maldives

Show everyone the latest shots which make you feel dead chuffed with your camera choice
Forum rules
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
Javelin
Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
Posts: 1856
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:51 pm

Re: maldives

Unread post by Javelin »

It does look like it's a smoother area on the branch where something has taken away the sharp features on the bark. but the subject is so strong in that picture i'm surprised anyone would notice it until it's pointed out.
kingfisher wrote:i think i now the problem

i look at the original , and you can see below his leeft feet , a hole in the tree , in the hole there is white
round the hole it`s wet , i think it`s a kind of resin
i started with my picture`s in LIGHTROOM , than i opened in ELEMENTS
when i open the picture in ADOBE ELEMENTS 6 , i have a plug in , for put out noise , when i do that , the place where there is resin its blurred and shiny

sorry for my bad english i can better speak it than whrite it , dfficult words i must look for , on translation site`s
and almost every word is difficult for me :) :) :) :)

but if i do this a hole year , my letters shall be better.....i hope
User avatar
pakodominguez
Minister with Portfolio
Posts: 2306
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 5:38 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: maldives

Unread post by pakodominguez »

Don't the 70~200 2.8 have a wierd bokeh when focusing close up?
Pako
------------
http://www.pakodominguez.photo/blog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
David Kilpatrick
Site Admin
Posts: 5985
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Location: Kelso, Scotland
Contact:

Re: maldives

Unread post by David Kilpatrick »

pakodominguez wrote:Don't the 70~200 2.8 have a wierd bokeh when focusing close up?
No bokeh - very cap-shape field curvature. The part of the tree with the lizard's leg would oppose the field curvature of the lens, resulting in much worse defocusing than expected. The effect is caused by the lens, I am sure, and not by any kind of image processing. I do not know of any NR smoothing which acts over that sort of radius.

David
David Kilpatrick
Site Admin
Posts: 5985
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Location: Kelso, Scotland
Contact:

Re: maldives

Unread post by David Kilpatrick »

Yes, the NR effect can be seen, but underlying it is a loss of focus sharpness. The NR is not doing that on its own, or the entire tree (and the lizard) would be affected. The parts which looked blurred are the closest to the camera. If you have not used the 70-200mm SSM for closest focusing distance ar 200mm, you won't be aware just how strange it is. It is barely usable compared to many lesser lenses. Fortunately it is excellent for normal distances.

David
User avatar
kingfisher
Oligarch
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:06 am

Re: maldives

Unread post by kingfisher »

oke

i have here four picture`s

picture one , is NOT develop , also NO noiseware

picture two , is NOT develop , YES noiseware

picture tree, IS develop and NO noiseware

picture four IS deveiop and YES noiseware

Image

Image

Image

Image

i think the combination tree juice and noiseware , create this spot at the tree

gustav
David Kilpatrick
Site Admin
Posts: 5985
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Location: Kelso, Scotland
Contact:

Re: maldives

Unread post by David Kilpatrick »

It's very peculiar. The area is very slightly less sharp to start with, but not a result of the lens field curvature as I thought - just normal depth of field. I think that when you darken the image, Noiseware is acting more on darker values, and this area just gets dark enough to be treated heavily when the lighter areas are left alone. Because it starts off with just a bit less sharp detail, the detail is not preserved as well.

David
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests