Peter, one of your stronger images for sure. Geometry! Yummy ;-).
Boris
P. J. Alling wrote:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~morephotos/pirellibuildingdetail.html
>
> Equipment: Pentax *ist-Ds/smc Pentax 43mm f1.9 Limited
>
> Notes: B&W conversion in using B&W plus yellow filter applied.
>
> As us
I got a good thing going I'm milking it for all it's worth.
http://home.earthlink.net/~morephotos/pirellibuildingdetail2.html
Equipment: Pentax *ist-Ds/smc FA Pentax 20-35mm f4.0 AL
As usual comments are welcome but may be totally ignored.
--
Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee
It's meant to look like rock, but they built it from inexpensive concrete.
ann sanfedele wrote:
> Isn't it the kind of rock?
> looks like grano-diorite to me
>
> ann
>
>
> Maris V. Lidaka Sr. wrote:
>
>
>> As per Rob Studdert's comment, the surface texture - I see distinct black
>> spots, rath
nice gritty shot Peter.
russ
On 4/17/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~morephotos/pirellibuildingdetail.html
>
> Equipment: Pentax *ist-Ds/smc Pentax 43mm f1.9 Limited
>
> Notes: B&W conversion in using B&W plus yellow filter applied.
>
> As usual comments a
Isn't it the kind of rock?
looks like grano-diorite to me
ann
Maris V. Lidaka Sr. wrote:
>As per Rob Studdert's comment, the surface texture - I see distinct black
>spots, rather than the customary grainy rough-concrete surfact texture. But
>then it could be just because of the reduced image
On 4/17/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~morephotos/pirellibuildingdetail.html
>
> Equipment: Pentax *ist-Ds/smc Pentax 43mm f1.9 Limited
>
> Notes: B&W conversion in using B&W plus yellow filter applied.
>
> As usual comments are welcome but may be totally i
In a message dated 4/18/2007 9:20:57 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wise A**
(I was going to say guy but that's wrong so your stuck with this).
I've never been able to figure out what a 100% crop is. Used they way
you suggest it would be a redundant way of saying uncr
Nice abstract - good eye !
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: PESO -- Pirelli Building Detail
> http://home.earthlink.net/~morephotos/pirellibuildingdetail.html
>
> Equipment: Pentax *ist-Ds/smc Pentax 43mm f
Wise A**
(I was going to say guy but that's wrong so your stuck with this).
I've never been able to figure out what a 100% crop is. Used they way
you suggest it would be a redundant way of saying uncropped. So I'm
using it to say a cropped portion of a digital photo full size. So
there. (Wa
s exactly as I would expect.
>
> Tom C.
>
>
>
>
>
>> From: "Maris V. Lidaka Sr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>> Subject: Re: PESO -- Pirelli Building Detail [100% crop]
"Maris V. Lidaka Sr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>Subject: Re: PESO -- Pirelli Building Detail [100% crop] was Re: PESO
>--PirelliBuilding Detail
>Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:02:40 -0500
>
>
On Apr 18, 2007, at 10:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~morephotos/pirellibuildingdetail100pct.html
>
> Equipment: As before.
>
> Notes: As before.
>
> Comments?
>
> =
> I thought a 100% crop was the full frame picture with NO crop.
>
100% crop means: A cro
In a message dated 4/18/2007 5:50:36 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With all the discussion of what amounts to the texture of the building
previous image I thought why not post an 100% crop. so here it is. The
only difference in processing between this and the previou
Now that looks real - the embedded black chips visibly display that they are
black chips and not sharpening artifacts, and the concrete surrounding the
chips is smooth.
IMHO the resizing did it.
Maris
P. J. Alling wrote:
> With all the discussion of what amounts to the texture of the building
Been true forever. Almost seemed the "oversharpened" hysteria actually
influenced some to "oversoften".
Jack
--- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also wonder how it could look grainy, since it's a digital image
> and doesn't have grain? No noise in the shadows. At least not on
>
With all the discussion of what amounts to the texture of the building
previous image I thought why not post an 100% crop. so here it is. The
only difference in processing between this and the previous image was
resizing.
http://home.earthlink.net/~morephotos/pirellibuildingdetail100pct.html
Yes, you can create noise, but this shot isn't noisy. The texture
appears to be inherent in the concrete.
Paul
On Apr 17, 2007, at 11:14 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
> On 18/04/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I also wonder how it could look grainy, since it's a digital image
Those are obviously part of the concrete mix. It's a textured concrete.
Paul
On Apr 17, 2007, at 11:20 PM, Maris V. Lidaka Sr. wrote:
> As per Rob Studdert's comment, the surface texture - I see distinct
> black
> spots, rather than the customary grainy rough-concrete surfact
> texture. But
>
I thought I'd posted a number of more interesting pictures over the last
few weeks. Sometimes I wonder if anyone actually looks. I guess they do.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 4/17/2007 5:48:58 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> http://home.earthlink.ne
In a message dated 4/17/2007 5:48:58 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://home.earthlink.net/~morephotos/pirellibuildingdetail.html
Equipment: Pentax *ist-Ds/smc Pentax 43mm f1.9 Limited
Notes: B&W conversion in using B&W plus yellow filter applied.
As usual comments
Hey guys the distinct black spots are in the concrete. The builder used
black gravel as part of the aggregate, (I think the architect called for
it). The surface is actually relatively smooth. In fact it doesn't look
rough to me, but then I know what I'm looking at.
Maris V. Lidaka Sr. wrote:
Per my final comment just posted, I guess the resizing created the
appearance of oversharpening for me - that can happen, as there are so few
pixels remaining. I would think your original (i.e. just before resizing)
would look fine - more of the mid-tone pixels would be extant.
Maris
P. J. Al
As per Rob Studdert's comment, the surface texture - I see distinct black
spots, rather than the customary grainy rough-concrete surfact texture. But
then it could be just because of the reduced image size.
Maris
Paul Stenquist wrote:
> Interesting comment, Maris. On what basis? I see no halo
On 18/04/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also wonder how it could look grainy, since it's a digital image
> and doesn't have grain? No noise in the shadows. At least not on
> these itty-bitty web images. I think that sharp images are now being
> critiqued as "oversharpened." Put a
On 18/04/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Methinks some of us are reading way too much into tiny web images.
My comment pertains to what was presented, no more, no less.
--
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.swif
I also wonder how it could look grainy, since it's a digital image
and doesn't have grain? No noise in the shadows. At least not on
these itty-bitty web images. I think that sharp images are now being
critiqued as "oversharpened." Put away the magnifying glasses, boys.
Paul
On Apr 17, 2007, a
Methinks some of us are reading way too much into tiny web images.
paul
On Apr 17, 2007, at 10:16 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
> On 18/04/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Interesting comment, Maris. On what basis? I see no halo effect, no
>> afterglow, no crispiness. Where do yo
Which is funny since I didn't use any sharpening tools it at all. Just
minimal processing, bit of curves to bring up the mid tones then a
second time adding an s curve to increase the contrast a bit. Then hit
with the B&W conversion with the yellow filter. Resized for the web
added my copyri
On 18/04/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting comment, Maris. On what basis? I see no halo effect, no
> afterglow, no crispiness. Where do you see evidence of
> oversharpening. Not trying to be argumentative, just curious.
The contrast enhancement or the yellow filter and lo
Interesting comment, Maris. On what basis? I see no halo effect, no
afterglow, no crispiness. Where do you see evidence of
oversharpening. Not trying to be argumentative, just curious.
Paul
On Apr 17, 2007, at 9:54 PM, Maris V. Lidaka Sr. wrote:
> Composition and B&W conversion look very good.
Composition and B&W conversion look very good. For me, it appears
oversharpened.
Maris
P. J. Alling wrote:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~morephotos/pirellibuildingdetail.html
>
> Equipment: Pentax *ist-Ds/smc Pentax 43mm f1.9 Limited
>
> Notes: B&W conversion in using B&W plus yellow filter appl
http://home.earthlink.net/~morephotos/pirellibuildingdetail.html
Equipment: Pentax *ist-Ds/smc Pentax 43mm f1.9 Limited
Notes: B&W conversion in using B&W plus yellow filter applied.
As usual comments are welcome but may be totally ignored.
--
Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee
32 matches
Mail list logo
