Post your before/after editing pictures
+ What do you think of mine ?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1773 Image Height 1773 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2792723
Why did you put specks on it?
>>2792729
Because i like specks, but everyone's asking me this question so i think it was not a good idea haha
>>2792723
Yours is overdone and super gay, but I'm sure it'll get a lot of likes on facebook from normies.
>>2792739
Overdone yeah i know, i just wanted to see what could I do with a shitty pic like this one it was more like a challenge to me
Its bad, op, really bad.
i get the post processing style you're going for but it's really twilight gothic stuff and photo is just a snapshit of a cat in shadows
it doesn't match up
pic also fits recent shot as done today
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software paint.net 4.0.5 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi
>>2792787
Well there we see the importance of shooting in raw
>>2792787
what camera and lens?
>>2792804
d610 and 50mm 1.8D
I'm astonished what a 130€ lense can put out.
>>2792808
A $4000 lens looking dramatically better than a $500 lens only happens on paper, and on the bleeding edge of demanding photographers. There is hardly a lens in production today that, when used correctly, won't make photo sharper than you could ever need when taking an actual photo.
>>2792815
my 85 1.4G has a something special :(
>inb4 why???
"because"
>>2792787
>dat highlight recovery
wew lad, what was that shot with?
>>2792856
not a canon.
>>2792856
you know it was just underexposed when shot, either by the photographer or by the camera itself
doesn't matter the camera as long as it's isoless
>>2792856
Highlights still blown
Original scan on left as exported from the RAW file, with flattened contrast and no sharpening, and ballparked WB.
Jpeg on right after editing and resizing.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 550D Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.0.8 Serial Number 1132529712 Lens Name EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2016:03:15 08:10:45 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 100.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1083 Image Height 800 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Manual Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Partial Sharpness Unknown Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Unknown Focus Mode One-Shot Drive Mode Timed Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Self-Timer Length 10 sec Macro Mode Normal White Balance Flash Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 160 Color Matrix 129
>>2792883
senpai
teach me how to sharpen, I beg you
>>2792883
the image on the right looks like shit but it's probably from the jpg format
>>2792888
Turn sharpening to 50, noise reduction to 0. Done.
>>2792888
Use GIMP.
Duplicate layer.
Apply gaussian blur ~5-15px, depending on strength of effect desired and size of file, 9px used here.
Change blending mode to Grain Extract.
Create new layer from visible, and hide grain extract layer.
Set new layer's blending mode to Grain Merge.
Vary opacity of Grain Merge layer to determine strength of effect.
Create new from visible.
Apply USM to this layer, 1.2px, 65%, 12 point threshold is what I've been using for my Rabal film scans.
Vary opacity as desired.
Flatten image, save at full size, resize using Sinc interpolation, export web jpg.
As with all image manipulations, you may wish to create masks along the way and limit the effects to certain areas of the image, etc.
>(apparently this whole process is GREATLY simplified in Photoshop)
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1068 Image Height 800
>>2792912
Is that a variation on doing an unsharp mask or does it work on an entirely different concept?
>>2792908
I should do all my editing on 40MB 16bit TIFF's, right?
That would give me much better results, I'm sure.
>dumbass
>>2792924
that's not how I think at all but I can see artifacts all over the image that weren't in the original
unless this is what you call "sharpening"
>>2792925
>I can see artifacts
Please enlighten us all as to what "artifacts" you can see?
If you're talking about the jaggies on edges, well yes, sharpening does increase their appearance, but not as much as resizing to 800px for web display does.
And you'll notice they're still on the unedited one, just lower in contrast. That's life m8.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2792912
would this process have an effect different from using the detail sliders in LR?
>>2792936
Almost certainly.
But if you're happy with the results you get from using the slider to sharpen, don't let me stop you.
>>2792924
Yes, it would. There's literally more information available for you to push and pull. In an 8-bit image you have 256 values possible for each channel, which is fine for viewing. However, once you do something like curves you push some of those values into each other. Now you have 256 possible values, but you're only using a fraction of them because what was once 7 is now 8, what was once 9 is now 11, etc. Posterization is occurring and it'll only get worse the further you go.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/posterization.htm
Also, JPEG artefacts. You can save as high quality as you want but unless the filesize is equal to a BMP then something is being compressed with JPEG's lossy compression.
>>2792943
I understand that, but unless you're doing massive changes, it really doesn't matter.
I'd run into printing or display gamut issues long before I'd have posterised colours.
Also, the great thing about film is the natural grain giving you smooth tonal progressions when you edit, precisely because the source material isn't large blocks of continuous tone.
And finally, of course I'm not exporting 80% jpegs for further editing.
I know that what you're talking about is real, but in actual practise it's nth degree stuff that massively increases your processing and storage requirements for no reason.
>>2792972
Pic related, yes, when you apply an insane contrast curve and look at a 100% crop of the file you can see some minor vertical banding artifacts.
Posterisation of the colours isn't a problem at all.
What is a problem is that the exported files, whilst being practically identical for any of my intents or purposes, weigh in at 11MB for the jpeg, and 102MB for the TIFF.
This is the bottom of the waterfall, btw.
>>2792940
that's interesting to hear. I am usually okay with the sliders, but I have always been curious about the more complicated processes other people use to sharpen. I screencapped your post and will use it as a starting point sometime
>>2793031
Also remember I'm editing film scans.
For digital captures the numbers I suggested may be a little heavy handed.
>>2792808
You shouldn't be. 50/1.8D is GOAT. Double gauss designs are GOAT.
Also
>130 eurocucks for a 50/1.8D
>>2792853
y tho
