You will wonder how you ever managed on a slower machine wants you get used to the new one. I bet using the laptop won't last long.

With luck I will be able to get up to speed with what you are doing. But I will be able to keep in touch for the benefit of others. Once Big Bertha is set up that will nuturally be the main machine.

Great job on the weeds by the way. I did not think that could be done so well and so quickly, in fact at all if it comes to that.:)

Don

I nice touch Christine. The treatment has added detail to the foreground which, in turn, has added depth to the picture. Don, a really beautiful picture.
John.

Christine,

On the new monitor it looks even better.:)

Don

Don, what screen have you got.

I'm looking for a 20" widescreen, was going to buy the Dell "Super Sharp" one, but now I'm not so sure as I now quite fancy the Formac Gallery Xtreme 2010 20.1" TFT 12ms 700:1 (1600x1200) (DVI) Monitor. It's also approx £80 cheaper.

At present I'm using a 19" LG, I'ts ok but as the resolution 1280 x 1024 is the same as a 17" and all the images look a little noisy/grainy.

Don another variation on the bee

Harry

You've got to stop showing off Harry.:D

I commented on the other pic re screens ....... now up upping the ante to possibly .......................

Just how stong is your wall ????

Don

Harry,

Been doing a comparison with your gallery pic, and I think this is better.

Detail is AMAZING.

Don

Thanks Don I took several photos before it flew away, have only just got around to processing all of them. I think the one that I posted here is the best of the bunch.

Mighty pleased with my new flashgun

Harry

Harry,

I think this is a gallery MUST. Compare for youself.

Don

Harry,

Just out of interest, do you have to do much post processing, other than when you do your stacks. My money would be on NO.

Don

Don I do just the basic editing on most of my photos, although my basic editing maybe just a little different to most people.

All my photos are shot in Raw, this is something I've done since owning the Minolta D7 Autumn 2001. Having used just about all the raw convertors out there, I've settled on Rawshooter Premium , then transfer to PS CS2.

It's very rare that I alter the WB, both my Canons are set to AWB, so it's just slight tweaks in Rawshooter usually with a slight touch on the Enhance button.

In PS, more often than not I select Levels>>Options and use the default of "Enhance Per Channel Contrast" I then sharpen my pics by creating a Background copy in layers, select the High Pass filter and set the filter at 10-12 pixels Use a blend mode of "SoftLight" with the opacity set to approx 70%. That's about it.
Obviously there are exceptions but these are very rare.

Harry

Harry or anyone,

Trying to get to grips with terminology. Use of High Pass filter was mentioned in your work on my first pic. What does this filter do ? Is it something that is used on a few, most, or all images.

Don

Don the technicalities of the High Pass filter are beyond me. so I've just been doing a search of the web and found this.

http://www.earthboundlight.com/photo...photoshop.html

Hope this will help you understand the High Pass method of sharpening a little better.

My workflow is just a little different, have tried this method out, which is very similar to the way I do it, but must admit the workflow is better than my method.

I will play around some more before deciding whether to change, but it's looking if my workflow will be changing.

I'm very pleased you asked the question, so will probably do a little more searching.

Harry

ps. have just spent the last hour at the earthboundlight site, no doubt this will become a firm favourite of mine.
Well worth a visit

Brightness and Contrast settings
 

Setting up my new monitor showed up something else. Ignoring colour for a while ..... Brightness and Contrast.

I spent a bit of time in the gallery last night, initially a general look then more specific member galleries.

When I started viewing I was startled by the what I was seeing. As in post processing these factors would have an effect on the degree of contrast and sharpening applied when posting for the web.

I hope my monitor is now reasonably set for this. If I had been a contributor to this thread with my previous settings I would probably have been crucified. I have found some of my gallery to be oversharpened as I usually give pics a touch of usm after resizing. Guess some noticed and did not comment.

So do you think it would be worthwhile posting on this thread a couple of reference pictures from those with well adjusted monitors. Harrys wasp on this thread was one that I used.

Don

Don, I suspect that your new monitor is a flat panel LCD type. Photographs tend to look sharper in my experience than on a CRT one especially an old one. However just to open a new can of worms so to speak, even though you think your new monitor is now set correctly, have you actually used a screen calibrator to create a profile. Its a shame really that although many people correct their images onscreen they have never actually profiled their monitor and therefore cannot be sure that things are as they should be.

I am referring to a device such as the Colorvision Spyder. You may be interested to know that a new affordable model has been released. There is a review of it HERE I think you would be amazed at the difference it makes

Stephen,

I my monitor is as you describe - flat panel TFT. Had I realised the difference in how sharpness was displayed I would have toned it down a bit. When you print its easy as you see the results of your actions. I have only adjusted for brighness and contrast. Even that was trial and error as no instructions but several buttons. Will have to seek a bit of advice from Harry as he has the same model.

Thanks for the link. I will check it out when I understand what I am doing. Don't want to wreck my view by accident.:eek:

Don

I fully agree with Stephen, but when comes to actually spending money on a Spyder I always seem to have other priorities which is rather silly considering the amount we spend on cameras/lens and monitors.
When I get my new 20" widescreen I may also get a Spyder.

As I mentioned previously all I use at present is the "monitor calibration wizard" and "quick gamma"

Don as regards the LG set up menu I always find it to be a major struggle. Not sure whether it's me that's a little dim or not.

So I've got it set on user mode and use the above software for calibration.

It would be interesting to know if our images look ok on Stephens Spyder calibrated monitor.

Harry

Harry,

Stevie took this pic last night while we were posting here. Shows new high tech gear that does not quite work properly in action.

Unless the wireless keyboard was held in this position while typing then some keystrokes went unrecognised.

Don

Don, That's not quite the ideal position to have your keyboard :) I presume you have moved the wireless transmitter/reciever so as to recieve the best signal.

I have the Logitec wireless k/board & mouse which has all the clever stuff in the base of the mouse holder/charger, as this is in very close proximity to the keyboard I have no problems.

Or I should say I don't think I have any problems, as I do, but I've always put it down to my total lack of typing skills, or my arthritic fingers.

Your monitor looks similar to mine, but I do not have the built in speakers, but I guess the menu system will be much the same, must admit I never really got to grips with it, so the settings have all been applied via software and my graphics card.

Until you get such as a Spyder, why not try the software that i'm using it's freeware so no expense incurred.

Have just placed an order for the Forcam 2010 Raven Xtreme

http://www.formac.co.uk/frameset.htm

Should recieve this on Thursday. Will post a picture of my setup then. That should give me plenty of time to get rid of all the clutter and junk that surrounds my PC desk.

Harry

Finally managed to capture a histogram. I am posting the BLT pic as the toast should look tasty. :) Not as strong as Fuji Velvia but better than Ektachrome ....... does that place me :D

Referring to a comment by Christine on file size, I most certainly cannot understand this. BLT image I have posted before file size 144.1kb. Wanting to leave it filed where it is I opened it and did ' save a copy as '. New file size 419.2kb. Wierd. Perhaps need techie input on this .... ROB

Went into the loft and found a usb 18" extension cable so all is working now. Much prefer the laptop keyboard but then I suppose you can't have everything.

With this posted I'm off for a look at your link Harry.

Don

The colours in your picture look absolutely fine to me, I can't fault them. However, was it your intention to create the dark shadow area above the sandwich. For me I would like to see it lighter. This of course may be personal choice, but forme it tends to make the picture look sort of top heavy. I had a go at lightening this shadow area, hope you don't mind

Stephen,
Thanks for checking the screen colours. Always a prob to know how a pic appears on someone elses screen.

Picture looks better. I will have to look see how to do that. I had to create it with the dark shadow to prevent intrusion & reflections from machinery, as it was taken in my workshop. I have camera stuff everywhere but would definately be told off if I turned the kitchen into a studio:D

Anything I put up here is open for a play, as that is how I, and hopefully others will learn.

When this picture turns up without the sandwich, that is when I'll feel I have been robbed.:D

Don

Sorry Don, couldn;t resist it , it looked so inviting.:D

Very good Christine.:)

At least you left me the coffee :D

Don

Coffee
 

Sorry, I needed a drink:rolleyes:

[quote=Britner]Sorry, I needed a drink:rolleyes:[/QUOTE

LOL! I just done that aso, you beat me to it, I needed extra sugar anyway.

Forgot to mention it was Robs BLT, see title in my gallery.:D

If food disappears at this rate Duncan will never post a pic here.:rolleyes:

Don

Think I'd better hide this bar of chocolate that my wife has just given me, a real greedy lot on this site.

Harry

Don I've uploaded an image in the macro gallery, which you may find interesting.

It's another of the wasp or rather the same one twice. What I find interesting is that just a very slight variation in position affects the lighting and also the speed in which a wasp eats. As the camera and flash where on full manual I didn't have time to check the exposure before taking the second shot.


There was just several seconds between the shots, just enough time to slightly adjust the camera position and refocus.

http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...9&limit=recent

Harry

Christine,

Caffine is having a bad effect on you. Check the tumbler and tomato.:D

Mind you I am aware you may have done this as an observation test. Very interesting effect on the tomato.

Don

Sorry Don I tried to take bites out of the tomato but couldn't quite get it right.

Christine,

The effect you have achieved is very interesting if you look at the blue. A bit like a thick liquid. Very effective if magnified. Almost like the blue of the tumbler is melting.

Don

Corrected it the best I could.

OK Christine, I think we've spotted the dummy. Nice. ....................... but nicking the sauce, thats sneeky. A very clever job on the bottle. Still retains the plastic look.:)

Don

I thought the grub was a nice touch. LOL!

Well I got that one wrong. Missed the grub. Should have photographed the sarnie cut in half for that.:D

Don

Don

A couple of things are happening here. Your file contains image data and what is called meta data. Lets deal with the easy bit first. Meta data is mainly text that contains such things as your camera Exif info, the time and date when the file was edited, the names of the programs that have edited the file and so on. In recent versions of programs data is included to provide evidence ( for legal purposes) that an image has been tampered with by editing. So each time you save a bit more info is tagged on.

The other bit of file size change relates to the jpeg encoding and decoding. A lot of current technology is based on mathematics developed 200 yrs ago. A group of mathematicians in france ( namely fourier and laplace ) developed the concept of transforms. Without getting too involved with the complexities lets convert something that is difficult to work with into something that is simpler to work with.

e.g if we take a heap of iron ore and process it ( transform ) into uniform steel rods. We can work with the steel rods. Then if nature takes it's course the rods will revert back ( transform ) to the heap of iron ore.

In the case of jpeg the concept is somewhat more difficult to grasp if your are not from these disciplines. Fourier came up with the concept that any waveform ( think of a sound wave of music ) can be made of a number of component sine waves of different frequencies and amplitudes.

So the theory is a sound can be dismantled and reassembled using these components.

In the case of a picture we are converting data from a space domain into a time domain. If that statement has just made your brain blow a fuse no worries it's not an easy subject.

The point is that calculations are performed on the image to encoded and decode the data. The result will not be an exact fit into one of the 256 binary values in the image. This is one of the minor drawbacks of the digital world is the result has to be rounded up or down to fit.

e.g 106.86568 will be rounded to 107
this rounding produces what is know as digital noise.

This effect is one of the factors that contribute to image noise.
The other being produced by the camera sensor due to heat (thermal shot noise) and you could include gamma rays from outter space !!

This low level of noise added to the image effectively increases the number variations in image data and thereby reduces the compression efficiency.

The highest efficiency is achived if the whole image contained the same data value. A very boring image at that :D

One of the major benefits of image noise reduction programs is the smaller file sizes produced.

I hope that was not too heavy for you folks but I did try to make it simple.

Phew, thanks Rob,

I need to read this a few times.

I really first noticed the file size bit while we were doing stuff on the ' in camera processing ' thread.

Using NC to convert a raw to jpeg gave a file size twice that of in camera jpeg. Could not understand, so assumed that the NC converted must contain more info. Did my crazy pixel by pixel analysis and could not find it. :confused:

Thought I would come back to that later, and went no further.

Now as mr. average ( no specialist knowledge of the workings of computers ) I would assume that in digital photography, bigger file size = more available actual image information in that file. Obviously now an incorrect assumption.

As this info relates to two threads, I will pose a question that relates to this thread and one that I could not previously investigate due to lack of processing power. I will post a link to your info in the other thread.

Now I have my image, what advantage is there in upsizing the file ??

This comes from looking at DPR where some guys are upsizing 4.1mp D2Hs files as a matter of course.

Don

Strickly speaking this assumption is true. It depends what you think "actual image information" as. A endoder cannot tell the difference between noise and wanted image data. Mind you some encoders did attempt to spot low level rapid changes and smooth them to improve the compression of data.

With experience you should be able to look at an image and gauge how well it will compress. Is it worth starting a dummies guide to data compression seeing so many places impose a file size limit ?

Rob,

I think thats a good idea.

This is something I would be interested in. Thought about it today and am going to do a test using XP, 2000, and 98SE. to see if the modern program writes more info to the file.

Personal example ; We moved to Norfolk, and are now 5 hours one way from my mother. I now write using word ( her eyesight is not what it was ), and add pictures to make the letters more interesting. When we joined the RSPB and started visiting Tichwell, I took lots of pictures, some became joiners. I downsized and compressed these, as that letter was to have around 10 pics and the printer stuggled with that. Those with large areas of blue skies showed the dreaded banding. The result of overcompression.

If I was new to this forum and posting a gallery pic, and did not understand compression at all, I could be quite frustrated posting that glorious summer scene and looking at the final result in the gallery and not understanding why.

Don