Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Giant Redwood  (Read 1708 times)
Tonysx
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 88



« Reply #20 on: February 17, 2013, 06:32:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the information. Now how did he manage to sharpen it and somehow add focus?
You'll have to ask Tony. I assume he added local contrast. Luckily, he's posted in the thread twice, and might be persuaded to post again with some details.
Posted image + LR4.
Sharpening            
    "           radius    
    "           detail      
Edge masking            
Luminance smoothing
      "        detail      
      "        contrast  
Color noise reduction  
Contrast                
Clarity                    
Vibrance                

No local adjustments at all.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2013, 05:37:20 AM by Tonysx » Logged

‘Be you ever so high, the law is above you.’ Lord Denning.
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2626


« Reply #21 on: February 17, 2013, 06:40:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Your settings certainly worked. They made a so so image into a very nice one. The before and after should be an exercise for anyone who thinks that an image straight from the camera can't - or shouldn't - be improved by careful processing. Smiley
Logged

nemo295
Guest
« Reply #22 on: February 17, 2013, 07:47:32 AM »
ReplyReply

And I claim no copyright whatsoever.


Excuse me, but that's not true. Your copyright appears right below RG's image on your gallery page.

I checked again today and it's still there.
Logged
amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 801


WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 17, 2013, 07:49:31 AM »
ReplyReply

I think discussion of how Tony's Zenfolio site works is probably a bit far afield. The facts are quite clear at this point, and any claims of copyright are accidental and unenforceable.
Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
nemo295
Guest
« Reply #24 on: February 17, 2013, 07:56:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Your settings certainly worked. They made a so so image into a very nice one.

I disagree. By ramping up the contrast he tossed the subtle lighting and mid values right out the window.
Logged
nemo295
Guest
« Reply #25 on: February 17, 2013, 08:01:05 AM »
ReplyReply

I think discussion of how Tony's Zenfolio site works is probably a bit far afield. The facts are quite clear at this point, and any claims of copyright are accidental and unenforceable.

Nonsense. Claiming credit for someone else's work is never excusable. It doesn't matter how his site works.

If "TonySx" can't figure out how to remove his copyright from someone else's picture on his gallery he should take it down.
Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2626


« Reply #26 on: February 17, 2013, 08:06:59 AM »
ReplyReply

I disagree. By ramping up the contrast he tossed the subtle lighting and mid values right out the window.

The "subtle lighting" you refer to was defocused areas of the image that even the author acknowledged weren't in focus. Sad
Logged

nemo295
Guest
« Reply #27 on: February 17, 2013, 08:10:02 AM »
ReplyReply

The "subtle lighting" you refer to was defocused areas of the image that even the author acknowledged weren't in focus. Sad

It's in no better focus now than before. I like the original better. We continue to disagree.
Logged
RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #28 on: February 17, 2013, 08:17:02 AM »
ReplyReply

If there is a way to make an OOF photo in focus, I am all ears - - I have a lot of them!
Logged
Tonysx
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 88



« Reply #29 on: February 17, 2013, 10:55:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Nonsense. Claiming credit for someone else's work is never excusable. It doesn't matter how his site works.
If "TonySx" can't figure out how to remove his copyright from someone else's picture on his gallery he should take it down.
Zenfolio requires a copyright statement. In my defence, I've never had so much flack tossed at me for what was a genuine mistake on my part. To satisfy Mr. Frost the copyright statement has been altered.
I disagree. By ramping up the contrast he tossed the subtle lighting and mid values right out the window.
If you had bothered to read my mods, you would have seen that I reduced the contrast. But who's reading further than an inadvertent copyright? If you meant I ramped up the clarity, don't be bashful, go ahead and say so!
The title of this forum is User Critiques. My original post here was complimentary regarding the subject with the comment that I thought it could look better. But negative criticism serves no purpose, hence the modified image.[/color]
« Last Edit: February 17, 2013, 11:03:58 AM by Tonysx » Logged

‘Be you ever so high, the law is above you.’ Lord Denning.
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5664



WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 17, 2013, 12:32:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Zenfolio requires a copyright statement. In my defence, I've never had so much flack tossed at me for what was a genuine mistake on my part. To satisfy Mr. Frost the copyright statement has been altered....

I accept that what you did was a genuine, unintentional mistake. But it does not change the result, which was, and remains to be, unauthorized use of someone's photograph, with or without copyright statement.

Most of us on this Critique forum do what you did: reprocess someone's posted photograph to show what you mean or how it could be improved. No problem there. Most of us, however, post it by uploading it from their computer directly to the forum, using the attach button at the bottom of the preview-reply window. I also change the title of the re-posted image by adding "..._Edit_by_SB," just to avoid any misunderstanding.

There are professional hosting sites, PhotoShelter for instance, who would let you have a folder of images you can link to, yet not available to see to the visitors of your site there. I am not sure whether Zenfolio has a similar arrangement. It might be your own work in progress you do not want the general public to see, yet you want to post it to some forum for discussion or advice. Or it can be the case like this one, where you are re-posting someone else's photograph, and you do not want the visitors to your own site think it is yours.

The way you ultimately did it, however, is exactly the opposite of what i described in the previous sentence: you are now leaving no doubt on anyone's mind that the image is yours!?

1. It is on you site, part of your portfolio
2. It is even available for sale!?
3. Many of your own images have a title or your own description... this one does not... it could have said something like: "Copyright of this image belongs to RedwoodGuy and is used here only for forum-discussion purposes, and not available for sale or downloads."

I continue to assume that you intended no malice, thus my post here is meant to help, not berate.

Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #31 on: February 17, 2013, 12:53:51 PM »
ReplyReply

If that image sells - please donate the proceeds to www.savetheredwoods.org. - Thanks.
Logged
nemo295
Guest
« Reply #32 on: February 17, 2013, 02:18:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Zenfolio requires a copyright statement. In my defence, I've never had so much flack tossed at me for what was a genuine mistake on my part. To satisfy Mr. Frost the copyright statement has been altered.

It shouldn't be about satisfying me. You should simply do the right thing. If Zenfolio requires a copyright on every image it means they require proper attribution. You haven't fixed anything.

All of this could have been avoided by simply posting your modified image directly on this forum.

By the way, are you aware that you can go back and modify your previous posts? You could, for example, remove the link to your Zenfolio site and replace it with a direct upload of the same image.

That way, you could remove RG's photograph from your portfolio, restore your copyright notice on your own photos and still show everyone here your modified image. Problem solved.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2013, 04:07:40 PM by Doug Frost » Logged
nemo295
Guest
« Reply #33 on: February 17, 2013, 03:55:56 PM »
ReplyReply

If you had bothered to read my mods, you would have seen that I reduced the contrast. But who's reading further than an inadvertent copyright? If you meant I ramped up the clarity, don't be bashful, go ahead and say so!
The title of this forum is User Critiques. My original post here was complimentary regarding the subject with the comment that I thought it could look better. But negative criticism serves no purpose, hence the modified image.

Of course I read your "mods". Do you have any understanding of how Lightroom or Photoshop work? By jacking up the clarity and vibrance you also increased the contrast of the image!

Or did you not bother to look at what you did? Don't talk to me about the labels on your sliders. Your version is a lot more contrasty.
Logged
amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 801


WWW
« Reply #34 on: February 17, 2013, 03:58:15 PM »
ReplyReply

"local contrast" is just another way of saying "sharpening" by the way, or at any rate any differences are beyond my understanding.
Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad