* mark.thomas.7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Apr 28, 1:10 pm, Troy Piggins <usenet-0...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Cute little finch.
>>
>>
http://piggo.com/~troy/photos.php?album=2008_03_28&img=photos/2008_03...
>
> G'day, Troy - nice work, but yes, it does look softish.
G'day Mark
> Just curious, what post-proc have you done? The part that deducts
> most points for me is the 'watercolour' look of his chest. It looks a
> bit like the feather detail has been lost due to a resizing/sharpening/
> NR problem, and that might also explain the overall soft look - it
> doesn't really look like significant o-o-f or camera shake (and
> believe me, I am an expert at recognising which is which, in all my
> stuffed images!). I suspect that with more careful resizing and
> sharpening you might be able to get a much crisper result.. can we
> get at a full-res original to experiment with? (or a crop of the
> birdie would do..)
>
> Altho' maybe he was just shaking himself a little, as they tend to
> do... (O:
Good eye mate. I did apply some NR to it - trying out a GIMP
noise reduction script. Also cropped it vertically to get rid of
wasted space.
Just looked at the original and there is a little more
detail/sharpness in the chest, but still soft. But looks noisy
at 100%.
Here is the full-sized original with just some curves work,
unsharpened but saved to 85% quality to get the file size down:
http://piggo.com/~troy/images/ausphoto/IMG_6644-orig.JPG
--
Troy Piggins
I always appreciate critique.
|
