737-400(3) - "N980ST Fisheye.jpg" yEnc (1/40)

On 2012-07-21 20:00:30 -0700, Glen in Orlando said:

image

Glen,
As always I am thankful to all who take the trouble to post their AC
images in ABPA. However, I have two things to note with your current
"N980ST" posts.

First, 13.78 MB, 17.03 MB, & 10.21 MB, now while it's nice to have full
resolution images, files of that size are enough to make any Usenet
client choke! Like you I am using Unison and I experienced my first two
crashes of Unison before I was successfully able to view your images.
(Nice work, BTW.)
# 2 for example is massive at 3555 x 5357 @ 17.3 MB, since you are
using a Mac, it is quite simple to open the JPEG in "Preview" use the
"resize" tool and just select one of the presets. I resized your big
image to 1280 x 849 with a drop in file size from 17.3 MB to 445 KB,
with no blatantly obvious image degradation for online viewers.

Secondly, containing the file name within quotation marks can hide the
..jpg extension for most readers. I know I found it unusual.

Here is your #2 resized.




--
Regards,

Savageduck

Thanks for the resize… i use this so infrequently I often forget...

Glen in Orlando wrote in news:500c2ddc$0$18057
:

Thanks for the resize… i use this so infrequently I often forget...


Question what kind of image pprocessing di you use

On 2012-07-22 16:15:32 -0700, clairbear said:

Glen in Orlando wrote in news:500c2ddc$0$18057
:

Thanks for the resize… i use this so infrequently I often forget...


Question what kind of image pprocessing di you use

I suspect that there is more than a touch of Topaz and/or some unsubtle
HDR (subtle HDR is achievable).

Not to everybody's taste, but they are still AC images.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote in
news:2012072217055743658-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom:

On 2012-07-22 16:15:32 -0700, clairbear said:

Glen in Orlando wrote in news:500c2ddc$0$18057
:

Thanks for the resize… i use this so infrequently I often forget...


Question what kind of image pprocessing di you use

I suspect that there is more than a touch of Topaz and/or some unsubtle
HDR (subtle HDR is achievable).

Not to everybody's taste, but they are still AC images.

The grainy look denitel is characteristic of HDR I work it in Nik HDR pro
nas in HDR pro in CS6 and CS5
HDR is good where you want a gritty look but with these image is would be a
bit much I am wondering if the original exposrur was off as it looks abit
like a lot of image processing may have been needed to gt the right final
exposure Sometimes that will give you unwanted noise or that grainy look

On 2012-07-22 19:59:17 -0700, clairbear said:

Savageduck wrote in
news:2012072217055743658-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom:

On 2012-07-22 16:15:32 -0700, clairbear said:

Glen in Orlando wrote in news:500c2ddc$0$18057
:

Thanks for the resize… i use this so infrequently I often forget...


Question what kind of image pprocessing di you use

I suspect that there is more than a touch of Topaz and/or some unsubtle
HDR (subtle HDR is achievable).

Not to everybody's taste, but they are still AC images.

The grainy look denitel is characteristic of HDR I work it in Nik HDR pro
nas in HDR pro in CS6 and CS5
HDR is good where you want a gritty look but with these image is would be a
bit much I am wondering if the original exposrur was off as it looks abit
like a lot of image processing may have been needed to gt the right final
exposure Sometimes that will give you unwanted noise or that grainy look

I also use NIK HDR Efex Pro, but unless I am actually trying to reach a
truly artistic interpretation or result especially if you want to
extract detail out of shadows by expanding the dynamic range. Heavy
grain & bizarre saturation is not always a result with HDR unless it is
over cooked and/or additional processing is applied. In my opinion both
Photomatix and Topaz push towards the over cooked result. I personally
prefer the achievable subtle results which HDR Efex Pro can provide.

Here are two different HDR shots of a P-51D, one to pull detail out of
strong shadow, and one very much an artistic rendition, both shot on
the same day at the same time. See what you think.






--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-07-22 20:54:46 -0700, Savageduck said:


On 2012-07-22 19:59:17 -0700, clairbear said:

Savageduck wrote in
news:2012072217055743658-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom:

On 2012-07-22 16:15:32 -0700, clairbear said:

Glen in Orlando wrote in news:500c2ddc$0$18057
:

Thanks for the resize… i use this so infrequently I often forget...


Question what kind of image pprocessing di you use

I suspect that there is more than a touch of Topaz and/or some unsubtle
HDR (subtle HDR is achievable).

Not to everybody's taste, but they are still AC images.

The grainy look denitel is characteristic of HDR I work it in Nik HDR pro
nas in HDR pro in CS6 and CS5
HDR is good where you want a gritty look but with these image is would be a
bit much I am wondering if the original exposrur was off as it looks abit
like a lot of image processing may have been needed to gt the right final
exposure Sometimes that will give you unwanted noise or that grainy look

I also use NIK HDR Efex Pro, but unless I am actually trying to reach a
truly artistic interpretation or result especially if you want to
extract detail out of shadows by expanding the dynamic range. Heavy
grain & bizarre saturation is not always a result with HDR unless it is
over cooked and/or additional processing is applied. In my opinion both
Photomatix and Topaz push towards the over cooked result. I personally
prefer the achievable subtle results which HDR Efex Pro can provide.

Here are two different HDR shots of a P-51D, one to pull detail out of
strong shadow, and one very much an artistic rendition, both shot on
the same day at the same time. See what you think.

....and here is a comparison of a normal exposure image compared with a
5 exposure HDR to solve a problem of deep shadow, & high contrast at a
bad time of day. This is another time HDR can be useful to deal with
tough lighting and shadows and reach a workable result without over
cooking the image.






--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote in
news:201207222054468930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom:

On 2012-07-22 19:59:17 -0700, clairbear said:

Savageduck wrote in
news:2012072217055743658-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom:

On 2012-07-22 16:15:32 -0700, clairbear said:

Glen in Orlando wrote in news:500c2ddc$0$18057
:

Thanks for the resize… i use this so infrequently I often
forget...


Question what kind of image pprocessing di you use

I suspect that there is more than a touch of Topaz and/or some
unsubtle HDR (subtle HDR is achievable).

Not to everybody's taste, but they are still AC images.

The grainy look denitel is characteristic of HDR I work it in Nik HDR
pro nas in HDR pro in CS6 and CS5
HDR is good where you want a gritty look but with these image is
would be a bit much I am wondering if the original exposrur was off
as it looks abit like a lot of image processing may have been needed
to gt the right final exposure Sometimes that will give you unwanted
noise or that grainy look

I also use NIK HDR Efex Pro, but unless I am actually trying to reach
a truly artistic interpretation or result especially if you want to
extract detail out of shadows by expanding the dynamic range. Heavy
grain & bizarre saturation is not always a result with HDR unless it
is over cooked and/or additional processing is applied. In my opinion
both Photomatix and Topaz push towards the over cooked result. I
personally prefer the achievable subtle results which HDR Efex Pro can
provide.

Here are two different HDR shots of a P-51D, one to pull detail out of
strong shadow, and one very much an artistic rendition, both shot on
the same day at the same time. See what you think.

Attachment decoded: untitled-2.txt
----------------2104619259316275805


Attachment saved: f:\xnewsdl\DNC5414_HRD-E1w.jpg
----------------2104619259316275805


Attachment decoded: untitled-4.txt
----------------2104619259316275805


Attachment saved: f:\xnewsdl\DNC5429_HDRw.jpg
----------------2104619259316275805




Nice work