Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Lunar Rocks, kinnagoe bay, County Donegal, Ireland  (Read 4109 times)
Enda Cavanagh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 556



WWW
« on: September 13, 2011, 11:32:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi all.
I came across the beautiful Kinnagoe beach during the same trip to Donegal. It is located in a lovely secluded bay near Greencastle on the eastern side of the Inishowen peninsula in Donegal, Ireland. I made sure I arrived before sunset. It is not the easiest place in the world to find so I was thankful of my Tom Tom app on my iphone. This particular part of the beach is seperated from the main part by a large amound of boulders and is not visible at ground level. The drop down to the beach is from a very elevated position so you can't get an idea of it until you are quite close. The only reason I knew this particular section existed was that I took a walk into a field beforehand from where I could look down. I felt the rock formations would yield some great shots. I love the jagged forms of the rocks and I aimed to portray that in the series of images I took.

« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 11:37:49 AM by Enda Cavanagh » Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8086



WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2011, 02:04:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Great rocks!
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5791



WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 13, 2011, 03:47:34 PM »
ReplyReply

My thoughts exactly!!

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1550


WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2011, 05:04:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Nice image....but there is some serious weird haloing going on above the rocks that I haven't seen in your other images posted here. It almost looks like you pasted in the sky.....but maybe too much USM?
« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 05:07:04 PM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Enda Cavanagh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 556



WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2011, 05:51:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Kirk but I'm not sure what you mean about strong haloing. Huh To be honest I can't see any. The sky definitely isn't pasted in. I don't need to in my workflow.
Logged

Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1550


WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2011, 09:49:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Hope you don't mind me capturing a piece of your file, but to me this halo stands out to me like a sore thumb on the original. It looks like a USM artifact to me
« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 09:51:56 PM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Enda Cavanagh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 556



WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 14, 2011, 04:24:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Kirk I don't mind you sending it on no. But you are zooming into what looks like 300% on an image that was just to be used on the internet. I think you are missing the point of posting the image. I have attached the original which has still been reduced by about 50% in size to show there are no halos. I don't sell prints from 1000 pixel wide images!!



Logged

Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1550


WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 14, 2011, 10:29:53 AM »
ReplyReply

I've appreciated all the work you have posted here, but all I had to go on was what you chose to originally post. Earlier images you have posted here had no such haloing. The images I post online don't have it. Should I have ignored such an obvious flaw?
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Enda Cavanagh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 556



WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 14, 2011, 11:09:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Kirk. Many thanks for your feedback Smiley but downsized images should not be enlarged past 100% nevermind 300%, especially sRGB compressed JPGs on the internet   Wink
I appreciate feedback on the photo as an image not I'm not sure what the point is off zooming into 300% of the internet version. Some photographers pointed out haloing around the sky on other images when viewed which was very valid and I had definitely missed it. You mentioned it was because of over use of USM which I never use. Plus the sharpening of the web version is done very different to the full version, which I can assure you is completely noiseless. It probably was from a mask I had made on the jpg just before uploading it.

 
Logged

stcstc31
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #9 on: September 15, 2011, 02:49:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Enda

It ROCKS   Grin Grin Grin

Actually its a lovely image, and i bet it looks great in print (where it counts)

displaying images on the internet is a whole can of worms, and will never get a completley consistent display

sooooo many different monitors, browsers etc

I think it looks good
Logged

Stephen Crozier

www.360-dpi.com

mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #10 on: September 16, 2011, 11:37:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Nice image....but there is some serious weird haloing going on above the rocks that I haven't seen in your other images posted here. It almost looks like you pasted in the sky.....but maybe too much USM?


Am I [almost] alone in finding this over-sharpened—for its scale? But I do admire Enda’s work muchly.
Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
Enda Cavanagh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 556



WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 17, 2011, 06:51:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Am I [almost] alone in finding this over-sharpened—for its scale? But I do admire Enda’s work muchly.

Don't forget I don't print my web images!! Cheesy
Logged

mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #12 on: September 17, 2011, 07:58:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Don't forget I don't print my web images!! Cheesy

Well, it is of course entirely up to you, Enda, what and how you print, but printing is its own process, and has nothing to do with on-screen perception—my opinion remains that at least one of your photographs displayed here is over-sharpened for its scaling and purpose, hence the halos, which are visible at 100% view—no magnification is necessary for my not-so-good-any-more eyes.

I think Kirk enlarged part of the frame simply to make the halo-ing more obvious; I don’t think he should be accused of trying to “stack” the conversation.

The aesthetic upshot for me, is that for this particular image at this size, on the three screens that I use to get on the web (not all at once!), the rocks look metallic and edgy, the sand large-scale crunchy, and the seaweed too, well, crispy. I still find it dramatic, but wonder if a less-sharpened version would be creamier and more peaceful. It would be interesting to see, for instance, at what point the sand would become a smooth surface with no texture. I think photographers don’t much ponder reproduction at different scales because the camera handles all that, in a complex set of interactions between lens, subject and film, and more recently sensor. Could start going all Nyquist here, but it is relevant; painters have been at the “less is more” workbench for many centuries, and I remain gobsmacked by what a few nuanced daubs here or there can do to create texture and colour that is wonderfully evocative at a “normal” viewing distance.

I adjust output sharpening continually when I process an image at a web-ready size, and find getting a decent compromise can take a number of attempts, sometimes with a end result that is not truly satisfying (I have also been wrestling with sharpening for offset printing for twenty years). That will only change in a positive direction when we have very-high-resolution displays (the 13" MBP I am writing this on has a miserable pixel pitch of 113 to the inch; see other display sizes at Wikipedia); even the ancient Radius PrecisionView 17" CRT had higher specs! Giant iPhones, anyone?

Would be interesting to know your workflow for preparing images for screen use. I use Capture One mostly, and Photoshop to some extent. I was particularly interested to see that you used no USM in at least part of your workflow; “ … because of over use of USM which I never use.”. Bit vague, so some explication would be nice. Cheers.

[added hyphen]
« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 08:26:16 AM by mediumcool » Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #13 on: September 17, 2011, 08:24:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Oh, and whilst in kibitzing mode, I noticed that the afore-mentioned MBP 13 was cropping off the right side of the thread’s picture (miserable 1280 pixels! Wink ):



I think the accidental crop improves the image in that the picture seems to flow out to sea better without the part of the land visible on the right side of the rocks drawing the eye to the right.

Serendipitous in the extreme!  Grin
Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
Enda Cavanagh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 556



WWW
« Reply #14 on: September 17, 2011, 09:04:50 AM »
ReplyReply

OK guys. I have reduced the sharpening who insist on enlarging web images by 300,000%  Wink But seriously. The images for the web are sharpened very differently to the ones I sharpen for print. The image was never meant to be enlarged past 100%. I don't usually use masks for my print output sharpening. I use Sharpener pro 3 from Nik Software and I get fantastic results from it. Because of the control points you don't need masks. The web images are just to show my body of work to customers . As you can see in the reply to Kirk there is no haloing on the original. The original consists of 2 vertical images stitched and is about 8600 pixels wide. The web version is 1100 pixels wide!!
Logged

Enda Cavanagh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 556



WWW
« Reply #15 on: September 17, 2011, 09:10:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Oh, and whilst in kibitzing mode, I noticed that the afore-mentioned MBP 13 was cropping off the right side of the thread’s picture (miserable 1280 pixels! Wink ):



I think the accidental crop improves the image in that the picture seems to flow out to sea better without the part of the land visible on the right side of the rocks drawing the eye to the right.

Serendipitous in the extreme!  Grin

Have to say I'm not with you on that one at all. The rock on the right is very unusual.  I actually had looked at a cropped version think the idea of it been sucked of the page would work but somehow the rock looses it's visual impact. I like the way you can see the whole outline of the rock and I think the headland in the background frames it nicely. I think it makes a much better composition.
Logged

mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #16 on: September 17, 2011, 10:53:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Have to say I'm not with you on that one at all. The rock on the right is very unusual.  I actually had looked at a cropped version think the idea of it been sucked of the page would work but somehow the rock looses it's visual impact. I like the way you can see the whole outline of the rock and I think the headland in the background frames it nicely. I think it makes a much better composition.

Hey, opinions are worth what you pay for them!  Grin

BTW it’s 1.22am here, so to bed. Nice chatting.
Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad