Posted by Lon Overacker on January 12, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Here's a second image I managed from some vineyards here in Livermore back in November. Nothing to terribly exciting, but I was amazed at the colors some of the vineyards had this year. This vineyard was on the side of a small hill and I caught it just before the sun settled over the ridge above.
Lon, I think the angle of view really makes this one. The diagonal cut of the rows along with the angled light works very nicely. I'd be interested as to how the final compression was. I find that most all my fall color images with lots of leaf detail just brings the compression quality way down. This image would seem to be very similar in that overall design characteristic.
Posted by Harley Goldman on January 12, 2009 at 10:43 PM
Lon,
This one is tough to judge. On my screen, it appears to be suffering from some major compression. Technically speaking, it looks munched. Right now it looks a bit over-saturated and very ortonized. Since you did not mention any Orton treatment, I am assuming a straight image. I like the colors and lines.
Posted by Steve Sieren on January 13, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Well first of all it's very beautiful and the diagonals make for a great composition. Great timing catching the last light on the top of each row.
When you guys mention final compression, that is just after the save as in ps right? If so sometimes fall files need the slider to go down to as far as 3, 4, or 5. I always worry about it being so low but I never see the difference and you can't zoom into a web sized file.
Steve, to answer your question from my own work flow process, yes. I work everything as a tiff, the last thing I do is save it also as a jpeg and then final size for web presentation as a "save for web" file. Typically good non-compressed images for me are in the "high" to "very high" quality range. Once they start finishing off as "medium" or "low" quality they become too compressed. I can see the difference between my original tiff's and the finished jpeg's when the quality moves into the "medium" range or lower. I find a hill full of aspen trees or something like these many rows of vines will be a challenge for the conversion to a web presentation for overall compression. The amount of individual detail, in this case the leaves, seems to really knock things for a loop.
Posted by Lon Overacker on January 13, 2009 at 1:05 PM
I guess compression is really killing this one. Here's a link to a 1,000px image at 480K saved at quality "high" or 60. Also, this is the straight scan - no levels/curves, masks or anything but re-sizing and sharpening for the web.
The "Orton" effect you mentioned Harley may be simply the glare you see from the low angle of the sun. I thought I had shaded the lens, but perhaps some glare snuck in. But it is more noticable towards the top part of the image.
I also took a look at my original scan, and at 100% view, the leaves on the vines are not all that sharp. either or both a scan resolution/focus issue and wind down in the vineyard.
Steve, not quite sure what you're asking. But I never have to go below "5" on the jpg quality setting in Save-for-web.
Thanks for the comments. Am curious to know if the larger file looks any better.
Yep, to me it looks much better. Heck, there is a lot of detail there to pick up. It's amazing we can get them to look this great at these much smaller then normal print sizes.
I use Save For Web in PS. Fairly frequently I am saving images below 50% to get down to NPN's 200kb size, which can lead to compression issues in the presentation. However, since I started using Marc Adamus' web sharpening technique, my web presentations are FAR, FAR cleaner than they used to be. I tried unsharp mask, smart sharpening, etc, but nothing works for me as well as Marc's method.
I agree 100% on Marc's technique, Harley. I have used it for at least 3 years now as I recall. I was very lucky as Marc taught me the process one Saturday night on an exchange of emails we had back then. As it is now I use a slightly different version, but it is still Marc's trick overall.
Posted by Lon Overacker on January 13, 2009 at 7:52 PM
Discussion
14 repliesWhat do you think?
Chamonix 4x5, Nikkor 450mm, V100f
Thanks!
Lon
This one is tough to judge. On my screen, it appears to be suffering from some major compression. Technically speaking, it looks munched. Right now it looks a bit over-saturated and very ortonized. Since you did not mention any Orton treatment, I am assuming a straight image. I like the colors and lines.
When you guys mention final compression, that is just after the save as in ps right? If so sometimes fall files need the slider to go down to as far as 3, 4, or 5. I always worry about it being so low but I never see the difference and you can't zoom into a web sized file.
The "Orton" effect you mentioned Harley may be simply the glare you see from the low angle of the sun. I thought I had shaded the lens, but perhaps some glare snuck in. But it is more noticable towards the top part of the image.
I also took a look at my original scan, and at 100% view, the leaves on the vines are not all that sharp. either or both a scan resolution/focus issue and wind down in the vineyard.
Steve, not quite sure what you're asking. But I never have to go below "5" on the jpg quality setting in Save-for-web.
Thanks for the comments. Am curious to know if the larger file looks any better.
Lon
http://www.lonoveracker.com/images/temp/38273sh_pan.jpg
Is your site down? I can't see anything, nor can I bring up the link. I've tried this at home and work.
- Dan
Lon
Lon
- Dan.