Mike Chaney's Tech Corner

Just for fun........ it's a lazy Sunday.
I have attached four shots.
These are JPGS from 4 Raw shots.

2718 is a high contrast shot which Qimage Ultimate processed  automatically, but which I felt needed a few clicks of + FILL more than the AUTO fill.
My point, of course, is to show that you can process to your own taste with a click of the mouse.

2722 is Auto Processed, and all I did was a crop to make it more appealing.

2773 is a gray stone subject, also auto processed by Qimage Ultimate and still shows detail of highlights and shadow areas.

2270 is a shot that needed to have the exposure adjusted manually in Qimage Ultimate. (Two clicks).

Just for fun, I can email the Raw images (they are emailable size) to anyone that wants to see if they can better the results.
Fred

Very nice. Can't see how I could make these any better using raw refine. In the last one, I might try to make the sky bluer with Sel Color.

Jeff J

Not only the sky but a skinch of "Clarify-er"

Thanks...
Maybe later, we can show some easy stuff a user can do with Ultimate to enhance...
That might be fun too.

Fred

My two contributions

Image 9438 pure Ultimate auto fill 7
(http://jeffmilan.zenfolio.com/img/s11/v31/p902711522-3.jpg)

Image 9438 Raw Refine - HDR 40 to make image more foreboding
Edit - Sel col. Red Col Y1.1 to give a bit more autumn colour
      - Curves Loc 11 176in 194out  Loc 5 80in 70out
      - Contrast +5
      - Noise ticked
      - USM  all except the grey clouds 2/150
(http://jeffmilan.zenfolio.com/img/s11/v35/p985389078-4.jpg)


Image 9423 pure Ultimate auto fill 11
(http://jeffmilan.zenfolio.com/img/s11/v27/p939762821-4.jpg)


Image 9423 Raw Refine - HDR 40
Edit - Sel Col Red Col y1.2
      - Curves Loc 15 255in 240out  Loc 11 176in  192out   Loc 6 96in 84out
      - Contrast +5 Brightness +3
      - Noise ticked
      - USM 2/200 all ex white sky
(http://jeffmilan.zenfolio.com/img/s11/v28/p870636767-4.jpg)

Core, that took a lot of doing :)

OK shoot me down.

Jeff

Off topic
 Fred - are you getting any emails from me? - a couple have bounced back - I think it may be my ISP spam filtering.

Jeff

Jeff, I received one email from you this morning, martked 3:19 am, making it something you sent at your 8:19 am.
I replied to that email especially since you mention not getting through.
My reply was sent back to you at my 5:05 am, your 10:05 am

Fred

Jeff,

I'm usually not a fan of lots of "work" to make extra pop and I prefer the natural look, but I have to say you did a great job on 9438.  I like your "modded" version a lot.

Mike

Raw Wild Horses tamed with QU!  :o
Clickety Click is all that was needed  ;)
Below is a shot of some wild horses I took back in the summer.
(http://www.pbase.com/tjm04/image/139635068/original.jpg)
The QU smart auto raw processing with auto fill made quite a good job of the image but the back of the horse in the foreground was too bright for my taste, it was not blown. Also the sky top right was a little brighter but nothing actually blown, as indicated in the Refine screen.
The manual refined version is below:
(http://www.pbase.com/tjm04/image/139635069/original.jpg)
Raw adjustments were a click in the top left rectangle of the refine screen and then another click to select recover highlights. Autofill was left to do its thing. Then 3 clicks on the HDR slider to get some more detail in the clouds and the back of the horse.
The final enhancement was in the Editor with tone Targeted  sharpening using the grey of the horse and, to keep Jeff happy, a tweak in Select Colour to improve the blue sky.
Terry

Mike

Thanks for comment.

I usually fine my shots of trees/woods seem a bit colour flat and uninteresting, so I tend to try and boost them up a bit,  it could be different people different eyes, by that I mean we do not necessarily all see the same colour tones and I wonder if my eyes are 'off' a bit 

My next eye test I intend to ask if they can check this aspect.

Jeff

I can see the improvement in the back of the horse, subtle, but it's there.

I find these sort of posts very useful and informative.

Just a thought, would it be an idea to have a separate section for comment on actual work or would the General Photography Discussion be a better place?
I don't want to bore the more serious posters to Ultimate,  some of the images could be a combination of Ultimate and PS Elements!

jeff   

I must say:
I enjoy seeing the "before and after" with Q-Ultimate.
I'm sure I am not the only one that is a little hesitate to shot raw :-\
It's like did I ajust this right or can it be better?

Fred was kind enough to sent me his images so I could do my own ajustments and compare it to his :)
It helps seeing the before and after.

These all are great photos thanks for sharing.

Ya Me

It is more obvious on a larger screen image or a print; the sky too. It is the sort of detail that, when right, eliminates any possible negative comment by a competition judge.
Terry

And side by side in the Qimage comparator is really the best way to see it. It is really noticeable. Good Job, Terry
Fred

And attached below is a screen shot from the comparator with the full size raw image and a copy. On the left is the version with no recovery, TTS was left the same for both.
Terry

Here are 3 screen snaps.

1) #075, shows a badly exposed Raw image on the left with Qimage Ultimate reincarnating it on the right.
You notice that the needed fill light and exposure adjustment caused some lost detail in the clouds.

2) By now you know to add some HDR slider to recover some of the lost highlight detail from the clouds, but since this is such a drastic example image, I use the new Magnifier in the REFINE Screen to check the tree tops and pine needles to see if I applied too much.
Too much HDR in certain types of images will cause a halo to appear.
Now with my Magnifier, I can lower the HDR in steps until I no longer have any halos.

See screen snap #076

3) In the final screen snap, you can see how much cloud detail was recovered by comparing with and without HDR.

Screen snap #078

Sorry that the images are so small, but the forum has file limitations.

You can also use the magnifier to inspect for noise, or to check the default RAW sharpening if you were processing images from a different camera.

After further review, in a lighter vein, I had occasion to photograph some famous statues; one of which was DAVID.
You can see in the final screen snap, yet another use for the magnifier. :o  8)  ???  ::)  :-[  :D


Keep smiling!
Fred

You guys are good!
A teacher you could be or even a professor ;)
Your images and explanations are sure to help me and other.

Thanks
Ya Me

I had occasion to browse the posts from another forum who seemed to be concerned with a process called upsampling in order to have enough pixels for a very large print.
There were offerings of advice, all well intentioned and widely varied.
Each one promoted his favorite application to do the job.

One advanced a theory from his program that is adds noise to the upsample algorithm to prevent a plastic look!
That one was called "Blowup", according to the posting person.

Another used Genuine Fractals, with great results, (which is true)

Another suggested, Perfect Resize.

.... Finally, a well known and well respected photographer poked his two cents in and told them that he uses Qimage for this job, and has been for years.
I didn't ask permission to paste or quote, but to paraphrase, he was saying, Try Qimage and actually make some test prints and use your eyes!

So, just for fun, I took an embedded Jpg from inside a raw shot which was 1024 x 1536, and upsampled 4x times on either side. I created 4096 x 6144.
I really don't know if you call that 400% or as Qimage notes it as 1600%.

Nevertheless, just for fun, I created similar upsamples using two other programs.

In order to maintain a quality level, I saved these snaps with a high JPG setting so I can only get two per post.
So I'll put two here, and make an additional "part II" following.

I also made 4 prints 10 x 5.63 to see on paper.

To Be continued..............

.......... and to continue,
Here are the other two snaps.

My uncle who has 4 cataracts, Glaucoma, a detached retina, and 'floaters" in his eyes can see the difference.

The prints, are really easy to compare, and as that photographer said, Use your eyes!

Have fun!!   
Fred

For easier viewing for those with smaller screens....

Maybe this will be easier.

Fred

Fred
Now all you need to do is tell us what programs you used.
In time I'll be looking for a different program to take Photoshop cs5's place!
Had enough of Adobe!

If you haven't heard.
http://prodesigntools.com/last-chance-to-upgrade-adobe-cs2-cs3-cs4-to-cs5.html

Thanks for all the time and help you put in Fred :)
Ya Me

Well, if you look closely, you will see the filenames of the pairs, the ones that say 4x in the filename were done in FastStone.
The partner in the pair is Qimage Ultimate.

If you look closely at the filernames again, and you se a PS in the name, they were PhotoShop.
The partner was of course done in Qimage Ultimate

In case you want the steps I used, (there are a few more ways to do it),
Place the image in the queue.
Right click on the upper right image in the preview panel, and select CONVERT IMAGE.

The Convert Image dialogue box opens, and you need only place a dot in ADD TO/REPLACE FILTER.  See screen snap. I circled it.

The second dialogue box opens; see next snap.
In the lower left of that box, you see the current resolution of that image. It is currently 506 x 768.
Simply double or quadruple etc. to the size you want. In this case, I doubled to 1012. The 768 automatically doubled to 1536.
Click DONE. Then OK

Have fun!


Fred