Comment The photographer needs to clarify which of these images most resemble the actual flower with respect to colors. Edit 2 has a color balance shift that may be closer to reality but we don't know that. What was changed exactly and why?
Mfield (
talk)
15:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I missed this one being underway. I've looked through my other photos of these flowers taken on the same day (like
this one) and edit 2 is the wrong colours. Edit 1 is the closest to the actual flowers colours. From what I can see edit 2 has been created with the "auto-white-balance" option in photoshop and has not been kind to the flower. It's shifted the colours towards a blue cast that should not be present -
Peripitus |(Talk)]]
02:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose all I'm surprised by all the support for this picture: The background is very noise, and the noise level robs sharpness throughout the rest of the image. Sharpness is really not very good for a flower picture. Light is cold, lacks contrast, lacks color depth. Composition is bland, background is distracting and awkward. There seems to be some tonal compression due to high noise level. DOF is too wide (BG is not OOF enough). Compare to:
This,
This,
This,
This. -
Fcb981(
talk:
contribs)
17:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Fcb - needs noise reduction in background - should be an easy task, but do it from the original camera file, please. --
Janke |
Talk20:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment There you go, new version Edit 3 added. I went back to the original, applied noise reduction to the background, some slight local contrast enhancement to the flower, and cropped to match Edit 2.
Mfield (
talk)
20:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - Any of the versions. Very nice image. |→
Spaully₪† 11:08, 25 May 2008 (
GMT)
Comment The photographer needs to clarify which of these images most resemble the actual flower with respect to colors. Edit 2 has a color balance shift that may be closer to reality but we don't know that. What was changed exactly and why?
Mfield (
talk)
15:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I missed this one being underway. I've looked through my other photos of these flowers taken on the same day (like
this one) and edit 2 is the wrong colours. Edit 1 is the closest to the actual flowers colours. From what I can see edit 2 has been created with the "auto-white-balance" option in photoshop and has not been kind to the flower. It's shifted the colours towards a blue cast that should not be present -
Peripitus |(Talk)]]
02:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose all I'm surprised by all the support for this picture: The background is very noise, and the noise level robs sharpness throughout the rest of the image. Sharpness is really not very good for a flower picture. Light is cold, lacks contrast, lacks color depth. Composition is bland, background is distracting and awkward. There seems to be some tonal compression due to high noise level. DOF is too wide (BG is not OOF enough). Compare to:
This,
This,
This,
This. -
Fcb981(
talk:
contribs)
17:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Fcb - needs noise reduction in background - should be an easy task, but do it from the original camera file, please. --
Janke |
Talk20:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment There you go, new version Edit 3 added. I went back to the original, applied noise reduction to the background, some slight local contrast enhancement to the flower, and cropped to match Edit 2.
Mfield (
talk)
20:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - Any of the versions. Very nice image. |→
Spaully₪† 11:08, 25 May 2008 (
GMT)