Based upon your suggestions, I reworked this image.
I am very interested in your comments.
Thanks, as always,
-P
Posted by Derek Sedillo on November 5, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Preston,
I liked the darkening in this case as the original seemed a bit too bright. While the added saturation does bring out more of the color it might be a bit high. But that is more of a nit.
The thing I can't quite figure out with this image and the original are the compression/sharpening artifacts. I think the rock surface itself makes it harder to determine artifact vs. rock cracks, etc... That said the general feel was that the first had some artifacts and this one doesn't. But this one is also missing a level of sharpness. So maybe there is a balance point in between in your workflow in preparing for the web.
One of the things I read a while back on preparing images for the web was to never use photoshop's built-in 'Save for the Web' and sharpening tool. I simply resize to 720 and then apply an unsharpen mask being careful to avoid artifacts and that seems to work out fine. Of course YMMV.
Derek, thanks for your comments. I did pull back on the yellows (using selective color) and increased the red saturation for the print, along with some minor tweaks to the curve and a bit of burning. Sharpening was done using the High Pass filter on a layer set to 'Hard Light'. The sharpness is varied by using the 'opacity' slider. I guess I needed to increase the opacity a bit more. The print looks great, by the way.
I think what was causing the artifacts was that I was using USM on the 'lightness' channel in LAB mode. It appears that using 'High Pass' sharpening (No USM was used) prevented artifacts.
If anyone wants the High Pass sharpening procedure, let me know and I'll post it.
I would like to hear more comments about this rework. Thanks.
I really like your improvements here Preston, but I also liked the first image as well.
I do also agree with your collective assessments and discussions on the general sharpness here on this one. When you have time please post the High Pass sharpening procedure too. I'd be curious about taking a look at it.
Thank you.
Posted by Harley Goldman on November 5, 2009 at 10:49 PM
Preston,
I like the pattern displayed here, but I am finding the presentation makes it very difficult to evaluate the image. For lack of a good technical term, to me it looks kinda munched. I find it muddy, lacking good detail and almost ortonized, but not in a good way. Whatever web sharpening technique you are using, it is not working for me.
Preston, I missed your first post, but I do like this version. The color variations in the rock are interesting. But I do agree the image is a little soft. Best Regards.
Thanks for the comments, you guys. I see what you mean...
Research continues, so...Back to the drawing board.
-P
Posted by Lon Overacker on November 6, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Preston,
Having seen your prints in person - I can say without question that the detail and sharpness is incredible with your prints - and I said as much our last visit. Somewhere along the line in processing for the web though something is getting lost. I like the brightness and saturation adjustments, but like the others I still see some sharpness/artifact issues.
I wish I had an answer for you, but I know you'll figure it out. Let me know if you would like me to take a look at a high res file. I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
Lon
Posted by Eric Good on November 8, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Rework looks very good and should print up quite nicely.
Discussion
8 repliesI am very interested in your comments.
Thanks, as always,
-P
I liked the darkening in this case as the original seemed a bit too bright. While the added saturation does bring out more of the color it might be a bit high. But that is more of a nit.
The thing I can't quite figure out with this image and the original are the compression/sharpening artifacts. I think the rock surface itself makes it harder to determine artifact vs. rock cracks, etc... That said the general feel was that the first had some artifacts and this one doesn't. But this one is also missing a level of sharpness. So maybe there is a balance point in between in your workflow in preparing for the web.
One of the things I read a while back on preparing images for the web was to never use photoshop's built-in 'Save for the Web' and sharpening tool. I simply resize to 720 and then apply an unsharpen mask being careful to avoid artifacts and that seems to work out fine. Of course YMMV.
Derek
I think what was causing the artifacts was that I was using USM on the 'lightness' channel in LAB mode. It appears that using 'High Pass' sharpening (No USM was used) prevented artifacts.
If anyone wants the High Pass sharpening procedure, let me know and I'll post it.
I would like to hear more comments about this rework. Thanks.
Cheers to All,
-P
I do also agree with your collective assessments and discussions on the general sharpness here on this one. When you have time please post the High Pass sharpening procedure too. I'd be curious about taking a look at it.
Thank you.
I like the pattern displayed here, but I am finding the presentation makes it very difficult to evaluate the image. For lack of a good technical term, to me it looks kinda munched. I find it muddy, lacking good detail and almost ortonized, but not in a good way. Whatever web sharpening technique you are using, it is not working for me.
Sorry, mate!
Research continues, so...Back to the drawing board.
-P
Having seen your prints in person - I can say without question that the detail and sharpness is incredible with your prints - and I said as much our last visit. Somewhere along the line in processing for the web though something is getting lost. I like the brightness and saturation adjustments, but like the others I still see some sharpness/artifact issues.
I wish I had an answer for you, but I know you'll figure it out. Let me know if you would like me to take a look at a high res file. I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
Lon