Untitled

thoth

Original:


2% Monochrome Gaussian Noise



Thanks for looking!

bdcolen

Freaking AWESOME!!!

seastack

The girl on the left and the balloon! I would be tempted to crop it a little tighter taking a little off the bottom of the frame (and maybe right of the frame - not sure?) to better balance those two elements and create a 4x5 aspect ratio (8x10 print). Also, if it were mine I might add just a little more fine gaussian monochrome noise to it. It has the effect of smoothing the transitions of tones a bit and can make it look a little sharper without actually sharpening (which is often overdone on blurry digital images IMO). TMI?

Hey, hope you're open to the comment and find it helpful. It's a good image and with just a little work I think could be a great one. Just my opinion

thoth

bdcolen wrote: »

Freaking AWESOME!!!

Thanks, B.D.!

seastack wrote: »

The girl on the left and the balloon! I would be tempted to crop it a little tighter taking a little off the bottom of the frame (and maybe right of the frame - not sure?) to better balance those two elements and create a 4x5 aspect ratio (8x10 print). Also, if it were mine I might add just a little more fine gaussian monochrome noise to it. It has the effect of smoothing the transitions of tones a bit and can make it look a little sharper without actually sharpening (which is often overdone on blurry digital images IMO). TMI?

Hey, hope you're open to the comment and find it helpful. It's a good image and with just a little work I think could be a great one. Just my opinion

Thanks for the great recommendations, Seastack. I certainly appreciate thoughtful comments. I actually took this photo on my iPhone using Camera Awesome and processed it using the same (thanks, SmugMug!). So my editing options were pretty limited. I might pull it into PS and play a bit as you suggest if I find a little time. Thanks again!

bdcolen

thoth wrote: »

Thanks, B.D.!



Thanks for the great recommendations, Seastack. I certainly appreciate thoughtful comments. I actually took this photo on my iPhone using Camera Awesome and processed it using the same (thanks, SmugMug!). So my editing options were pretty limited. I might pull it into PS and play a bit as you suggest if I find a little time. Thanks again!

I would strongly argue against the crop because the girl in th white dress, and the hint of another girl, make us more aware that we are looking in on a small group - friends presumably - afloat in a larger scene.

Also, these days paper and frame sizes accommodate different aspect ratio, and we really don't need to be thinking 4x5 and 8x10 prints. But that's just my .2 cents. Finally - sorry, Seastack, but this is already pretty noise soaked; I don't know that I'd add any - although I sometimes do to get a film-like look.

seastack

bdcolen wrote: »

I would strongly argue against the crop because the girl in th white dress, and the hint of another girl, make us more aware that we are looking in on a small group - friends presumably - afloat in a larger scene.

Also, these days paper and frame sizes accommodate different aspect ratio, and we really don't need to be thinking 4x5 and 8x10 prints. But that's just my .2 cents. Finally - sorry, Seastack, but this is already pretty noise soaked; I don't know that I'd add any - although I sometimes do to get a film-like look.

B.D., how dare you disagree! I see your point about the crop, especially regarding the girl in the white dress on the far right. I'm generally biased against square crops unless you're shooting a Hassey or other square format camera. Just me I suppose. I suggest 4x5 because that maintains the greatest portion of a square-cropped image. And maybe because I've been playing with large format lately.

To clarify on the noise: I have found that adding a very little bit of fine noise to an already noisy image, especially a digital image that often has less than appealing, jagged, jpegged, blotchy noise to it, can actually smooth things out a bit and create a better looking image. Yeah, a bit like film grain. But I'm talking about a very little bit of noise, like .2 to 1 in PS, depending on the size of the original (less for smaller megapixel images like phones). This has more of an effect of evening out the existing noise rather than adding to it (in terms of looks). That's all I'm going to say before the new sheriff warns me about moving this comment to the technique forum!

bdcolen

seastack wrote: »

B.D., how dare you disagree! I see your point about the crop. I'm generally biased against square crops unless you're shooting a Hassey or other square format camera. Just me I suppose. I suggest 4x5 because that maintains the greatest portion of a square-cropped image. And maybe because I've been playing with large format lately.

To clarify on the noise: I have found that adding a very little bit of fine noise to an already noisy image, especially a digital image that often has less than appealing, jagged, jpegged, blotchy noise to it, can actually smooth things out a bit and create a better looking image. Yeah, a bit like film grain. But I'm talking about a very little bit of noise, like .2 to 1 in PS, depending on the size of the original (less for smaller megapixel images like phones). That's all I'm going to say before the new sheriff warns me about moving this comment to the technique forum!

I don't want to get either of us in trouble, but what you say about the noise and those settings can indeed be true, and the image creator could try it here.

As to square - I have one camera that I can set for square format - the Panasonic GF1, and use it as a square camera. I often 'think' and compose 'square' when shooting with other cameras, and then crop. It's ironic, because except for a summer in high school spent shooting for a weekly newspaper, using my father's Rollei f 2.8, I have rarely shot square. But in the past couple years I have become very fond of the format.

thoth

Thanks for the great debate, fellas. I've reworked the shot (still square format, but noise added) as seastack suggested and added it to the original post. I honestly can't tell the difference between the shots but anything over 3-4% did unflatteringly more noisy. I'll let you guys judge.

lizzard_nyc

Reminds me of an Impressionist's painting in black and white

bdcolen

thoth wrote: »

Thanks for the great debate, fellas. I've reworked the shot (still square format, but noise added) as seastack suggested and added it to the original post. I honestly can't tell the difference between the shots but anything over 3-4% did unflatteringly more noisy. I'll let you guys judge.

Well, Travis - Looking at the floor area, it does seem to smooth the digital noise a big, making it slightly more film grain like. But the rest of the image looks noisier to me.

thoth

lizzard_nyc wrote: »

Reminds me of an Impressionist's painting in black and white

Thanks, Liz!

bdcolen wrote: »

Well, Travis - Looking at the floor area, it does seem to smooth the digital noise a big, making it slightly more film grain like. But the rest of the image looks noisier to me.

I certainly don't see any improvements (or even the differences you are referring to) so I'll stick with the purely iPhone version. It was worth a shot! Have I mentioned that Camera Awesome is actually aptly named? I'm just waiting on the volume button shutter release update... (hint, hint).

rainbow

The blur and grain give the photo a very old feel to it. The contrasting expressions of the two girls adds to the interest...

I would not elevate this shot to "great" based on the old feel, though -- a little more has to be occurring in the photo to pique more interest.

thoth

rainbow wrote: »

The blur and grain give the photo a very old feel to it. The contrasting expressions of the two girls adds to the interest...

I would not elevate this shot to "great" based on the old feel, though -- a little more has to be occurring in the photo to pique more interest.

Thanks for the comment, Rainbow.