The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Fun with MF images - ARCHIVED - FOR VIEWING ONLY

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
Re: Fun with MF images - Part 3

I feel for you, knowing these vampires very well.

X4! What I like so much about your work is the "authenticity", in lack of a less slick word.... Hold on, truthfulness I like more as a description.

These days, many people I know would have cloned out the ripples and the other stone to the left to clean the water. I much prefer it this way.
Georg, you are most generous! Thank you, and thank you to all who commented.
Bill
 
J

jmvdigital

Guest
Re: Fun with MF images - Part 3

Don and Jack, you aren't the first to comment about those images being B&W. I'm having trouble with my own psychology about where I want to work in color or in B&W, and if both, how and where to draw the line so that my overall portfolio doesn't start to become a mishmash of styles. Thoughts?
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
Re: Fun with MF images - Part 3

Don and Jack, you aren't the first to comment about those images being B&W. I'm having trouble with my own psychology about where I want to work in color or in B&W, and if both, how and where to draw the line so that my overall portfolio doesn't start to become a mishmash of styles. Thoughts?


Justin

Very hard for me to say when to use B&W. I don't normally go out with the intent to shoot B&W however there are times when I know I want to capture in (near) IR and will use the appropriate filter.

I generally let the image tell me what direction it wants to go; some prefer to remain in color while others just cry out for B&W while a very few look equally good either way.

I have both color and b&w on display in the gallery as well as stretched canvas (and one currently framed) and matte and framed paper.

Speaking strictly from a landscape artist point of view - there's no harm in showing your work in either color or b&w (I don't recommend showing the same image). I don't think it's a mishmash of styles regarding the color (or lack of). It's more a mishmash showing landscape with otherworldly goth type images...

Remember you asked for my thoughts - welcome to the inside of my head - scary very scary place to me in.

Getting back to the point. The series as is looks great however don't be afraid to listen to your image and experiment taking it to b&w.

It'll be interesting to hear Jack's side of this.


Don

One final thought about B&W. I use a process where I use what I think is the best of IR and B&W and combine the two for a better look. Here's a good example
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Re: Fun with MF images - Part 3

Don and Jack, you aren't the first to comment about those images being B&W. I'm having trouble with my own psychology about where I want to work in color or in B&W, and if both, how and where to draw the line so that my overall portfolio doesn't start to become a mishmash of styles. Thoughts?
Simple, for showing don't mix styles in the same portfolio, and it's okay to have multiple portfolios that fit a theme.

As for how I choose, I agree with Don --- I let the image drive the decision. So I tend to look at images different ways: if the image is all about color, say a bouquet of freshly-cut flowers or a dramatic sunset for example, then for sure it goes to color. However, if the image is a statement of shape and form, like a bouquet of dead roses or an ominous stormy sky, then I would process it out in monochrome. Clearly a huge advantage to digital is we have both versions at our fingertips.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Re: Fun with MF images - Part 3

Re images looking oversharpened...

The image attachment engine is forum software driven will downsize ANY file you upload to a maximum size of 900 pixels in any dimension AND it sharpens it aggressively as it assumes it should be a THUMBNAIL. this is not adjustable. So if you attach or upload a 1200 or 2000 pix image, it will get sized to 900 as a thumb view and oversharpened almost every time. The only viable workaround is to size your image to 900 pixels BEFORE attaching it. (This is now changed for our site's direct attachment option however, please see new edit below).

The better solution is to use your FREE gallery space right here on GetDPI. You can upload images of almost any size, and the engine automatically creates 3 files on upload; a full size verion, a thumb and a 900 pix "regular view" version. All three usually look great and you get a direct url to each version, including a linkable thumb BB code string so yo can post them anywhere, including using the simple "insert image" tool button in the forum software.

EDIT: Actually, this has been such a prevalent problem with our attachment option and I am tired of dealing with it, so I am changing the size of the attachment option thumbs to 300 Pix. This will insure that any image posted as an attachment instead of via a direct gallery link is obviously understood to be a linking thumb to a full sized image, and going forward it should be obvious that folks should click on them to see a reasonable size version...

Cheers,
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Re: Fun with MF images - Part 3

Test: The first image is 900 pix wide as originally uploaded, and one click gets you to it. The second is huge, like 6000 pix wide original upload, but it got automatically downsized to the 300 pix thumb and a 2000 pix wide viewing option. If you click once, you may get an intermediate sized version resized automatically by your *web browser* to match your browser window size -- in this case a little magnifying glass with a "+" sign in it will show to indicate there is a larger version still, or the max size (2000 pix) version the forum upload software created. Since those larger versions were sized properly for *viewing* and not the thumb creation engine, they look fine --- YEAH! :thumbs:

HOPEFULLY you all like this new format as it eliminates to oversharpened look when attachments are used!
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Re: Fun with MF images - Part 3

Okay, it works great, so now you can all attach to your heart's content :)

PS: I've also increased the number of attachments you can include in one post to 9, and increased the maximum file size to 1MB each. So knock yourselves out!


(Phew!) :ROTFL:
 

Dale Allyn

New member
Re: Fun with MF images - Part 3

Test: The first image is 900 pix wide as originally uploaded, and one click gets you to it. The second is huge, like 6000 pix wide original upload, but it got automatically downsized to the 300 pix thumb and a 2000 pix wide viewing option. If you click once, you may get an intermediate sized version resized automatically by your *web browser* to match your browser window size -- in this case a little magnifying glass with a "+" sign in it will show to indicate there is a larger version still, or the max size (2000 pix) version the forum upload software created. Since those larger versions were sized properly for *viewing* and not the thumb creation engine, they look fine --- YEAH! :thumbs:

HOPEFULLY you all like this new format as it eliminates to oversharpened look when attachments are used!
Thanks for this, Jack. Actually, I have posted a couple of times at 900px (attachment only) and withdrew the posts because the preview looked crunchy. I accepted that I was prepping the file wrong for this forum software or using the inappropriate avenue, etc., but hadn't gotten around to sorting it out. This helps!

Can you clarify/reconfirm that it is now appropriate to attach a file of nearly any pixel count width (above 300px) and the original can be viewed via click-through? IOW, no need to prep a file differently for GetDPI as long as it's prepped for web. (?)
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Re: Fun with MF images - Part 3

Can you clarify/reconfirm that it is now appropriate to attach a file of nearly any pixel count width (above 300px) and the original can be viewed via click-through? IOW, no need to prep a file differently for GetDPI as long as it's prepped for web. (?)
That should be exactly correct, and what I did in the two examples above. Note though, that attach is different than embed using the "insert image" button in the post tool bar. Attach is used by going to the advanced options and uploading files via the attachment manager.
 

Dale Allyn

New member
Re: Fun with MF images - Part 3

Thanks again, Jack. I had used "file attachment" in my process, rather than the "insert image" tool.
 
J

jmvdigital

Guest
Re: Fun with MF images - Part 3

Ok gents, I reprocessed this series into toned B&W. Thoughts? (I added one to the series)
 

carstenw

Active member
Re: Fun with MF images - Part 3

Given what a B&W freak I am, I am surprised to find that I do believe I prefer the colour versions of these. Perhaps if the B&W conversion was slightly less contrasty it would be the other way... I am not sure.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Re: Fun with MF images - Part 3

Interesting -- I definitely prefer the B&W versions, though I might back off a little on the vignette with the B&W...
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
Re: Fun with MF images - Part 3

Following Jack's advice I went ahead and got a copy of Helicon Focus and after a somewhat rocky start I am now up and running - at least enough to run a simple comparison of the output between Helicon Focus and CS4 auto-blend layers.

Here's my general workflow following CS4:

Open in C1 run LCC and save
Open in CS4 and run images directly from Bridge in 16bit when in turn
opens in CS4.
Run Auto-Align Layers
Run Auto-Blend Layers
Then proceed to finish processing.

It looks like I'll be doing this for Helicon Focusing:

Open in C1 run LCC and save
Open Helicon Focusing run and save (saves in Jpeg only?)
Open in CS4 and finish processing.

I've attached four images. One full size image each processed either in CS4 or Helicon then 100% crops from each.

Based on this very simple and somewhat crude test I can see Helicon wins. And all this time I was satisfied with CS4. Thanks (again) Jack!

From L - R CS4,Helicon,CS4 Crop, Helicon Crop

Also decided to test the new improved method of attaching images

Don
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top