1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

Official BeyondUnreal Photography Thread

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by BillyBadAss, Apr 24, 2008.

  1. Crotale

    Crotale _________________________ _______________

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,535
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ah, okay.

    _____________

    I re-accomplished parts of the image in Photoshop and then reprocessed in Lightroom this time around. I lowered the contrast to get a closer match to the original scan without giving up on improvements (I hope). I also added in film grain as Mike recommended. I hope to give Roger a draft copy for him to review this week. He has been looking at samples along the way, but this is the best I have gotten it to look yet.

    Thanks again for the help.

    [screenshot]http://www.acliffhanger.com/images/rgr_homey_redux573_small.png[/screenshot]
     
  2. Rambowjo

    Rambowjo Das Protoss

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,073
    Likes Received:
    5
    Moiré pattern on the roof tiles :(
     
  3. Crotale

    Crotale _________________________ _______________

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,535
    Likes Received:
    12
    They are on the scan, too, so everything I do seems to bring them out more. Plus, I scaled down the image to put it up on the web, so that makes the effect more noticeable.
     
  4. OO7MIKE

    OO7MIKE Mr. Sexy

    Joined:
    May 2, 2000
    Messages:
    4,933
    Likes Received:
    4
    I find that strange that the roof has moire patterns on the original scan. If your scan res is high enough they shouldn't be there. Moire doesn't exist in the film world as it is a digital phenomenon.

    There are two ways to get rid of moire:

    1. High res scan. 1200 - 4800dpi
    2. Increase the resolution in photoshop after the image has been imported. As you have already figured out, reducing resolution just makes it worse.

    You probably don't want to hear this cause it means starting over :p

    The image is looking great! I would look into adjusting the levels as your blacks are very faded.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2010
  5. Crotale

    Crotale _________________________ _______________

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,535
    Likes Received:
    12
    I would love to rescan the image, but Roger has lost his photo.

    I tried increasing resolution in Photoshop using BlowUp, but even that has limitations. Every time I tried, the faces lost what definition they still have. Go figure.

    I had actually reduced the blacks in order to get a similar look as the scan,
    but, I will go back and readjust those black levels.

    Great feedback Mike. Thanks a bunch!
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2010
  6. BillyBadAss

    BillyBadAss Strong Cock of The North

    Joined:
    May 25, 1999
    Messages:
    8,866
    Likes Received:
    44
  7. Twisted Metal

    Twisted Metal Anfractuous Aluminum

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2001
    Messages:
    7,122
    Likes Received:
    3
    What do you guys clean your lenses with?

    I just bought this, which is awesome for dust:
    http://www.amazon.com/Giottos-AA190...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1278692634&sr=8-1

    But if I obsessively angle my lens just right I can still see some "spots". I'm hoping the lens didn't get hit with anything and that it's just like moisture spots or something...

    I'm very hesitant to rub the lens with anything, though I suppose breathing on it and lightly wiping with a microfiber cloth can't do any damage? It just sucks because all it takes is one tiny particle to leave a scratch. :(
     
  8. OO7MIKE

    OO7MIKE Mr. Sexy

    Joined:
    May 2, 2000
    Messages:
    4,933
    Likes Received:
    4
    A few of you may have seen this shot before. This is an old photo I recently reprocessed so I could enter it into a photo contest. Funny thing about contests is that people tend to be lured towards the photos that have emotional impact to them. I'm sure I'll be out gunned by a kitten photo.
    Here is the before and after:

    This is the "untouched" RAW photo taken 2 miles away from the blast site. As you can see there is a lot of atmospheric haze causing me problems. This photo has been cropped and aligned. Too bad I'm only left with a 4.5mp image after the crop. My 70-200mm didn't have the reach to fill the frame.
    [​IMG]


    Here is the final edit with multi layered color corrections, contrast enhancements and selective sharpening. I would have liked to have done a successful sky recovery but there just wasn't enough dynamic range. The final result made the sky look fake. Its less distracting when its blown out.
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2010
  9. OO7MIKE

    OO7MIKE Mr. Sexy

    Joined:
    May 2, 2000
    Messages:
    4,933
    Likes Received:
    4
    I use a high quality Micro fiber cloth which is made for eye glasses. Its not the cheepo tiny stuff they give you with your glasses. I stock up on them at my local Rainbow Optics. Not sure who sells them online. I've tried the other gimicky lens cleaners and have had a certain degree of success with them.

    As long as you don't have sand on the lens, i wouldn't worry about wiping your lens with a lens cloth.

    Small scratches and dings on your lens do not affect the image quality. Smudges and streaks most certainly affect image quality.

    Here is a small article about a worst case scenario lens problem and how it affects your image quality. The results are very surprising.
    http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.10.30/front-element-scratches
     
  10. Zxanphorian

    Zxanphorian ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,480
    Likes Received:
    0
    I find it hard to believe that that royally messed-up lens captured the first two images.
     
  11. Twisted Metal

    Twisted Metal Anfractuous Aluminum

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2001
    Messages:
    7,122
    Likes Received:
    3
    Wow. Ok I'm not worried about microscopic dots on my lens anymore. Thanks Mike!
     
  12. Rambowjo

    Rambowjo Das Protoss

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,073
    Likes Received:
    5
    That article is really reassuring. Thanks :)
     
  13. JohnDoe641

    JohnDoe641 Killer Fools Pro Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2000
    Messages:
    5,329
    Likes Received:
    51
    Why?

    Try taking a picture through a chain link fence. If you put the lens right on a chain, it's like its not even there.

    Here's an experiment to do, grab a pen and put it right on your lens vertically or horizontally. Now take a picture, there may be a slight dark spot in the middle but the picture will be fine.
     
  14. OO7MIKE

    OO7MIKE Mr. Sexy

    Joined:
    May 2, 2000
    Messages:
    4,933
    Likes Received:
    4
    Exactly!

    Even objects in front of the lens are barely noticeable using lower fstops such as f 2.8. The object starts to show up when you stop the lens down. F8 is when the flaws in your lens or the dust on your sensor begin to show. By F16 everything is out of the closet.

    It doesn't work the same way on a Point and shoot camera because of the size of the sensor to the lens is different. F 2.8 on a Point and shoot is roughly the same as F5.6 on a DSLR depth of field wise.

    Something similar happens when you begin using a medium format camera. A 90mm lens is the same as a 50mm lens on a DSLR. F8 is the same as F5 on a DSLR.

    Its damn confusing because they haven't come up with a system that allows use similar F stops and get similar results depth of field wise. What is even more confusing is that if you are using a crop camera 1.6x, 1.5x, or 1.3x you are still not getting f2.8 depth of field when you are using f2.8. You are however still getting the same amount of light which is probably the point.
     
  15. Thrash123

    Thrash123 Obey Leash Laws

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 1999
    Messages:
    4,777
    Likes Received:
    0
    Took some stuff of my girlfriend.

    [​IMG]
     
  16. Balton

    Balton The Beast of Worship

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    13,383
    Likes Received:
    99
    nice!
    the girl not the photograph. Makes you one of the few with a good looking gf here.
     
  17. Kantham

    Kantham Fool.

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    18,034
    Likes Received:
    2
    Or maybe the others haven't posted pictures of their GF because they want to keep privacy? Not because they weight 500 pounds and suffer from mass acnee. Which is what you seem to think.
     
  18. Balton

    Balton The Beast of Worship

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    13,383
    Likes Received:
    99
    No, I'm just talking about the guys that did post pics.
    Why're you replying? Got a 500 pound whale yourself? ;)
    Or is team kanerda on a vengeance mission?
     
  19. Kantham

    Kantham Fool.

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    18,034
    Likes Received:
    2
    I'm single. Man you're such an ass. :rolleyes:
     
  20. m00naY

    m00naY Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    948
    Likes Received:
    5
    She is lovely. Is she wearing sparkly jeans? If so that is cute. I like the smile she has and how her eyes are diverted away from the camera.
     

Share This Page