On Nov 20, 1:32 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> <http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030699filteredok1.jpg>
> <http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030701filteredsh9.jpg>
> <http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030708filteredag0.jpg>
> <http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030714filteredyq3.jpg>
> <http://img442.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030715filteredlj3.jpg>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas
> Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
Sorry, but even when I first saw the *reduced* view of the first one,
it was clear there were problems, and then when I clicked to see the
full image... - it has strong edge halos (eg look at the top edge of
the diagonal cable segment above the fog), artifacts from noise-
reduction (eg the some-soft-some-sharp blodges along the top of the
'cliff'-tops, and similar blodges *everywhere* in the water. It seems
to have had excessive noise filtering, and yet it still has
significant noise (eg in the dark grey foggy areas just above the
clifftops)...
I have to ask, did you actually view this image at 100% size, or only
at that 33% you referred to elsewhere? Because this is a very good
example of what 'detail' (in this case, largely unwanted) can be
hidden from view, when you examine an image at 50% zoom or less.
I checked the second one briefly, which is better but it still has big
problems in the foliage - the noise reduction has wiped out most of
the detail in the trees, because your denoiser thought the foliage
detail was noise (Noons - where are you? Proof positive!!)... Same
problem in the water.
Same applies to the seagull image in the other thread - the feathers
on his back have lost all detail (and are still noisy!..).
I know this is the 'pixel-peeping' you abhor, but by the same token
you referred to printing images at 11" x 14". And imo, these would
*not* make the grade at that size.
Giving the benefit of the doubt, maybe you processed these
specifically for the reduced size view. But we are invited to click
on them for the full-size image...
I got to say I think you have been let down by your camera on the first
three of these. Sure you could get very nice looking 4x6 prints from
these but the noise is so high that I think a 8 x 10 would look pretty bad.
The last two look better, still more noise then I would like to see but
in a 8 x 10 print it would probably not be a big issue.
What iso where this shot at and with what camera? I am thinking a
tripod bit of really help these.
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:56:51 -0800 (PST), Ben Miller <kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 19, 9:32 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> <http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030699filteredok1.jpg>
>> <http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030701filteredsh9.jpg>
>> <http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030708filteredag0.jpg>
>> <http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030714filteredyq3.jpg>
>> <http://img442.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030715filteredlj3.jpg>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> John Navas
>> Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
>
>I like the fourth one a lot. The rest have been done to death.
I just now saw that fourth one. Somene could easily mistake that for being a
total editing job to make it look like a gigantic wall of water was engulfing
the whole town. The topography of the land forming the perfect breaking wave.
I agree. A really interesting photo. It could even use the title of "Tsunami",
just to throw people off at first.
An good use of fractals for composition in an image, the waves of the water
mirroring and suggesting what is happening above.
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 02:32:27 -1000, Scott W <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:
>John Navas wrote:
>> <http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030699filteredok1.jpg>
>> <http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030701filteredsh9.jpg>
>> <http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030708filteredag0.jpg>
>> <http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030714filteredyq3.jpg>
>> <http://img442.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030715filteredlj3.jpg>
>>
>
>I got to say I think you have been let down by your camera on the first
>three of these. Sure you could get very nice looking 4x6 prints from
>these but the noise is so high that I think a 8 x 10 would look pretty bad.
>
>The last two look better, still more noise then I would like to see but
>in a 8 x 10 print it would probably not be a big issue.
>
>What iso where this shot at and with what camera? I am thinking a
>tripod bit of really help these.
>
>Scott
You have never printed one thing in your whole life, have you. It's painfully
obvious from what you just wrote. :-) Wait, I take that back, you probably print
lots of images from the alt.pictures.erotica. hierarchy. But certainly nothing
with decent content in it.
You might as well admit it that you've never used a printer for photography.
Your comment completely proves it. The real clincher is that unless you've ever
printed anything you'll never know why your comment just proved it. This is
about as self-evident as it can get.
****, don't these resident-troll net-photographers realize just how transparent
they are? I guess not or they wouldn't do it.
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 01:59:53 -0800 (PST), mark.thomas.7@gmail.com wrote
in <83279945-946b-472a-8c3c-8ddc0783a82c@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>On Nov 20, 1:32 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> <http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030699filteredok1.jpg>
>> <http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030701filteredsh9.jpg>
>> <http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030708filteredag0.jpg>
>> <http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030714filteredyq3.jpg>
>> <http://img442.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030715filteredlj3.jpg>
>Sorry, but even when I first saw the *reduced* view of the first one,
>it was clear there were problems, and then when I clicked to see the
>full image... [SNIP]
Putting aside the question of whether your comments were influenced by
knowing in advance these images were from my FZ8 , I personally think
these images are very good even though they don't fully measure up to
the originals -- these images have been re-compressed to less than 1.5
MB for free image hosting, which did degrade them somewhat.
--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 06:52:30 -0800, "just bob" <kilbyfan@aoldotcom>
wrote in <4742f4ae$0$79902$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Great job, John.
Thank you.
>You should put your contact and copyright in the IPTC fields less someone
>decide your work is orphaned and use it for free.
Good suggestion, although not strictly necessary -- copyright now
protects all original works whether there is notice or not, and even if
I did put in notice, it could easily be deleted. And I hate
watermarking.
>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:24l4k3de1k4j88h70uhvoaqaeg62n0gqre@4ax.com.. .
>> <http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030699filteredok1.jpg>
>> <http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030701filteredsh9.jpg>
>> <http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030708filteredag0.jpg>
>> <http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030714filteredyq3.jpg>
>> <http://img442.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030715filteredlj3.jpg>
--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 02:32:27 -1000, Scott W <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote
in <4742d3f2$0$15335$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> <http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030699filteredok1.jpg>
>> <http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030701filteredsh9.jpg>
>> <http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030708filteredag0.jpg>
>> <http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030714filteredyq3.jpg>
>> <http://img442.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030715filteredlj3.jpg>
>
>I got to say I think you have been let down by your camera on the first
>three of these. Sure you could get very nice looking 4x6 prints from
>these but the noise is so high that I think a 8 x 10 would look pretty bad.
>
>The last two look better, still more noise then I would like to see but
>in a 8 x 10 print it would probably not be a big issue.
They all print very well at 8x10.
>What iso where this shot at and with what camera? I am thinking a
>tripod bit of really help these.
You criticized them without even checking the EXIF?
--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
San Francisco Bay Fog 
, I personally think
Linear Mode
