Nikon DSLR D2X in hands of Canon user.

I'm just starting to process pictures taken at last Sunday's Los Angeles Zoo shoot. Here's one image with the first Nikon DSLR I've held in my hands.

This the crop of the center of the image by 1.4.

Asher

Just to get a feel for the robustness of the Nikon files, I applied an S curve, enlarged the file by 400% with bicubic smoother in CS2 and then used the unsharp mask at 38%, 73.4 pixels followed by 196% at 0.6 pixels.



This image, uncropped, would be 240 dpi at 4ftx6ft, a 1.09 GB 16 BIT file!

Here there’s a little edge pixel artifact on the proboscis but otherwise I'm impressed. No attempt was made to attack the movement halo on the back, which was present in the original hand held image.

Well, as a long time Canon user, I'm impressed!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Just to get a feel for the robustness of the Nikon files, I applied an S curve, enlarged the file by 400% with bicubic smoother in CS2 and then used the unsharp mask at 38%, 73.4 pixels followed by 196% at 0.6 pixels.

This image, uncropped, would be 240 dpi at 4ftx6ft, a 1.09 GB 16 BIT file!

Here there’s a little edge pixel artifact on the proboscis but otherwise I'm impressed. No attempt was made to attack the movement halo on the back, which was present in the original hand held image.

Well, as a long time Canon user, I'm impressed!

Asher

Click to expand...

Bonjour Asher
Nice shot!
Could you yousendit me the raw file? I'd like to give it a try with my own way of sharpening/enlarging.

Then I'll may post the "how" if it's any better…

Asher Kelman said:

Just to get a feel for the robustness of the Nikon files, I applied an S curve, enlarged the file by 400% with bicubic smoother in CS2 and then used the unsharp mask at 38%, 73.4 pixels followed by 196% at 0.6 pixels.

This image, uncropped, would be 240 dpi at 4ftx6ft, a 1.09 GB 16 BIT file!

Here there’s a little edge pixel artifact on the proboscis but otherwise I'm impressed. No attempt was made to attack the movement halo on the back, which was present in the original hand held image.

Well, as a long time Canon user, I'm impressed!

Asher

Click to expand...

Asher, I am receiving the image in your first post, a grasshopper perhaps. However, in your second post and in the Nicolas post I am receiving only a small red X. Anyone else experiencing this or is it me. Only reason I am reporting it is to highlight a problem on your end if this is the case.

Bev

Bev Sampson said:

Anyone else experiencing this or is it me.

Click to expand...

Same at my end, using MS IE.

Bart

Using firefox, no cross. Only Asher's original image, I don't know why the image would need to be repeated, if that is what the cross meant, so maybe they have removed that link.

Best wishes,

Ray

Asher Kelman said:

This the crop of the center of the image by 1.4.

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Is this a downsample of an 71.5% center-crop from the original 12MP (~3000*2000)?

Or is it a 100% crop upsampled to 140%?

The latter would be impressive; the former would not be (IQ-wise, that is; the composition is nice).

""I don't know why the image would need to be repeated""

Except that there is reference to edits that have been made to the original image and there is discussion about these edits that I cannot see. Also, when selecting "quote" from that thread the image insert complete with img quotes at both ends and image link complete with .jpg displays. However, no image on screen in those two threads.

Bev

John,

100% crop at 140%. I'll provide the RAW file so you can look at it ourselves. Please PM me with your best email and I'll send you the NEF file.

If you can, please have a go at correcting the double exposure ghost on the back!

Bev, sorry it is not coming through on IE! Do you have the latest version? Maybe clear the cache and have another try.

Asher

Hi Bev,

Maybe I'm missing something, but Asher's second post, I read it as a description of what he did to the first post, to get the image he posted in the first post. The next post, from Nicolas, is asking that Asher sends him the original, and that Nicolas may post it, if he can make a better result. Unless there are other posts. I have not seen any posts by any of them saying that they have reposted, or even 'quoted' the original or any ther image. (Maybe they edited the text before I saw it.)

I've just looked in IE - it shows the cross in Ashers second post. and Nicolas's Asher quoted text - which signifies a broken link., afaik, but from the text, It looks as if it would be a copy of the original. Its a mac thing, I expect...

It maybe that the forum software, when quoting does not quote links. I guess it may show OK for them...

Best wishes,

Ray

Guys,

Thanks for offering to try your skills on this file.

I really like the red in the b.g. and this little beast too. She's growing on me!

Here is the NEF file for downloading.

I am not sure if I need to send you the file directly via this service. If you can't download, please PM me.

If you need instead my PSD file I'll send that too!

http://download.yousendit.com/88BE250F23F4D1D5

Could someone let me know that they can download the file?

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Could someone let me know that they can download the file?

Click to expand...

Works. Your first time with YouSendIt?

BTW, I think you cropped too much [for technical and creative reasons].

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

Same at my end, using MS IE.

Bart

Click to expand...

Asher have used "exotic" letter such as % in the name of this image, fatal error!

here it should be OK:


[EDIT] may I insist for all posters unused whith crossplatforms browsers, within ALL your links, including name of files, never used exotic letters such as:
°/\'"&#¨^<>`+;:,?!ç* etc. no space!
Use only standard alphabet letters and dashes or underlined if needed, i.e. my-beautifull_file.jpg

Asher, here's two renditions of your photo, difference is only in crop:


Portrait of the Mantis as a Full-fledged Imago


Mantidian Thoughts

The first one tries to capture your intent based upon the crop you used originally, the second is obviously my interpretation of the shot. What I like about the close crop - the reason I included it - is the halo you are a bit anxious about. You may remember that once I wrote about a technique I sometimes use to create a magical air [in short: use flash as balanced fill]; your halo around the mantis is exactly what I am going for. Instead of getting rid of it, I enhanced it while enhancing the mantis itself.

My own interpretation goes for the praying part in the common name of the species*, giving her a bit of room in front as if there's something just 'round the corner'. I also use a layered counterpoint, there's the red-green, two diagonals meeting at the mantis [bright leaf and mantis is one, the second is the stalk to the left, mirrored by the stalk in the middle] and the bright-dark contrasts. The diagonal established by the mantis and the bright leaf to the right gives the impression that the leaf is not plant part but prey [the mantis looks at it].



*Actually it goes for both variations: praying and preying.

Thanks Dierk for your work and critique,

Dierk Haasis said:

Asher,

The first one tries to capture your intent based upon the crop you used originally, the second is obviously my interpretation of the shot. What I like about the close crop - the reason I included it - is the halo you are a bit anxious about. You may remember that once I wrote about a technique I sometimes use to create a magical air [in short: use flash as balanced fill]; your halo around the mantis is exactly what I am going for. Instead of getting rid of it, I enhanced it while enhancing the mantis itself.

Click to expand...

A good comment, Dierk, and something to keep in mind. The blur enhances the threat and intent of an impending kill.

Dierk Haasis said:

My own interpretation goes for the praying part in the common name of the species*, giving her a bit of room in front as if there's something just 'round the corner'. I also use a layered counterpoint,

Click to expand...

Exactly! I allowed the space to provide for a territory for hunting. So this does show an "arc" of the artist's intent to the viewers interpretation: intent and successful reception: a visual language that is satisfying.

Dierk Haasis said:

there's the red-green, two diagonals meeting at the mantis [bright leaf and mantis is one, the second is the stalk to the left, mirrored by the stalk in the middle] and the bright-dark contrasts.

Click to expand...

Again congruence.

Dierk Haasis said:

The diagonal established by the mantis and the bright leaf to the right gives the impression that the leaf is not plant part but prey [the mantis looks at it].

Click to expand...

I never thought of that, but it does add meaning.


Asher

Dierk Haasis said:

*Actually it goes for both variations: praying and preying.

Click to expand...

I appreciate that out of critique, comes a remarkable dichotomy of "The hunted and hunter".

We want to harvest the fruit of observation, thought, applying significance and interpretations to our photographs. That is some part of the reason for our efforts after all.

So if you choose to reply, do it thoughtfully, here in this thread

http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12027#post12027

Asher

Thanks for the comments so far and the Claris&*^%$#@!~fication on the limitations of IE A good thing for Mac users to know!

Nicolas,

Your head might even better than mine!! I need to compare them side by side. I'd like someone to get rid of the pixelation on the mouth parts.

Could you add the methodology for your image processing? Especially since there are likely different software and tricks used!

Asher

BTW, Please add image copyright.

If anyone can't find the NED CS2 plugin, I'll email it to you.

Hi Asher,

Thanks for the comments so far and the Claris&*^%$#@!~fication on the limitations of IE A good thing for Mac users to know about.

Click to expand...

I think its different than that, it could well be that the Mac has it wrong. afaik, the most widespread standard for URI's can be found here - http://www.w3.org/, perhaps specifically at http://www.w3.org/Addressing/

Do not ask me anything about this, all I'm saying is that I have no idea if it carries any weight, or if IE, Firefox, Opera or Mac browser complies with it. However, there needs to be a standard somewhere, and I think W3 is the most likely to succeed.

Best wishes,

Ray

O.T. Mac in the Intel world!

Ray West said:

Hi Asher,

Do not ask me anything about this, all I'm saying is that I have no idea if it carries any weight, or if IE, Firefox, Opera or Mac browser complies with it. However, there needs to be a standard somewhere, and I think W3 is the most likely to succeed.

Best wishes,

Ray

Click to expand...

For now, Ray, I'm happy to keep within the guidlines to make it easier for W users to see my posts!

However, if as has been advised, Apple licenses the manufacturing of Macs to Dell and decides to focus on the software, content delivery and the like, then your assumptions of W3 universality would have to be re-thought!

Asher

Ray West said:

Do not ask me anything about this, all I'm saying is that I have no idea if it carries any weight, or if IE, Firefox, Opera or Mac browser complies with it.

Click to expand...

Just had the chance to look through OPF with firefox on another Windows machine - FF did not show all images in several threads, no idea why.

Hi Dierk,

I know exactly why. Its moving too fast. Folk get hold of something like Macromedia, then think they can write a web site. Nobody really cares about software standards or any other standards. Every one tries to show how clever they are. If I go to a www site, I want to see text I can read, and if photo based I want to quickly find the images. You can achieve that relatively easily, with a modest amount of raw html, and a text editor. I do not want to enable cookies/java or anything like that, just to read some text, or look at a few images, there is really no need to do so. But, thanks to the marketting corporate junk perpetrated by macromedia, quicktime, realtime, flash and so on, we are all getting constant compatability problems. A bit like my recent lightroom beta testing experience. Disgusting, that a sludgeware company, such as Adobe, can push out that junk, even as a beta.

I'm getting too touchy in my old age, but we all allow this cr*p to happen, as long as we keep paying them money. If they had any balls, they would sell software, not licence it. But then, they would have to legally take some responsibility as to fitness for purpose, etc.

There are other reasons, but imnsho, the above is the basic cause. (You can substitute most any software company name for Adobe, the abysmal quality standard was set many years ago.)

Best wishes,

Ray (that's today's rant out the way, similar to yesterday's I guess ;-)

Ray West said:

(that's today's rant out the way, similar to yesterday's I guess ;-)

Click to expand...

Ray, I agree, it's the kind of rant I endorse ...

As I keep telling people, vote with your money, and annoyances like cookies (or worse) are design choices that deserve the respect that they show for their potential visitors, i.e. none (unless they have a purpose like remembering log-in codes or offer other conveniences for the visitor).

Bart

Thanks Bart, we are not alone ........

Ray West said:

Thanks Bart, we are not alone ........

Click to expand...

Absolutely not! Count me in too .

Regards,

Cem

Any updates on Firefox working with OPF?

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Any updates on Firefox working with OPF?

Asher

Click to expand...

Just checked with Firefox 2.0 on Mac OSX.
No problem at all, can Dierk says in which threads image were not showing?
I've seen some but the reason was that they had a broken link (they were not anymore on their host server...)

Hope it helps