Return of Light

[voodoocat]

But that's just me. If your intent is to show it to people on the internet, then it's a nice peice of art. If you want to blow it up and show it in a gallery in hopes that someone will purchase it, then I think it might be a problem. I'd like to see a large sized version or print of it to see if I'm right or if I'm talking out my butt, though.


Daniel

Daniel, there is a plug-in for photoshop by Extensis that will increase a file by a factor of 15 without any added noise.

If you have the bandwidth and if you are interrested, I could download this file, increase the resolution to 50k or larger, and then email it to you. You would only notice the extra noise picked up through an extra generation of jpg.

But my question is....why would you want to pull off files from the forum to print?

I don't think he's talking about printing the image from what was posted here. He is talking about the photographer printing the photo. Afterall, shouldn't getting a good print be our goal? When crop a small portion of the image you are losing that detail. No software is going to bring out detail that doesn't exist.

 

[canonrebel]

No software is going to bring out detail that doesn't exist.

I absolutely agree on this point.

Lets get back to my original point.....

Is it possible to increase the size of a file without increasing or picking up extra noise? My opinion is yes.

But it's just my opinion, I'm sure that you know more about the subject than I do--you're an expert, I've only been snapping pictures for 2.5 weeks. But I did read somewhere in a plugin add or a plugin commercial that this was possible. Besides, I don't even like manipulation anymore--it causes me too much trouble.

I wouldn't have room in my house and garage for printouts of all my favorite files anyway. 700 to 800 res pretty much fills up my screen. I don't have a need for larger files. I set my olympus c-3030 on small and I get about 300 snaps that are 400x600 before my card fills up.

 

[HogHunter]

I wouldn't have room in my house and garage for printouts of all my favorite files anyway. 700 to 800 res pretty much fills up my screen. I don't have a need for larger files. I set my olympus c-3030 on small and I get about 300 snaps that are 400x600 before my card fills up.

CR,

I think you've pointed out a bit of a division in modern digital photography. People are beginning to only veiw there images on a computer. As a matter of fact there are several manufacturers of digital picture frames that can hang on a wall or sit on a mantel. They look great but they still cost a bit too much. For these folks I agree size isn't that important.

Then there are those who do print there pictures. My wife is forever replacing pictures in the many frames we have scattered around the house. The pictures are exlusively of family and friends. Most of them are my six kids. For here size helps.

Having said that, I would disagree with you on the concept of just taking small images to save room on your memory card. Two reasons: even though you don't print, you may decide you can crop a bad picture to make a great one. I've done this many times. Secondly, you may decide this is a picture you want on your desk or you wall. Having a small image file prevents this. Having a large one only costs space. Large cards are getting cheaper all the time. You never know when you are going to get a great shot! I am always amazed when the great ones show up. I wish I could prepare for them better.

I carry a 1GB in the camera and a 256kb backup. When I travel I take my laptop so I can store the images on my hard drive. I am considering getting an image tank.

 

[DanielK]

Daniel, there is a plug-in for photoshop by Extensis that will increase a file by a factor of 15 without any added noise.

If you have the bandwidth and if you are interrested, I could download this file, increase the resolution to 50k or larger, and then email it to you. You would only notice the extra noise picked up through an extra generation of jpg.

But my question is....why would you want to pull off files from the forum to print?

I think I didn't make myself clear. Sorry about that. When I was talking about printing larger photos, I was talking about my own work. One of the problems that I have found with manipulating my images with PS is that just about any manipulation outside of cropping will slightly degrade the resolution of the image by adding a small amount of noise. This is fine for 600x800 pixel images or smaller, but in the size that I print it starts becoming obvious if I manipulate it too much. Plus, since some of my prints are 15x30 or larger, things like burning and bluring start to become more obvious. Because of this, I try to keep image manipulation to a minimum. I wish this wasn't the case, though. I'd love to go all out.

I've heard of noise reduction software, but have yet to try it. Maybe it would work in this case, though.

Anyway, that's my only misgiving about this much manipulation in this image, and without seeing a final large sized print, I might be way off base.


Daniel

 

[Digital Matt]

It's a very nice composition, and has potential with this look, but right now, to me at least, it looks very obviously manipulated.

DM, do you object to manipulation?

I don't object to manipulation at all. I do it to my photos. I just think it could be done better. There are to my eyes mistakes in the editing that draw too much attention to it.

None of us were there at the time the photo was taken, so if it is done right, and is seamless, who's to say it was manipulated? At this point, to my eyes, it's a little to obvious in a few areas.

As far as printing, it should be no problem. I have printed 20x30s of my photos where there was heavy editing going on.

 

[canonrebel]

I think I didn't make myself clear. Sorry about that. When I was talking about printing larger photos, I was talking about my own work. One of the problems that I have found with manipulating my images with PS is that just about any manipulation outside of cropping will slightly degrade the resolution of the image by adding a small amount of noise. This is fine for 600x800 pixel images or smaller, but in the size that I print it starts becoming obvious if I manipulate it too much. Plus, since some of my prints are 15x30 or larger, things like burning and bluring start to become more obvious. Because of this, I try to keep image manipulation to a minimum. I wish this wasn't the case, though. I'd love to go all out.

I've heard of noise reduction software, but have yet to try it. Maybe it would work in this case, though.

Anyway, that's my only misgiving about this much manipulation in this image, and without seeing a final large sized print, I might be way off base.

Daniel

Daniel, all kidding aside and being totally honest with you, I must say that I totally agree with you on each and every point you've expressed.

My keeper files are usually stored in 2048 x 1365 psd format. When I print them, I seem to have better luck if I convert them to Tif and change the size to 300 dpi and 1024 x 768 lpi for 8x10s before printing. This might just be a coincidence and I might just be supersticious, but this routine works good for me.

Storage is no problem since I have a 6-node LAN with aproximately 360 gig on each node. Two nodes are setup as RAID with zero striping for super super access.

 

[Sharkbait]

Storage is no problem since I have a 6-node LAN with aproximately 360 gig on each node. Two nodes are setup as RAID with zero striping for super super access.

Not to totally hijack this, but I've got a spare hard drive and was thinking about setting up as RAID, but I know zilch about it. :|

 

[canonrebel]

Shark, RAID Array will only work on Mother Boards that are designed to handle RAID and the Hard Drives should be the same size and type. The new SATA drives are nearly as fast as standard RAID Array and way easier to setup.

If your Board is RAID compatible, watch the screen on bootup to determine the key combo that brings up the RAID dialog screen, then follow instructions in your MoBo manual for configuring the two drives. It may not be the easiest thing you've ever attempted and an over-the-phone walk-through may not be sufficient since differrent MoBo RAID systems are a little differrent from one mobo to another. I would never attempt an over-the-phone installation.

The next system I build will utilize the SATA hard drives. They're practically as fast as a RAID array and way less headache.

 

[Sharkbait]

Ahhh okay. No idea if my mobo will handle it, but my HDs are totally different--brands, sizes, everything. Guess that 2nd HD will just be the backup drive.

 

[Digital Matt]

In my new system I'm using an WD 160gig SATA drive on a VIA chipset. I've noticed much improved speed over ATA100, and man, it sure was easy to setup. Installed XP and put in a floppy with SATA drivers on it and that was it, not to mention the nice little orange cable vs a huge eide cable.

 

[Gordon W]

My personal issue with manipulation is that it usually makes the piece very hard to pull off as a medium to large scale print. Since my primary goal with photography is to get 8x10 or larger prints, I try to keep any PS manipulation to an absolute minimum.

While this piece works fairly well at 800x309 pixels, I doubt it could be pulled off at twice or three times that size without looking noisy and weird.

But that's just me. If your intent is to show it to people on the internet, then it's a nice peice of art. If you want to blow it up and show it in a gallery in hopes that someone will purchase it, then I think it might be a problem. I'd like to see a large sized version or print of it to see if I'm right or if I'm talking out my butt, though.

Hi Daniel,

Thanks for your comments. This is of course a very subjective area. As I was processing this file I kept working at it and kept liking it more with each additional manipulation until I reached the final point and also thought it looked over manipulated. But when I'd back off on any of the stages of processing, it lost impact and so I decided for this particular version of the file I'd just go for impact and and not worry about anything else.

BTW, here is a small crop from around the barn area for what it looks like actual size at screen resolution when printed out at 8.5 x 22 inches at 150dpi. This is a size you'd hang on the wall and for printouts that are to be viewed in that way, viewing distance can be taken into consideration. In other words, art hung on walls is never intended to be viewed and scrutinized from inches away as one does a snapshot, but from feet away which means the requirements for detail, sharpness, and noise can be much less.

The full-size image is limited by being approximately half an 8MP frame from a Minolta A2. If I'd known what I was going to end up doing with it, I'd have shot it as a panorama.

Gordon

 

[canonrebel]

Hi Daniel,

Thanks for your comments. This is of course a very subjective area. As I was processing this file I kept working at it and kept liking it more with each additional manipulation until I reached the final point and also thought it looked over manipulated. But when I'd back off on any of the stages of processing, it lost impact and so I decided for this particular version of the file I'd just go for impact and and not worry about anything else.

BTW, here is a small crop from around the barn area for what it looks like actual size at screen resolution when printed out at 8.5 x 22 inches at 150dpi. This is a size you'd hang on the wall and for printouts that are to be viewed in that way, viewing distance can be taken into consideration. In other words, art hung on walls is never intended to be viewed and scrutinized from inches away as one does a snapshot, but from feet away which means the requirements for detail, sharpness, and noise can be much less.

The full-size image is limited by being approximately half an 8MP frame from a Minolta A2. If I'd known what I was going to end up doing with it, I'd have shot it as a panorama.

Gordon

Gordon, Thanks for stepping up to the plate and providing us with some really beneficial facts.

Personal opinions and conjecture haven't real been adequate lately

 

[Chase]

:shock: What happened to all the PURISTS? I can't believe you're letting this submission slide :smileys:

I'm curious to know just how many of these "purists" you believe we have here? Although there are a few that would probably consider themselves to be purists, there are obviously plenty of members who look at any image from a purely artistic standpoint regardless of the tools used to create the image.

I'm concerned that, in my opinion, many of your messages imply that this forum as a whole is very against the use of photoshop. Gordon W even mentioned his expectation of being singled out for his use of PS, and I am curious what prompted that expectation. Being that you mentioned it may have even been you who suggested Gordon post his photo here only increases my concern. With over 2,000 members (granted, a fair number are not active posters), I believe we have a pretty wide range of thoughts, opinions, and knowledge regarding photography and I think that point has been demonstrated in this thread.

If my interpretation of your comments is incorrect, my apologies, however I suspect that I am not the only person to come to this conclusion.

 

[voodoocat]

:shock: What happened to all the PURISTS? I can't believe you're letting this submission slide :smileys:

I'm curious to know just how many of these "purists" you believe we have here? Although there are a few that would probably consider themselves to be purists, there are obviously plenty of members who look at any image from a purely artistic standpoint regardless of the tools used to create the image.

I'm concerned that, in my opinion, many of your messages imply that this forum as a whole is very against the use of photoshop. Gordon W even mentioned his expectation of being singled out for his use of PS, and I am curious what prompted that expectation. Being that you mentioned it may have even been you who suggested Gordon post his photo here only increases my concern. With over 2,000 members (granted, a fair number are not active posters), I believe we have a pretty wide range of thoughts, opinions, and knowledge regarding photography and I think that point has been demonstrated in this thread.

If my interpretation of your comments is incorrect, my apologies, however I suspect that I am not the only person to come to this conclusion.

I was wondering the same thing too. I don't ever recall any number of people that act like purists on this board.

 

[MDowdey]

:shock: What happened to all the PURISTS? I can't believe you're letting this submission slide :smileys:

I'm curious to know just how many of these "purists" you believe we have here? Although there are a few that would probably consider themselves to be purists, there are obviously plenty of members who look at any image from a purely artistic standpoint regardless of the tools used to create the image.

I'm concerned that, in my opinion, many of your messages imply that this forum as a whole is very against the use of photoshop. Gordon W even mentioned his expectation of being singled out for his use of PS, and I am curious what prompted that expectation. Being that you mentioned it may have even been you who suggested Gordon post his photo here only increases my concern. With over 2,000 members (granted, a fair number are not active posters), I believe we have a pretty wide range of thoughts, opinions, and knowledge regarding photography and I think that point has been demonstrated in this thread.

If my interpretation of your comments is incorrect, my apologies, however I suspect that I am not the only person to come to this conclusion.

I was wondering the same thing too. I don't ever recall any number of people that act like purists on this board.

I DONT THINK THERE ARE ANY DEVOUT PURISTS HERE.

MD