[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

For TSK and other GIMP users: So among plug-ins such as Wavelet Denoise or GMIC, and a free standalone such as Neat Image, which one do you prefer? Or is it horses for courses?.

I could not afford Photoshop(Though Adobes Free giveway of CS2 changed things) so I started using GIMP.
Neatimage etc., cost money.
However, since for me noise reduction is a major thing(High ISO long exposure astrophotography), I decided to use neatimage trial. If it had given me better results than wavelet denoise, I would have purchased it, but I did not find much value. Wavelet denoise does the job just fine.
Photoshop is significantly more powerful, esp if you are heavily into retouching, but other than that, if you want to "enhance" your pictures, there is nothing in photoshop which is not there in GIMP.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

But if a workshop can throw up some useful concepts, and I get to meet like-minded people, then it would be good.

I think this is the crux. You need to be in constant contact with like minded people who are constantly dabbling into this part.
May be we can get a generic idea of concepts with workshops. But can't say for sure. There may be online forums which help in this regard.

Also do you really need Photoshop? I think Lightroom should be more than enough. If on a MAC, Aperture with some third party filters work perfectly fine also.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

I could not afford Photoshop(Though Adobes Free giveway of CS2 changed things) so I started using GIMP.
Neatimage etc., cost money.
However, since for me noise reduction is a major thing(High ISO long exposure astrophotography), I decided to use neatimage trial. If it had given me better results than wavelet denoise, I would have purchased it, but I did not find much value. Wavelet denoise does the job just fine.
Photoshop is significantly more powerful, esp if you are heavily into retouching, but other than that, if you want to "enhance" your pictures, there is nothing in photoshop which is not there in GIMP.

Thanks for your thoughts. Think I will stick with GIMP for a while.

I am finding that GMIC (Anisotropic enhancement) is doing a better job than Wavelet for noise reduction - I was playing around with both the last few days. Thought GMIC slows down the machine a bit.

[anekho]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Guys, what is the point of posting these shots?

A good photograph should have proper composition, technical merit and then oomph factor. I mean all three of them. But these pics of none of the three. Please post pics that you are proud to show off, and not something that was just lying around the camera or hard disk.

1) I am nowhere near being an expert. I'm learning. So I do not have any technical merit.

2) I honestly like the photos I uploaded. Yes, there are a million areas that need improvement, but I spent time taking these photos. I was running manual mode (which isn't my comfort zone). I spent time post-processing them, till I was satisfied with the output. By posting here I was hoping I'd get constructive criticism. Proper composition is somewhat of a vague phrase, but if you mean implementing the rule of thirds etc. I've been practicing doing so. These particular photos, however, are occasions where I've stepped out to experiment. Because you only learn with experimentation.

3) It is now well past fall and I found a set of photos on my camera that had somehow evaded being uploaded to my computer. Hence the upload and post now.

-----

Here's a more recent photo taken, this time on the iphone (I've got to make carrying the camera around a habit!).

The way the light was falling on the building, lighting up the balconies and creating stripes of light was very eye-catching. Unfortunately the colours are somewhat washed out here. Still pleased though. Post processed slightly + cropped.


and the same photo on black.

[nilanjanray]

Was trying out a new noise reduction plug-in for G'MIC: Noise Reduction 5.

Experimenting with the settings, here is a sample image:

Shot handheld, 1/5 sec, ISO 800, 70mm, f/5.6 (couldn't stop it down further because of camera shake); D90 + 70-300mm VR

Fullmoon rises over Panchachulis, Eastern Kumaon


I was on a drive+walk from 4 PM, and didn't bother to carry the tripod. Got delayed, and then while coming back I see the moorise. Ugh! Only if I had the tripod! Had to rest on a rock and click.

[shajufx]

Originally Posted by clevermax

My New Acquisition.......

Loved the way you have presented this beauty. Perfect rugged look around. Just curious, where do you process film ? It reminded me of my recent attempt to take a print of my Passport size photo which was clicked years back by a studio guy on film. Hunted half a dozen places, nobody accepted my film strip. Finally I did a self portrait and printed for the purpose

Here is an attempt to show my friends here how great is the cropping potential of a D600 file.

Note: It would not have been possible if my focus was not on the eye !

[venkat_iyer]

Am uploading a few images of a shikra enjoying a meal - captured near Pune in Oct 2012. Camera - Nikon D5000, Lens - Sigma 150-500. Processed using Photoshop CS6.

[Soumyajit9]

Dear Friends,

Quick Question: What software do you use to compress pictures without losing quality ?

Reason for Asking: The images from a DSLR comes at ~ 3--5 MB, which is not acceptable on TBHP.

My Current Solution: I have been using Adobe PS and use Save As and then lower the quality of the images, which reduces the file size, but I guess the quality is compromised by doing this.

Help Please.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by Soumyajit9

Reason for Asking: The images from a DSLR comes at ~ 3--5 MB, which is not acceptable on TBHP.

You can keep the aspect ratio and reduce the pixel size. For example 1200x800 can show a good landscape and so can an image of size 900x600.
So based on this you can choose what XxY pixels you want to output. That should give a good reduction in file size, as pixel count is reduced.

[joslicx]

Originally Posted by ampere

You can keep the aspect ratio and reduce the pixel size. For example 1200x800 can show a good landscape and so can an image of size 900x600.
So based on this you can choose what XxY pixels you want to output. That should give a good reduction in file size, as pixel count is reduced.

Actully lot depends on the software itself. For example, lets say you have a 400x200 image and you want to compress to 100x50. So the software might manipulate in 4x4 pixel chunks and produce a single pixel by either choosing one of them or taking average of all or taking a weighted average etc. Lots of possibilities and all of them will affect final image quality. I read somewhere that while resizing its always better to resize in multiples of 2.

[Soumyajit9]

Also, came across this option in PS. Changing the kbps doesn't affect the image though. Any idea what it does ? PS has inbuilt help, but I am not quite understanding it.

[IronH4WK]

Originally Posted by Soumyajit9

Also, came across this option in PS. Changing the kbps doesn't affect the image though. Any idea what it does ? PS has inbuilt help, but I am not quite understanding it.

I think that tells you the time the file would take to upload/download on the various connection speeds mentioned in the drop down.

This would be helpful when working on images for the web.

[clevermax]

Originally Posted by Soumyajit9

Dear Friends,

Quick Question: What software do you use to compress pictures without losing quality ?

Reason for Asking: The images from a DSLR comes at ~ 3--5 MB, which is not acceptable on TBHP.

My Current Solution: I have been using Adobe PS and use Save As and then lower the quality of the images, which reduces the file size, but I guess the quality is compromised by doing this.

Help Please.

Open the image in PS, goto file - save for Web, change the resolution to 1024, set the quality of jpeg to 90%and you're done.

[Soumyajit9]

Originally Posted by ampere

You can keep the aspect ratio and .......

Originally Posted by joslicx

Actully lot depends on the software itself. For example........

Originally Posted by IronH4WK

I think that tells you the time the file would take to upload/download on the various connection speeds....

Originally Posted by clevermax

Open the image in PS, goto file - save for Web, change the resolution to 1024, set the quality of jpeg to 90%and you're done.

Thanks guys !! I guess, I have to try out your advices. Aspect Ratio, Pixel Ratio, Web Mode, etc. Time for some experiments !!!

In the meanwhile, I have tried to strip down the size of some of my latest clicks. Hope the resolution still impresses you all.

Some decorative items brought from a fair.



Colourful Choco Shots.



A gift to my wifey from her brother.



Jagannath Temple, Agara, B'lore - 01/01/2013



Christmas Star



Two of my dreams.

[clevermax]

Originally Posted by Soumyajit9

In the meanwhile, I have tried to strip down the size of some of my latest clicks. Hope the resolution still impresses you all.

The image widths are in the ranges of 2333 pixels, you could still reduce it to something like 1024 and save the jpeg with 90% or higher quality, they will just appear the same in the thread.