• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

'This is how we do it...'

Paul Abbott

New member
This is how we do it...

By saying that I obviously mean the graffiti artists but I do apply it to RICOH too...I haven't had to do much to this RAW file, only to sharpen and re-size it, that's all.
Anyway, as far as this documentary image goes I think i've caught a nice little interplay between the artists and those faces, I guess. :)

Btw, just lately my images have been looking a bit soft since being uploaded onto this forum, elsewhere they're totally fine. I don't know what the problem is...




graffitiartists1of1800_zps86d9450f.jpg


Graffiti Artists - Shoreditch, London '13 - Paul Abbott
RICOH GR
 
Hi Paul,

That's a nice works-in-progress. I find the angle slightly distracting though.

Btw, just lately my images have been looking a bit soft since being uploaded onto this forum, elsewhere they're totally fine. I don't know what the problem is...

There is no logical explanation for that, because it is just a one-on-one image pixel mapping that takes place, unless you (your browser) use different screen zoom settings for different sites. When an image displays at the same physical size on screen in different websites, it should have the same look (using the same browser/colormanagement).

My laptop has a relatively high resolution, compared to my desktop display, and uses a default zoom setting of 125% to display text a bit larger. In that case the images are interpolated and indeed exhibit a lower resolution than they actually have at 100% zoom. Maybe you are also looking at the images on two different systems, or the other sites downsample the image size?

Technically one could somewhat compensate for such small zoom increases, by boosting the slightly larger than 1 pixel spatial frequencies a bit with a high-pass filter and/or by using a different downsampling method. But that doesn't explain your observation.

Cheers,
Bart
 
I also think it is fine. I know places that constrict file sizes and that use flash to add watermarks and that definitely softens an image, but in firefox, I right-click the image and look at image-info and can see the clear uploaded photograph. When I do this with yours, it looks both the same there and here. I wonder where you have it elsewhere may have a black background? - that could make it feel more contrasty but would simply be an illusion.

Cool image, by the way! :)
Maggie
 

Paul Abbott

New member
Thanks for the comments and explanations, Bart and Maggie...

I had been using the Ctrl +/ - function to view other peoples images on here, because of they're photographs being so large to view on my monitor. Anyway, after a few presses it seems to have sorted itself out, but it hadn't before...weird!
 
Thanks for the comments and explanations, Bart and Maggie...

I had been using the Ctrl +/ - function to view other peoples images on here, because of they're photographs being so large to view on my monitor. Anyway, after a few presses it seems to have sorted itself out, but it hadn't before...weird!

Hi Paul,

Glad it got solved.

Cheers,
Bart
 
Top