Strange result from straightening

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Peabody, Oct 21, 2009.

  1. Peabody

    Peabody Guest

    I took pictures of a friend's paintings with my superb Canon A590IS
    at the camera's full 8mp. With mixed results.

    Well, I thought it did ok except for the slight bowing of all the
    edges. I guess I should have moved farther away and zoomed in to
    reduce that.

    Anyway, one of the pictures was a bit tilted, so I used a program
    called Photo! Editor by VicMan Software to straighten the picture,
    which seemed to go ok.

    The resolution of the jpeg went from the original 3264x2488 to
    3209x2406, with is about a 5% reduction in pixels as a result of
    the straightening. But the file size went from the original 3296kb
    down to 1191kb, a 64% reduction.

    I'm hard pressed to see any visual difference. But I don't
    understand why not, given the difference in file size. Can anyone
    tell me what may be going on?
     
    Peabody, Oct 21, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Peabody <> wrote:
    >Anyway, one of the pictures was a bit tilted, so I used a program
    >called Photo! Editor by VicMan Software to straighten the picture,
    >which seemed to go ok.
    >
    >The resolution of the jpeg went from the original 3264x2488 to
    >3209x2406, with is about a 5% reduction in pixels as a result of
    >the straightening.


    5% difference as the result of some editing seems to be normal.

    >But the file size went from the original 3296kb
    >down to 1191kb, a 64% reduction.


    Then you used a higher JPEG compression level when saving the edited
    file.

    >I'm hard pressed to see any visual difference. But I don't
    >understand why not, given the difference in file size. Can anyone
    >tell me what may be going on?


    Look closely at a full-size version (there are no 3209x2406 monitors, so
    you have to zoom in all the way) and you should be able to notice quite
    a few more compression artifacts.
    Of course, for a web page or even computer viewing it doesn't matter at
    all because even high-resolution monitors are only 1/4 the size of the
    picture. It only becomes relevant when you want to print a large print.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Oct 21, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Peabody

    sobriquet Guest

    On 21 okt, 02:32, Peabody <> wrote:
    > I took pictures of a friend's paintings with my superb Canon A590IS
    > at the camera's full 8mp.  With mixed results.
    >
    > Well, I thought it did ok except for the slight bowing of all the
    > edges.  I guess I should have moved farther away and zoomed in to
    > reduce that.
    >
    > Anyway, one of the pictures was a bit tilted, so I used a program
    > called Photo! Editor by VicMan Software to straighten the picture,
    > which seemed to go ok.
    >
    > The resolution of the jpeg went from the original 3264x2488 to
    > 3209x2406, with is about a 5% reduction in pixels as a result of
    > the straightening.  But the file size went from the original 3296kb
    > down to 1191kb, a 64% reduction.
    >
    > I'm hard pressed to see any visual difference.  But I don't
    > understand why not, given the difference in file size.  Can anyone
    > tell me what may be going on?


    The quality settings for jpg compression can have a big impact on
    filesize, despite
    the fact that there is little or no apparent visual distinction
    between the large and the smaller file.
     
    sobriquet, Oct 21, 2009
    #3
  4. Peabody

    Paul Furman Guest

    Peabody wrote:
    > I took pictures of a friend's paintings with my superb Canon A590IS
    > at the camera's full 8mp. With mixed results.
    >
    > Well, I thought it did ok except for the slight bowing of all the
    > edges. I guess I should have moved farther away and zoomed in to
    > reduce that.


    Yep that usually helps. Barrel distortion can also be fixed with
    software, I'm not sure which affordably or easily though.


    > Anyway, one of the pictures was a bit tilted, so I used a program
    > called Photo! Editor by VicMan Software to straighten the picture,
    > which seemed to go ok.
    >
    > The resolution of the jpeg went from the original 3264x2488 to
    > 3209x2406, with is about a 5% reduction in pixels as a result of
    > the straightening. But the file size went from the original 3296kb
    > down to 1191kb, a 64% reduction.
    >
    > I'm hard pressed to see any visual difference. But I don't
    > understand why not, given the difference in file size. Can anyone
    > tell me what may be going on?


    Like others said, jpeg compression settings... zoom in ridiculously
    close and look at smooth graded areas for blocky shapes of various sizes.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Oct 21, 2009
    #4
  5. Peabody

    More Info Guest

    On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:32:58 -0500, Peabody <>
    wrote:

    >I took pictures of a friend's paintings with my superb Canon A590IS
    >at the camera's full 8mp. With mixed results.
    >
    >Well, I thought it did ok except for the slight bowing of all the
    >edges. I guess I should have moved farther away and zoomed in to
    >reduce that.
    >
    >Anyway, one of the pictures was a bit tilted, so I used a program
    >called Photo! Editor by VicMan Software to straighten the picture,
    >which seemed to go ok.
    >
    >The resolution of the jpeg went from the original 3264x2488 to
    >3209x2406, with is about a 5% reduction in pixels as a result of
    >the straightening. But the file size went from the original 3296kb
    >down to 1191kb, a 64% reduction.
    >
    >I'm hard pressed to see any visual difference. But I don't
    >understand why not, given the difference in file size. Can anyone
    >tell me what may be going on?
    >


    It sounds like your editor auto-crops on rotations. Many editors have
    options for this, crop or no crop on rotations. If you don't allow
    auto-cropping, then long thin triangular slivers of black, white, or chosen
    background color are filled-in at the edges to compensate for the now
    rotated image. Filling in the gaps where the rotation can no longer match
    the original file-dimension edges.

    If this is an important project, I highly stress that you obtain any editor
    that has Lanczos-8 (or lesser Lanczos-X versions) as a resampling algorithm
    in its options. This prevents the image from losing detail during slight
    rotations. Using bicubic resampling, as exists as the only option in all
    versions of PhotoShop, (bicubic being the most common, fast, and acceptable
    algorithm in popular use) during rotations or resizings will cause you to
    lose as much as 50% of original image details due to its inherent softening
    of all edge detail during resampling. I find it extremely odd that people
    will easily pay more than $5000 for camera gear, then spend another $700
    for an editor that causes them to lose all the details in their images,
    reducing their cameras' image resolution to something they could have
    bought in the toy-aisle. Some people aren't too bright.

    Photoline <www.pl32.net> is an extremely good (more feature-rich and more
    capable than PhotoShop in fact) inexpensive editor that has Lanczos-3 and
    Lanczos-8 options for all rotations and resizings. It also includes other
    algorithms (bicubic, linear, quick (whatever "quick" is)), which I
    sometimes use if I intentionally want to soften image details. The
    difference in retained details between a bicubic and Lanczos-8 resize or
    rotation is very obvious when you have the two available to compare.

    Filesize changes have already been explained to you by others.
     
    More Info, Oct 21, 2009
    #5
  6. Peabody

    Peabody Guest

    More Info says...

    > It sounds like your editor auto-crops on rotations. Many
    > editors have options for this, crop or no crop on
    > rotations. If you don't allow auto-cropping, then long
    > thin triangular slivers of black, white, or chosen
    > background color are filled-in at the edges to
    > compensate for the now rotated image. Filling in the
    > gaps where the rotation can no longer match the original
    > file-dimension edges.


    Well, the Photo!Editor software I used is freeware, and I
    found no Options settings at all in it - nothing to adjust
    the degree of jpeg compression, and no setting for
    auto-crop. But I think you must me right because there are
    no thin slivers in the straightened version.

    > If this is an important project, I highly stress that
    > you obtain any editor that has Lanczos-8 (or lesser
    > Lanczos-X versions) as a resampling algorithm in its
    > options.


    Please note that I said I used a Canon A590 to take the
    pictures. So, not to shock you, but Photoshop isn't in my
    budget. Well how about Irfanview? Will it straighten and
    resample/resize properly? Or maybe XnView or Faststone?

    By the way, I did find a freeware lossless jpeg cropper that
    crops on 8-pixel boundaries without resampling what's left,
    so there is no generational loss from the cropping. Which
    is fine so long as those boundaries are acceptable cropping
    points.

    Well, at this point the pictures I've produced are far
    better than what he had, and plenty good enough for online
    use, which is what he wanted them for. If he gets to the
    point of making large prints, I would probably suggest he
    hire a pro photographer who knows what he's doing and has a
    fine camera. For what it's worth, though, I found that
    photographing the paintings outside in the shade, with
    manual white balance, produced really good results, and the
    colors, on my monitor at least, were spot on.

    Thanks for everyone's comments.
     
    Peabody, Oct 21, 2009
    #6
  7. Peabody

    Tim Conway Guest

    "Peabody" <> wrote in message
    news:_EsDm.311$...
    >I took pictures of a friend's paintings with my superb Canon A590IS
    > at the camera's full 8mp. With mixed results.
    >
    > Well, I thought it did ok except for the slight bowing of all the
    > edges. I guess I should have moved farther away and zoomed in to
    > reduce that.
    >
    > Anyway, one of the pictures was a bit tilted, so I used a program
    > called Photo! Editor by VicMan Software to straighten the picture,
    > which seemed to go ok.
    >
    > The resolution of the jpeg went from the original 3264x2488 to
    > 3209x2406, with is about a 5% reduction in pixels as a result of
    > the straightening. But the file size went from the original 3296kb
    > down to 1191kb, a 64% reduction.
    >
    > I'm hard pressed to see any visual difference. But I don't
    > understand why not, given the difference in file size. Can anyone
    > tell me what may be going on?
    >

    try PTLens stand alone software. Download the trial version and
    use it on 10 images free. If you like it, pay $25.

    http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/
     
    Tim Conway, Oct 21, 2009
    #7
  8. Peabody

    More Info Guest

    On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:43:30 -0500, Peabody <>
    wrote:


    >Please note that I said I used a Canon A590 to take the
    >pictures. So, not to shock you, but Photoshop isn't in my
    >budget. Well how about Irfanview? Will it straighten and
    >resample/resize properly? Or maybe XnView or Faststone?
    >


    Don't think less of that camera because of cost. In the hands of a talented
    photographer any camera can produce excellent results. The Canon Powershots
    are not to be taken lightly just because of cost. I've won several
    international awards with the ones I've used.

    While I've not used XnView, it does contain more advanced features, and
    even includes a Lanczos resampling option for resizings. (I just checked
    it. Installed it months ago to see if it's any good, but never played with
    it til now.) But I'm unaware if Lanczos is used for rotations, where it is
    the most needed and beneficial to have that option. There is no resampling
    algorithm option on XnView's rotation tool. But it does have the crop or
    no-crop options for rotations. There you could see what I was talking
    about.

    It sounds like XnView might be a better editor for you. GIMP being the
    pinnacle of all freeware editors.

    See this page for other editors you can play with.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_raster_graphics_editors
    Many of them are excellent freeware and more than most people need.

    If you can find an earlier version of Paint Shop Pro, v9.x or v10.x for a
    few dollars (v9.x is often sold for $5, or just shared because it's so
    old), it has some really nice features. Including geometric lens correction
    filters (pincushion and barrel distortion correction, one of the problems
    you mentioned), as well as a very good noise-removal tool and
    sensor-blooming (color fringing) correction tool. I wish Photoline had that
    latter one. I keep an earlier version of Paint Shop Pro installed just for
    that color-fringing correction tool alone. It was implemented so well.

    I just did a Google search for: plugin freeware pincushion barrel
    correction

    You might want to look into this link I found:
    <http://wareseeker.com/Graphic-Apps/lens-correction-1.0.zip/2e711ae14> or
    do that Google search for others listed. Though I've never used this plugin
    it should work fine with XnView, IrfanView, etc. Very few "photoshop
    plugins" are photoshop-ONLY. Most all of them work with any editor that
    supports plugins. There are only a rare few specialty plugins that are
    photoshop specific, and none of the freeware ones are, that I know of.

    The suggested (by someone else) PTLens plugin is also excellent for lens
    geometry corrections, but I never use it for that (my editor contains its
    own geometry correction tools). I use PTLens for its better
    chromatic-aberration (CA) correction feature. For simple pincushion and
    barrel distortion correction you shouldn't have to pay for an advanced
    plugin.

    >By the way, I did find a freeware lossless jpeg cropper that
    >crops on 8-pixel boundaries without resampling what's left,
    >so there is no generational loss from the cropping. Which
    >is fine so long as those boundaries are acceptable cropping
    >points.


    If you really get into photography, again I suggest you look into getting
    Photoline someday (not bloatware PhotoShop). It's the only editor out there
    that is capable of doing truly lossless JPG editing. It doesn't put the
    data through the JPG algorithm again unless you specifically choose a
    higher compression level than the original. The only data that is changed
    in the resulting saved file are the pixels that you specifically changed.
    It doesn't compound compression artifacts during multiple re-loads and
    re-saves. It also is blind to those JPG 8 or 16 pixel block boundaries.
    Edit to any pixel dimensions you want and it won't jump to a multiple of 8
    or 16 when saved

    >
    >Well, at this point the pictures I've produced are far
    >better than what he had, and plenty good enough for online
    >use, which is what he wanted them for. If he gets to the
    >point of making large prints, I would probably suggest he
    >hire a pro photographer who knows what he's doing and has a
    >fine camera. For what it's worth, though, I found that
    >photographing the paintings outside in the shade, with
    >manual white balance, produced really good results, and the
    >colors, on my monitor at least, were spot on.
    >


    A "pro" could do no better, and might even do worse than what you could do
    with your gear, when used properly. Lots of people make money, or try to
    make money, with their cameras but it doesn't mean they should be allowed
    to ever have a camera. If someone gives a snapshooter $0.25 for a poorly
    done shot of their baby they can claim they are a "pro". Many wedding
    parties get scammed daily by self-appointed "Pros". They need nothing more
    than a printer for their business cards and a fancy looking camera to
    impress their potential marks (victims). The world (and news-groups) are
    crawling wall to wall with "Insta-Pros".

    If you are not yet familiar with it, you might want to check out the
    software add-on for your A590, called CHDK. It will allow your "lowly"
    camera to do more than any DSLR on earth. You have more camera-power in
    your hands than I think you realize. http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
     
    More Info, Oct 22, 2009
    #8
  9. Peabody

    More Info Guest


    >
    >You might want to look into this link I found:
    ><http://wareseeker.com/Graphic-Apps/lens-correction-1.0.zip/2e711ae14> or
    >do that Google search for others listed. Though I've never used this plugin
    >it should work fine with XnView, IrfanView, etc. Very few "photoshop
    >plugins" are photoshop-ONLY. Most all of them work with any editor that
    >supports plugins. There are only a rare few specialty plugins that are
    >photoshop specific, and none of the freeware ones are, that I know of.


    I was going to get that plugin to see if it was any good, and found that
    all the download links are dead. However, I did eventually find it here:

    <http://www.photo-plugins.com/Plugins/Plugins/Lens-Correction.html>

    Download here:

    <http://www.photo-plugins.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=9&Itemid=43>
     
    More Info, Oct 22, 2009
    #9
  10. Peabody

    More Info Guest

    On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:24:27 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2009-10-21 18:59:07 -0700, More Info <> said:
    >
    >> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:43:30 -0500, Peabody <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Please note that I said I used a Canon A590 to take the
    >>> pictures. So, not to shock you, but Photoshop isn't in my
    >>> budget. Well how about Irfanview? Will it straighten and
    >>> resample/resize properly? Or maybe XnView or Faststone?
    >>>

    >>
    >> Don't think less of that camera because of cost. In the hands of a talented
    >> photographer any camera can produce excellent results. The Canon Powershots
    >> are not to be taken lightly just because of cost. I've won several
    >> international awards with the ones I've used.

    >
    >...and which International awards would those be.
    >Name, date and citation might be interesting to see.
    >
    >The Nobel Fantasy Prize perhaps?


    Do you honestly think I'd let a useless troll like you enjoy my good
    photography? Or that I can somehow be manipulated by a loser like you into
    doing so? You're more stupid than I thought. Wow.

    Your lack of intellect duly noted. But then, we all already knew that now,
    didn't we. Even you.
     
    More Info, Oct 22, 2009
    #10
  11. Peabody

    Ray Fischer Guest

    More Info <> wrote:
    >On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:24:27 -0700, Savageduck
    ><savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On 2009-10-21 18:59:07 -0700, More Info <> said:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:43:30 -0500, Peabody <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Please note that I said I used a Canon A590 to take the
    >>>> pictures. So, not to shock you, but Photoshop isn't in my
    >>>> budget. Well how about Irfanview? Will it straighten and
    >>>> resample/resize properly? Or maybe XnView or Faststone?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Don't think less of that camera because of cost. In the hands of a talented
    >>> photographer any camera can produce excellent results. The Canon Powershots
    >>> are not to be taken lightly just because of cost. I've won several
    >>> international awards with the ones I've used.

    >>
    >>...and which International awards would those be.
    >>Name, date and citation might be interesting to see.
    >>
    >>The Nobel Fantasy Prize perhaps?

    >
    >Do you honestly think I'd let a useless troll like you enjoy my good


    Run along, troll.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Oct 22, 2009
    #11
  12. Mike Russell wrote:
    > On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:40:33 -0500, More Info wrote:
    >
    >> Do you honestly think I'd let a useless troll like you enjoy my good
    >> photography? Or that I can somehow be manipulated by a loser like you into
    >> doing so? You're more stupid than I thought. Wow.
    >>
    >> Your lack of intellect duly noted. But then, we all already knew that now,
    >> didn't we. Even you.

    >
    > Please forgive us if the fact that you *say* you won these awards, yet
    > choose to keep your identity secret, does undercut your credibility.



    Correction: There's no credibility to undermine. None, Zero, Nada,
    Zilch, ad naseum.


    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Oct 22, 2009
    #12
  13. Peabody

    More Info Guest

    On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:14:59 -0700, Mike Russell
    <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:40:33 -0500, More Info wrote:
    >
    >> Do you honestly think I'd let a useless troll like you enjoy my good
    >> photography? Or that I can somehow be manipulated by a loser like you into
    >> doing so? You're more stupid than I thought. Wow.
    >>
    >> Your lack of intellect duly noted. But then, we all already knew that now,
    >> didn't we. Even you.

    >
    >Please forgive us if the fact that you *say* you won these awards, yet
    >choose to keep your identity secret, does undercut your credibility.


    Do you honestly think that I care one iota on whether or not you perceive a
    person credible? Your opinion of me means absolutely *nothing* to me. Nor
    does the opinion of all these other snapshooting dickhead trolls and
    armchair photographers in these newsgroups. I've not seen even ONE image
    produced from any of them yet that would warrant their opinions about
    cameras and photography to be of ANY value whatsoever, to anyone. They ALL
    lost their credibilty long ago, no matter if they post with their real
    name, post their address, or even stand in my doorway. Their own crapshot
    photography has proved them all to be nothing but useless trolls and
    fuckheads.

    You've just proved yourself more stupid than that DickheadDuck Troll. I
    didn't think anyone could be more stupid than that. And yet here you are,
    proving it!
     
    More Info, Oct 22, 2009
    #13
  14. Peabody

    Peabody Guest

    In article <>,
    says...

    > Don't think less of that camera because of cost. In the
    > hands of a talented photographer any camera can produce
    > excellent results. The Canon Powershots are not to be
    > taken lightly just because of cost.


    Well, in fact, overall I was very happy with the way things
    came out. Except for the very slight barrell distortion,
    the few problems I had were all operator error, and not the
    fault of the camera.

    I put the four final pictures on drop.io, and anyone here is
    welcome to look at them. Of course, not having seen the
    original paintings, you can't tell how accurate the colors
    are, but I thought they were right on the money, and more
    important, the artist agreed. The colors in three of the
    paintings are quite vivid, and that comes through in the
    pictures. As I recall, we did boost the contrast one notch
    in-camera on those to get it right. Other than lossless
    cropping, there was no post processing - well really, I
    don't know what more I would have done.

    http://drop.io/dvbpaintings
     
    Peabody, Oct 22, 2009
    #14
  15. Peabody

    More Info Guest

    On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:06:43 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2009-10-21 19:40:33 -0700, More Info <> said:
    >
    >> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:24:27 -0700, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2009-10-21 18:59:07 -0700, More Info <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:43:30 -0500, Peabody <>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Please note that I said I used a Canon A590 to take the
    >>>>> pictures. So, not to shock you, but Photoshop isn't in my
    >>>>> budget. Well how about Irfanview? Will it straighten and
    >>>>> resample/resize properly? Or maybe XnView or Faststone?
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Don't think less of that camera because of cost. In the hands of a talented
    >>>> photographer any camera can produce excellent results. The Canon Powershots
    >>>> are not to be taken lightly just because of cost. I've won several
    >>>> international awards with the ones I've used.
    >>>
    >>> ...and which International awards would those be.
    >>> Name, date and citation might be interesting to see.
    >>>
    >>> The Nobel Fantasy Prize perhaps?

    >>
    >> Do you honestly think I'd let a useless troll like you enjoy my good
    >> photography? Or that I can somehow be manipulated by a loser like you into
    >> doing so? You're more stupid than I thought. Wow.
    >>
    >> Your lack of intellect duly noted. But then, we all already knew that now,
    >> didn't we. Even you.

    >
    >Well even as the total moron that you believe me to be, I have enough
    >native curiosity to ask, "Which prize might that be?"
    >Knowing the response everybody anticipated, you have yet to disappoint us.
    >As bad as you claim my photography to be, at least you have seen
    >examples to criticise. Something you lack the courage to do.


    Ah, so you want to prove to the world how fuckingly stupid you are again.
    Why should I deny you that?

    Who do you think posted the Green Heron photo taken with a P&S camera that
    proved your DSLR image of the same species to be nothing but a pathetic
    snapshooter's hack job? Also proving that your lens was total crap. It
    wasn't even one of my more favorite Green Heron shots. I never post my good
    stuff anymore.

    You're such a pathetic dickhead.

    Enjoy your requested stupidity-outing, again.

    Now go crawl back under your snapshooter's rock, you useless fucking fool
    without a clue.
     
    More Info, Oct 22, 2009
    #15
  16. Peabody

    More Info Guest

    On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:26:47 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >
    >You seem to have me confused with another contributor. I have never
    >posted a shot of a Green Heron.
    >If you believe I did, then a link to that post would confirm your claim.


    Wow, the Fucked-Up-Duck was right for once in his sorry ass of a life. At
    least he can remember what bad photos he's taken and posted. That's right,
    I remember now, you posted those REALLY REALLY bad snapshots of tilted
    streams that also showed the image-stabilization in your POS lens causing
    bad CA effects, and also the tilted and pink granite mountains and clouds
    at noontime because you can't even tell what is supposed to be gray and
    white. LOL! **** that was funny! LOL!

    Apparently I only replied to your zero-talent comment in the Heron thread.
    All of you useless trolls are just as bad at photography, and all offer the
    same misinformed snapshooters' advice. It's difficult ... okay, let's be
    truthful, it's just plain pointless to remember which of you are which.
    You're all equally and pathetically poor at photography. Mistaking you for
    another equally sad snapshooter was an easy-to-make error on my part. For
    you to think that Troll Annika's photo was "... a great capture & pic"
    makes you an equally talentless hack. Indistinguishable between you two
    from my side of the screen. You're all just pathetic loser snapshooters
    when it comes to photography. You all sound the same, all lack talent the
    same, all are just as ignorant and useless the same. And ALL should NEVER
    be handing out ANY photography advice to ANYONE, EVER, all the same.

    I blame fool crapshot advisors like you and the rest of the resident-trolls
    that infest these newsgroups for the glut of crap photography that's
    drowning the world today. People more naive might actually be stupid enough
    to believe your shit-head advice.

    Your photos PROVE you have ZERO credibility, no matter what name you use.


    >On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 09:56:39 -0700, Savageduck
    ><savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On 2009-08-02 09:32:00 -0700, Paul Furman <> said:
    >>
    >>> Annika1980 wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/115630331
    >>>
    >>> The feet are interesting.

    >>
    >>Bret, this is just a great capture & pic

    >
    >Too sterile, too lifeless. It looks like a taxidermist's mount. No
    >interesting composition. Too muted, too boring. It doesn't show off a Green
    >Heron's colors well at all. At first I almost mistook it for a
    >Louisiana/Tri-Color Heron with its neck retracted and tucked, due to the
    >drab browns. The Green Herons that I've seen and photographed are a more
    >bluish-green with a maroon chest, hence their name.
    >
    >Is the blurriness in the feathers, especially the back of the bird, due to
    >downsizing? Or is this just the camera focusing on the nearer leg and
    >getting the rest of the bird out of focus? The more I look it's not a
    >downsizing issue or the details in the foot and stump would be blurred too.
    >It seems to be an auto-focusing error with a too shallow DOF for the
    >subject. A common problem. The camera focused on the more contrasting foot
    >and stump and left the more muted main subject out of the equation. The
    >optics then not having enough DOF to compensate for it.
    >
    >There's some annoying red chromatic-aberration on the edge of the bright
    >white on the forewing. It's not sensor blooming or the red would appear on
    >both sides of that white stripe, or in the small blown highlights on the
    >stump. That's lateral or linear CA caused by some optical element. It's
    >very odd that the CA should appear in the middle of the image. Is this a
    >heavy corner crop from a larger image? It might be an example of how
    >optical image stabilization causes this at random times in strange ways.
    >
    >Sorry, but the mind is always drawn to a photograph's problems if the
    >subject is not interesting enough to keep the eye away from them.
    >
    >
    >As for Green Herons, I'd much more prefer a photo like this one.
    >http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3494/3781880801_9441b40b75_o.jpg A random
    >shot pulled from one of my heron DVDs. Not one of my favorites, the
    >in-camera composition was a bit off. The bird should have been slightly
    >higher and more to the right, more showing below the feet. An okay one for
    >demonstration purposes.
    >
    >When comparing the two images it's hard to believe these are the same
    >species.
     
    More Info, Oct 22, 2009
    #16
  17. Peabody

    Bob Larter Guest

    More Info wrote:
    > On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:14:59 -0700, Mike Russell
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:40:33 -0500, More Info wrote:
    >>
    >>> Do you honestly think I'd let a useless troll like you enjoy my good
    >>> photography? Or that I can somehow be manipulated by a loser like you into
    >>> doing so? You're more stupid than I thought. Wow.
    >>>
    >>> Your lack of intellect duly noted. But then, we all already knew that now,
    >>> didn't we. Even you.

    >> Please forgive us if the fact that you *say* you won these awards, yet
    >> choose to keep your identity secret, does undercut your credibility.

    >
    > Do you honestly think that I care one iota on whether or not you perceive a
    > person credible?


    Son, we might take you seriously if you start posting links to some
    *real* photography. In the meantime, we'll just keep on laughing at you.


    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Bob Larter, Oct 22, 2009
    #17
  18. Peabody

    Bob Larter Guest

    More Info wrote:
    > On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:06:43 -0700, Savageduck
    > <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2009-10-21 19:40:33 -0700, More Info <> said:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:24:27 -0700, Savageduck
    >>> <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2009-10-21 18:59:07 -0700, More Info <> said:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:43:30 -0500, Peabody <>
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Please note that I said I used a Canon A590 to take the
    >>>>>> pictures. So, not to shock you, but Photoshop isn't in my
    >>>>>> budget. Well how about Irfanview? Will it straighten and
    >>>>>> resample/resize properly? Or maybe XnView or Faststone?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Don't think less of that camera because of cost. In the hands of a talented
    >>>>> photographer any camera can produce excellent results. The Canon Powershots
    >>>>> are not to be taken lightly just because of cost. I've won several
    >>>>> international awards with the ones I've used.
    >>>> ...and which International awards would those be.
    >>>> Name, date and citation might be interesting to see.
    >>>>
    >>>> The Nobel Fantasy Prize perhaps?
    >>> Do you honestly think I'd let a useless troll like you enjoy my good
    >>> photography? Or that I can somehow be manipulated by a loser like you into
    >>> doing so? You're more stupid than I thought. Wow.
    >>>
    >>> Your lack of intellect duly noted. But then, we all already knew that now,
    >>> didn't we. Even you.

    >> Well even as the total moron that you believe me to be, I have enough
    >> native curiosity to ask, "Which prize might that be?"
    >> Knowing the response everybody anticipated, you have yet to disappoint us.
    >> As bad as you claim my photography to be, at least you have seen
    >> examples to criticise. Something you lack the courage to do.

    >
    > Ah, so you want to prove to the world how fuckingly stupid you are again.
    > Why should I deny you that?
    >
    > Who do you think posted the Green Heron photo taken with a P&S camera that
    > proved your DSLR image of the same species to be nothing but a pathetic
    > snapshooter's hack job? Also proving that your lens was total crap. It
    > wasn't even one of my more favorite Green Heron shots. I never post my good
    > stuff anymore.


    *snort* Nothing you've posted has been any good. All you've proved is
    that you're a big, fat zero.


    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Bob Larter, Oct 22, 2009
    #18
  19. Peabody

    Bob Larter Guest

    More Info wrote:
    > On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:26:47 -0700, Savageduck
    > <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >> You seem to have me confused with another contributor. I have never
    >> posted a shot of a Green Heron.
    >> If you believe I did, then a link to that post would confirm your claim.

    >
    > Wow, the Fucked-Up-Duck was right for once in his sorry ass of a life. At
    > least he can remember what bad photos he's taken and posted. That's right,
    > I remember now, you posted those REALLY REALLY bad snapshots of tilted
    > streams that also showed the image-stabilization in your POS lens causing
    > bad CA effects, and also the tilted and pink granite mountains and clouds
    > at noontime because you can't even tell what is supposed to be gray and
    > white. LOL! **** that was funny! LOL!
    >
    > Apparently I only replied to your zero-talent comment in the Heron thread.
    > All of you useless trolls are just as bad at photography, and all offer the
    > same misinformed snapshooters' advice. It's difficult ... okay, let's be
    > truthful, it's just plain pointless to remember which of you are which.
    > You're all equally and pathetically poor at photography. Mistaking you for
    > another equally sad snapshooter was an easy-to-make error on my part. For
    > you to think that Troll Annika's photo was "... a great capture & pic"
    > makes you an equally talentless hack. Indistinguishable between you two
    > from my side of the screen. You're all just pathetic loser snapshooters
    > when it comes to photography. You all sound the same, all lack talent the
    > same, all are just as ignorant and useless the same. And ALL should NEVER
    > be handing out ANY photography advice to ANYONE, EVER, all the same.
    >
    > I blame fool crapshot advisors like you and the rest of the resident-trolls
    > that infest these newsgroups for the glut of crap photography that's
    > drowning the world today. People more naive might actually be stupid enough
    > to believe your shit-head advice.
    >
    > Your photos PROVE you have ZERO credibility, no matter what name you use.


    Nice job of upsetting the P&S Troll, Mr Duck. ;^)

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Bob Larter, Oct 22, 2009
    #19
  20. Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2009-10-22 07:19:45 -0700, Bob Larter <> said:


    >> Nice job of upsetting the P&S Troll, Mr Duck. ;^)

    >
    > Thanks, just my contribution to shine a light on those with mental
    > health issues.


    All righty, then. Yes, he's reached foam again.

    BUT:
    How 'bout all of us taking a breather on this toad? By not replying to
    any of his posts; by not talking any more about him- for one month.
    You, me, Lionel, Mike, etc. all of us. And when he socks himself, or an
    innocent party replies, we still keep mum.

    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Oct 22, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rustiferion

    Strange result of OE mailing...

    Rustiferion, Feb 18, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    414
    Misa Mirkovic
    Feb 21, 2004
  2. Straightening Images Article

    , Apr 19, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    368
  3. Straightening Images Article - Part II

    , Apr 26, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    346
  4. Jimmy Dean
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    503
    Jimmy Dean
    May 6, 2006
  5. JWBH

    strange result with LED and flash

    JWBH, May 22, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    339
Loading...

Share This Page