View Post
With regard to the photoshop tutorial, the floodlit building comparison shots are worthless and anyone that knows much about digital imaging couldn't help but agree.
Then write us a good tutorial.............seriously, there are threads on the forum that pop up time and time again asking for Photoshop advice - how do I do this, or fix that ?

The site could benefit from articles by someone that teaches Photoshop that we could point people to in such cases. More advanced features could be covered as well. I'm always keen to learn new techniques.
__________________
STEVE

Press here to see my pics on railpictures.net

More pics here D1059 on Flickr
Wizzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2009, 11:16 AM   #46
Mark Bau
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizzo View Post
Then write us a good tutorial.............seriously, there are threads on the forum that pop up time and time again asking for Photoshop advice - how do I do this, or fix that ?

The site could benefit from articles by someone that teaches Photoshop that we could point people to in such cases. More advanced features could be covered as well. I'm always keen to learn new techniques.
Actually I already have, its on my website, its quite old now and the screen grabs are from version 6. This procedure is largely redundant since Adobe added the "save for web" command to photoshop but it still works and I'd be interested if it helps with your jaggies.

http://www.victorianrailways.net/tech%20info/tech.html
Mark Bau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2009, 11:40 AM   #47
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

I still don't get how Save for Web is better than Save As...
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2009, 11:45 AM   #48
milwman
I shoot what I like
 
milwman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cedar Fall's, Iowa
Posts: 2,474
Send a message via Yahoo to milwman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Bau View Post
This procedure is largely redundant since Adobe added the "save for web" command to photoshop but it still works and I'd be interested if it helps with your jaggies.
We have a good 2 year corse for photography at Hawkeye community college at Waterloo,IA I will do some digging, Right now I am a "save as" guy as "save for" was a short cut? To make them easer to Email. I will find out at least for me.
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/

Last edited by milwman; 03-25-2009 at 11:54 AM. Reason: add more
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2009, 11:48 AM   #49
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Just off the top, Save As produces a larger file, hence more info, right?
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2009, 12:49 PM   #50
Wizzo
Senior Member
 
Wizzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 545
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Bau View Post
Actually I already have, its on my website, its quite old now and the screen grabs are from version 6. This procedure is largely redundant since Adobe added the "save for web" command to photoshop but it still works and I'd be interested if it helps with your jaggies.

http://www.victorianrailways.net/tech%20info/tech.html
Thats OK - I'm using PS 7 which is where the screen grabs appear to come from.

The only info on that link is for resizing, and other than changing the pixel dimensions and ensuring the resample method is Bicubic (default), the only other step appears to be to change the document resolution properties to 72 pixels/inch.

I tried a comparison using the shot with the wires I showed earlier in the thread. The full size TIFF (from the RAW) file shows the 2 very fine wires running parallel, then merging and crossing over. Following the resize (including the pixels/inch adjustment) to 1024 pixels width, the wires are too fine for the screen to display properly and the moire effect is present again.
__________________
STEVE

Press here to see my pics on railpictures.net

More pics here D1059 on Flickr
Wizzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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 On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.