Professional Web Applications Themes

Couple of 14n pics on pbase - Photography

OK, some people have problems with the yahoo galleries, therefore I uploaded a couple of my Kodak DCS 14n images to pbase at the following URL As I stated before, these were shot raw, then converted in Kodak Photodesk to 38mb tiffs, then brought into Photoshop, tweaked, then reduced in size in the jpg conversion so as to be convenient to upload. Gene McCluney http://www.pbase.com/genee/arkansas_scenics...

  1. #1

    Default Couple of 14n pics on pbase

    OK, some people have problems with the yahoo galleries,
    therefore I uploaded a couple of my Kodak DCS 14n images
    to pbase at the following URL

    As I stated before, these were shot raw, then converted
    in Kodak Photodesk to 38mb tiffs, then brought into
    Photoshop, tweaked, then reduced in size in the jpg
    conversion so as to be convenient to upload.

    Gene McCluney

    http://www.pbase.com/genee/arkansas_scenics
    Gene Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Couple of 14n pics on pbase

    >From: Gene McCluney net
     
     

    The JPG artifacts make your expensive cammy look like a JamCam. I seriously
    hope that the originals don't look that bad.
    Is that model covered under the Lemon Laws?




    Annika1980 Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Couple of 14n pics on pbase


    "Annika1980" <com> wrote in message
    news:aol.com...
    | >From: Gene McCluney net
    |
    | >OK, some people have problems with the yahoo galleries,
    | >therefore I uploaded a couple of my Kodak DCS 14n images
    | >to pbase at the following URL
    |
    | >http://www.pbase.com/genee/arkansas_scenics
    |
    | The JPG artifacts make your expensive cammy look like a JamCam.

    Where/when are the artifacts introduced? Can they be avoided by
    reasonable measures? How?

    What, exactly, are the steps used in preparing those two images for
    display? What steps would have resulted in no, or fewer artifacts, and
    what other consequences of those steps could be expected.

    Inquiring minds want to know.


    Frank ess


    Frank Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Couple of 14n pics on pbase

    In article <aol.com>,
    com (Annika1980) wrote:

    http://www.pbase.com/genee/arkansas_scenics
     

    I'm not sure it's jpg artifacts.
    In NearJasper1.jpg the green areas look like someone took a wet
    5x9" oil painting and smeared them with a 1/2" brush. I've never
    seen jpg do that.

    --
    Charlie Dilks
    Newark, DE USA
    Charlie Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Couple of 14n pics on pbase

    In article <fu-berlin.de>,
    net says... 

    That effect looks JUST like the example pictures that were accidentally
    posted before the 14n was introduced. There is smearing in ares of high
    detail. There are also severe JPG artifacts as well. The original of
    "nearjasper1.jpg" has some serious artifacts in the sky and around the
    tree branches and it's a 1.7 meg file.

    Gene, please don't think we are bashing your camera here. It's just that
    the picture quality doesn't even come close to what you can get for 1/3
    the money. If I had paid $5000 for a camera body and gotten these kind
    of results, I would be headed right back to the store for a refund. My
    only hope is that this is a result of post processing but I fear that
    isn't the case...

    --
    ________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://twalker.d2g.com
    Olympus E20
    Canon G2
    My Digital Photography Weblog:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
    _________________________________
    Todd Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Couple of 14n pics on pbase


    "Gene McCluney" <net> wrote in message
    news:earthlink.net... 

    'nuff said. How much is that camera? Do the original originals look like
    that? Are you posting because you are happy with the results or as a
    cautionary warning? It is not entirly clear from the tone of your post.

    MJ


    mcgyverjones Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Couple of 14n pics on pbase

    In article <jam.rr.com>,
    Todd Walker <com> wrote:
     

    He could take a screen shot of a small area of the areas in question at
    100%; smeared green and sky and around the tree branches of the jpg he
    posted and screen shots of the same areas of the 38MB tiffs and post
    them side by side with low compression. Maybe 500x500 pixel areas of
    each.

    At 100%, jpg compression of the screen shots shouldn't induce the
    problems we saw in the previously posted images.

    Here's an example of how jpegging a small crop from a 100% shot doesn't
    harm the quality enough for comparative purposes.
    http://tinyurl.com/6cr4

    --
    Charlie Dilks
    Newark, DE USA
    Charlie Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Couple of 14n pics on pbase

    "mcgyverjones" <mcgyverjones(spamout)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Pg3Sa.6684$bellglobal.com>... 
    >
    > 'nuff said. How much is that camera? Do the original originals look like
    > that? Are you posting because you are happy with the results or as a
    > cautionary warning? It is not entirly clear from the tone of your post.
    >
    > MJ[/ref]


    Holy Cow the NearJasper1 picture is awful, something is either
    horribly wrong with either the camera or the processing you've done to
    it (looks like 10% (yes, ten%) quality in JPEG). Honestly the nasty
    smudging of the green looks worse than my 1.3Mpix camera does, and the
    rest of the image is much worse than my new 5Mpix Oly C-5050, costing
    a 1/9th of the 14n. The test pictures on Kodak's site are fantastic,
    and if Nikon don't come out with something soon I'll perhaps get the
    14n myself, but heck, it if results in prints like these it will
    certainly be going back.

    Roland.
    Roland Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Couple of 14n pics on pbase

    In article <google.com>,
    com (Roland Wooster) wrote:
     
    > >
    > > 'nuff said. How much is that camera? Do the original originals look like
    > > that? Are you posting because you are happy with the results or as a
    > > cautionary warning? It is not entirly clear from the tone of your post.
    > >
    > > MJ[/ref]
    >
    >
    > Holy Cow the NearJasper1 picture is awful, something is either
    > horribly wrong with either the camera or the processing you've done to
    > it (looks like 10% (yes, ten%) quality in JPEG). Honestly the nasty
    > smudging of the green looks worse than my 1.3Mpix camera does, and the
    > rest of the image is much worse than my new 5Mpix Oly C-5050, costing
    > a 1/9th of the 14n. The test pictures on Kodak's site are fantastic,
    > and if Nikon don't come out with something soon I'll perhaps get the
    > 14n myself, but heck, it if results in prints like these it will
    > certainly be going back.
    >
    > Roland.[/ref]

    OK

    Perhaps my technique for reducing to JPG and posting is not great
    yet, as this is the first time I have done this. Some of the softness
    in the greens is indeed the camera as it was configured at the time
    this image was shot. I have since updated the firmware, and the
    Kodak Photodesk software, and there is significant improvement. I posted
    this photo, because I like it, and when printed out on my Epson
    Ultrachrome 9600 printer in a 20x30 inch print on glossy paper, the
    image is stunning, and obviously twice or more the resolution of my
    Nikon D100 using the same lenses. This particular image NearJasper1 had
    the "noise reduction" settings of Photodesk (prior version) at default,
    however I will post an image taken with the new firmware, and converted
    with the Photodesk "noise reduction" settings set to zero, however I am
    still learning to convert to small jpg's. I print directly from the
    uncompressed tiff's from the conversion in Photodesk, then tweaked in
    Photoshop, and using FredMiranda's IntelliSharpen action, strength 5.
    Unfortunately the internet is not the ideal medium for sharing the full
    quality of these or any other image. In 20x30 inch prints, and compared
    to the very good 20x30 inch prints from my D100, there is considerable
    more detail and resolution to the shots. I use the Imageprint RIP to
    drive my printer. My friends and clients who have viewed the 20x30
    print I made of this shot all think it is breathtaking. I find that I
    have completely stopped using my D100 for my personal work now that I
    have this camera. The 14n shots require far less work in Photoshop to
    be printable. I shoot only RAW with both cameras.


    As far as my professional studio product work, I have completely stopped
    using my Betterlight Scanning Back for my 4x5 now that I have the 14n,
    because the quality of studio work is that good at the sizes my clients
    need, and the color balance is excellent.

    Gene McCluney
    Gene Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Couple of 14n pics on pbase

    Well, it must be the fact that I can only see out of one eye, but, as far as
    I can see, both photos look great. I only saw one place on the second
    photo, BeaverBridge, near the water line towards the bottom of the photo,
    that came close to showing a smear of the Green.
    Other than that one point, and it could be my one eye working overtime
    trying to find a problem, they both looked good to me.
    james

    "Gene McCluney" <net> wrote in message
    news:earthlink.net... [/ref][/ref]
    like [/ref][/ref]
    post. 
    > >
    > >
    > > Holy Cow the NearJasper1 picture is awful, something is either
    > > horribly wrong with either the camera or the processing you've done to
    > > it (looks like 10% (yes, ten%) quality in JPEG). Honestly the nasty
    > > smudging of the green looks worse than my 1.3Mpix camera does, and the
    > > rest of the image is much worse than my new 5Mpix Oly C-5050, costing
    > > a 1/9th of the 14n. The test pictures on Kodak's site are fantastic,
    > > and if Nikon don't come out with something soon I'll perhaps get the
    > > 14n myself, but heck, it if results in prints like these it will
    > > certainly be going back.
    > >
    > > Roland.[/ref]
    >
    > OK
    >
    > Perhaps my technique for reducing to JPG and posting is not great
    > yet, as this is the first time I have done this. Some of the softness
    > in the greens is indeed the camera as it was configured at the time
    > this image was shot. I have since updated the firmware, and the
    > Kodak Photodesk software, and there is significant improvement. I posted
    > this photo, because I like it, and when printed out on my Epson
    > Ultrachrome 9600 printer in a 20x30 inch print on glossy paper, the
    > image is stunning, and obviously twice or more the resolution of my
    > Nikon D100 using the same lenses. This particular image NearJasper1 had
    > the "noise reduction" settings of Photodesk (prior version) at default,
    > however I will post an image taken with the new firmware, and converted
    > with the Photodesk "noise reduction" settings set to zero, however I am
    > still learning to convert to small jpg's. I print directly from the
    > uncompressed tiff's from the conversion in Photodesk, then tweaked in
    > Photoshop, and using FredMiranda's IntelliSharpen action, strength 5.
    > Unfortunately the internet is not the ideal medium for sharing the full
    > quality of these or any other image. In 20x30 inch prints, and compared
    > to the very good 20x30 inch prints from my D100, there is considerable
    > more detail and resolution to the shots. I use the Imageprint RIP to
    > drive my printer. My friends and clients who have viewed the 20x30
    > print I made of this shot all think it is breathtaking. I find that I
    > have completely stopped using my D100 for my personal work now that I
    > have this camera. The 14n shots require far less work in Photoshop to
    > be printable. I shoot only RAW with both cameras.
    >
    >
    > As far as my professional studio product work, I have completely stopped
    > using my Betterlight Scanning Back for my 4x5 now that I have the 14n,
    > because the quality of studio work is that good at the sizes my clients
    > need, and the color balance is excellent.
    >
    > Gene McCluney
    >[/ref]


    james Guest

Similar Threads

  1. New to FCS, just a couple ?'s
    By bthomas311 in forum Macromedia Flash Flashcom
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 27th, 03:21 PM
  2. Pics
    By __Sheep__ in forum Macromedia Flash Ad Development
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 7th, 04:55 AM
  3. OT: pbase printing
    By owl_luvr in forum Adobe Photoshop Elements
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 30th, 01:09 PM
  4. Couple of new ones...
    By Andrew MacBeth in forum Photography
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 29th, 12:50 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139