Shrewsbury, Shropshire

Carlh

Carlh

Messages
8,261
Name
Carl
Edit My Images
Yes
Its a park. But I did take some of the surrounding streets as I fancied a bit of street photography

1..
11871896346_d4fd163455_b.jpg


2..
11866970424_ed475cb40d_b.jpg

3..
11872515263_de2823a484_b.jpg

Thanks for looking :)
 
all seem a bit fuzzy...are these from a phone
tell me i am wrong and its my laptop screen
no 2 is the best...and i do like the clarity of the no people street scene
cheers
geof
 
they might be too low res geof, only 600 on the short side, was taken with a 6d and a 24-105L, looks ok as it is on my screen but full screen is no good, thats when you'll see the quality issue.
 
Carlh said:
they might be too low res geof, only 600 on the short side, was taken with a 6d and a 24-105L, looks ok as it is on my screen but full screen is no good, thats when you'll see the quality issue.
Click to expand...

well you seem to be telling me they are bound to be good re: your enviable equipment
so i estimate some camera shake or you were on manual focus and thought it was auto??
it has happened to me quite a lot that i get quite jittery about using manual
cheers
geof
 
Hi Carl,

I can see what Geof is getting at, to me I think the problem (for want of a better word) is you're putting detailed scenes across in a way which doesn't preserve that detail very well. If we take the first image for example, there's a lot of detail there in the tree to the right and the brickwork of the building that seems to be lost which, to my eyes at least, looks rather odd (I think they look fuzzy as well but it's more my eye being confused by slightly odd looking contrast rather than a focussing/sharpness issue). Was this image quite contrasty in the first place and then you used a Curves adjustment (or some other processing) to darken the highlights and lift the shadows? If so that's a very easy way to lose detail unless you're very careful with it. I would comment sindividually but the same really applies to all three images with regard to processing.

Hope I've explained that in a way that makes some vague kind of sense! :)
 
mrtoad said:
well you seem to be telling me they are bound to be good re: your enviable equipment
so i estimate some camera shake or you were on manual focus and thought it was auto??
it has happened to me quite a lot that i get quite jittery about using manual
cheers
geof
Click to expand...

sorry geof, i didn't mean to come across snobby or anything, I've only listed the equipment so people know what was being used plus since I know the equipment is ok, the issue has to be me :). I am pretty sure the AF was enabled.

I've put the colour versions below, one in the 600px shortest and the original, full size. Would someone mind just checking them (I dont trust my screen) and that the extra contrast has come from the B&W process

This is the 600px, in colour:
12048535535_85566dd787_b.jpg


and the full size, which you will have to go into flickr to view properly:
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2877/12048842553_aec66d7b2d_o.jpg

I know I need to invest in a much better screen. I'm trying to reduce the amount of PP during camera raw and after, to the minimum. Trying to do everything in camera raw. I can see some convergence too, so I guess I should run it through the wide angle lens fix-option in photoshop.

Paul: Thanks and yes, made perfect sense. I'm going to spend some time on this image this afternoon, take the pp down to minimum, no contrast changes etc.. and see what it comes out like.

Thanks both - great comments and got some things to think about :) Cheers again :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMN
Carlh said:
sorry geof, i didn't mean to come across snobby or anything, I've only listed the equipment so people know what was being used plus since I know the equipment is ok, the issue has to be me :). I am pretty sure the AF was enabled.

I've put the colour versions below, one in the 600px shortest and the original, full size. Would someone mind just checking them (I dont trust my screen) and that the extra contrast has come from the B&W process

This is the 600px, in colour:
12048535535_85566dd787_b.jpg


and the full size, which you will have to go into flickr to view properly:
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2877/12048842553_aec66d7b2d_o.jpg

I know I need to invest in a much better screen. I'm trying to reduce the amount of PP during camera raw and after, to the minimum. Trying to do everything in camera raw. I can see some convergence too, so I guess I should run it through the wide angle lens fix-option in photoshop.

Paul: Thanks and yes, made perfect sense. I'm going to spend some time on this image this afternoon, take the pp down to minimum, no contrast changes etc.. and see what it comes out like.

Thanks both - great comments and got some things to think about :) Cheers again :)
Click to expand...


www1 by mrcrow_uk, on Flickr

YEE HAW o_O

what size is your original...this on is a bit dotty as i try to do an edit...which is just for my practicing
cheers
geof
 
Hi again Carl,

I've just done a quick example edit from the full size original to show the kind of thing I was talking about, you can see there's generally quite a bit more tonal detail and clarity. I've also cropped the little building thing to the far left out as it was a bit of a distraction.

Hopefully this gives an idea of what I was probably failing to say using words! :)

cJepDSU.jpg
 
Just a quick note as well, I notice the colour space on your original is Adobe RGB, for Internet use that really needs to be sRGB otherwise colours and contrast can go a bit weird in certain browsers that aren't colour managed. :)
 
Carlh said:
here is the original: its 5472 x 3648
12048842553_aec66d7b2d_o.jpg
Click to expand...

thanks for the original...its a real pleasure to work on a really fine image.

here is colour


aaas1 by mrcrow_uk, on Flickr


and then a b>w conversion


aaas1 copy by mrcrow_uk, on Flickr

i dont know where we were heading on this post but i hope something constructive comes out of it
cheers
geof
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top