Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23

Thread: Automotive Photography Competition #216

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Deerfield Beach, Florida
    Posts
    5,802

    Automotive Photography Competition #216

    Automotive Photography Competition #215

    Rules

    The deadline is Sunday 11:59 PM EST
    The photograph can contain any automotive image (containing no adulterous material)
    The proposed picture must be your own and not found on the net.
    The photograph must be attached using the UCP system. Any picture not attached using the UCP system will not be in the voting thread.
    Your image may be up to 800 pixels wide or tall.
    Photograph may contain post-processing editing
    It is preferred that you state enhancements made, but not necessary.
    The photograph must be taken no earlier than three months before start date
    Each photographer cannot vote for himself, they must vote for the others.
    Any users who enter and vote for themselves automatically receive a 2 week penalty from the competition and all votes previously given to his/her photo are removed.
    The entry must contain the following information in the same order :

    User name
    Subject matter/photo title
    Date taken
    Camera Type | additional information you feel important
    Standings 2009

    pat_ernzen: 4
    -
    basman007: 2
    -
    G_13191: 1 / Rasmus: 1 / Sauc3: 1 / john hegg: 1 / superwaxer: 1 / cmcpokey: 1 / Soloracer: 1 / Ecnelis: 1 / kvisser: 1 / nikowgcf: 1 / macfly: 1 / Johnnynumfiv: 1

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,320
    Henk4
    Ferrari 312T4
    Nuerburgring June 2009
    Canon 40 D, 28-300 IS, 35 mm
    1/100, F14, Iso 100.
    Cropped and sharpened with Irfanview
    Attached Images Attached Images
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    842
    Aiasib
    "I am Joe's Howling Blood-Red Fury"
    07.08.09
    Canon Powershot S5iS| de-noised
    Attached Images Attached Images

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    10,187
    henk, the picture still looks messed up. I think it's still the program you are using. That looks like it'd be a good shot otherwise but it's quality looks massively reduced.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    842
    henk, are you resizing after you sharpen or before? and how comes you're only getting 72 dpi?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,320
    Quote Originally Posted by aiasib View Post
    henk, are you resizing after you sharpen or before? and how comes you're only getting 72 dpi?
    I sharpen after resizing. as for your second question, I have no idea.
    I have attached the shot again.
    Cropped only and resized with Irfanview, watermark with Irfanview.

    Edit: as far as the 72 dpi is concerned, all my shots are 72 dpi, when shown on my laptop. When shown on Wouter's Mac, they are 300 dpi. Question, does it really matter, and if so why?
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by henk4; 07-09-2009 at 12:45 AM.
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    842
    hmm, I don't think sharpening is the problem then...I'm looking at the thin white lip under the '11' decals; there is still some pixelation. I can also see it in the seat ibiza/alpine photo you took a while back. Perhaps some of the more intrepid photographers could offer a couple cents.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,320
    Quote Originally Posted by aiasib View Post
    hmm, I don't think sharpening is the problem then...I'm looking at the thin white lip under the '11' decals; there is still some pixelation. I can also see it in the seat ibiza/alpine photo you took a while back. Perhaps some of the more intrepid photographers could offer a couple cents.
    That's not pixelation anymore, it is shape of the chassis cover.....the Ibiza photo was sharpened. probably that is not what should be done, but when I look at my screen, my personal opinion is that most shots look better after sharpening.
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    842
    I meant a sort of dithered effect along the white lip, it could be a combination of the 72dpi and my lowly desktop resolution of 1024x768...

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,320
    Quote Originally Posted by aiasib View Post
    I meant a sort of dithered effect along the white lip, it could be a combination of the 72dpi and my lowly desktop resolution of 1024x768...
    my original full size shot on 72 dpi does not show that effect, I use 1280 by 800 on my screen and it still looks fine (without sharpening)
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    736
    Quote Originally Posted by henk4 View Post
    Edit: as far as the 72 dpi is concerned, all my shots are 72 dpi, when shown on my laptop. When shown on Wouter's Mac, they are 300 dpi. Question, does it really matter, and if so why?
    It doesn't. It only matters when printing.

    Example: You have a 3888 x 2592 pixel image. With a 72 dpi print setting, you'd get a 54 by 36 inch print. With 300 dpi you'd be getting a 12,96 by 8,64 inches print.

    That said, the pic in the original shot was still oversharpened. I can see a halo around the left front tire.

    Edit: I think it's shitty compression by Irfanview that is to blame. You can read about quantization tables here, as well as compare Irfanview's compression to Photoshop's, the native 40D jpeg compression, etc.: http://www.impulseadventure.com/phot...ntization.html
    Last edited by Rasmus; 07-09-2009 at 02:06 AM.
    Turning money into memories.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,320
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasmus View Post
    It doesn't. It only matters when printing.

    Example: You have a 3888 x 2592 pixel image. With a 72 dpi print setting, you'd get a 54 by 36 inch print. With 300 dpi you'd be getting a 12,96 by 8,64 inches print.

    That said, the pic in the original shot was still oversharpened. I can see a halo around the left front tire.

    Edit: I think it's shitty compression by Irfanview that is to blame. You can read about quantization tables here, as well as compare Irfanview's compression to Photoshop's, the native 40D jpeg compression, etc.: ImpulseAdventure - JPEG Quality and Quantization Tables for Digital Cameras, Photoshop
    Thanks for this link, I am afraid though that my lack of knowledge (never heard of Quantization before) of what this all means prevents me to find the comparison you hinted at. I could only find that Irfanview at 99% quality is slightly better than a 10D shot. I use 100%.
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    736
    If you use 10/100% you should be good. Still, it looks like bad JPEG compression. Something is definitely off. Feel free to send any RAW file over if you would like for me to try and export it so that we might compare your Irfanview export to my Photoshop/Lightroom export.
    Turning money into memories.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    736
    Rasmus
    Foose Stallion
    Canon 40D, 70-200 f/2.8 IS
    ISO200, 175mm, f/4.0, 1/320sec
    Uncropped. Contrast, exposure and saturation adjusted. Vignette added.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Turning money into memories.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,320
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasmus View Post
    If you use 10/100% you should be good. Still, it looks like bad JPEG compression. Something is definitely off. Feel free to send any RAW file over if you would like for me to try and export it so that we might compare your Irfanview export to my Photoshop/Lightroom export.
    Thanks for the offer, we have PS/Lightroom available here, but I don't use it because it is not licensed to me. So I stick with the public domain stuff. And I shoot in JPEG.
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Automotive Photography Competition #215
    By #1 Mustang Fan in forum Photography
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 07-04-2009, 07:55 PM
  2. Automotive Photography Competition #214
    By #1 Mustang Fan in forum Photography
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 06-25-2009, 09:15 PM
  3. Automotive Photography Competition #212
    By zeppelin in forum Photography
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 05-31-2009, 06:26 AM
  4. Automotive Photography Competition #200
    By zeppelin in forum Photography
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-16-2009, 04:33 PM
  5. Automotive Photography Competition #145
    By zeppelin in forum Photography
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 01-13-2008, 04:06 PM

Posting Permissions

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