Processing a full moon using DxO Optics Pro Elite Version
Jan 17, 2016 12:02:27 #
Since all I have is rain, rain, and more rain. Not heavy rain to fill the reservoirs, but constant clouds and sprinkling, there is no astrophotography going on around here right now.
So I decided to take a full moon image and see if I could improve it with DxO. I will supply a before and after.
The before is straight from Lightroom. Used a Sony A6000 with a Tamron 150-600mm at 600mm. Was shoot at ISO 100 f10 for 1/1250 sec. The full moon is never a good subject as the sun is directly overhead and there are not good shadows to make it more interesting.
The after is after using DxO to give it more contrast and to bring out more detail. I used the DxO lens softness slider, the Microcontrast Slider, the DxO Smart Lighting Slider and the DxO ClearView Slider to bring out the detail.
So I decided to take a full moon image and see if I could improve it with DxO. I will supply a before and after.
The before is straight from Lightroom. Used a Sony A6000 with a Tamron 150-600mm at 600mm. Was shoot at ISO 100 f10 for 1/1250 sec. The full moon is never a good subject as the sun is directly overhead and there are not good shadows to make it more interesting.
The after is after using DxO to give it more contrast and to bring out more detail. I used the DxO lens softness slider, the Microcontrast Slider, the DxO Smart Lighting Slider and the DxO ClearView Slider to bring out the detail.
Jan 17, 2016 14:07:06 #
I'm sorry, but I wouldn't be a Friend to you, and the regulars, if I didn't differ.
I feel many of these Photographs lose something in processing.
I always download and zoom in for detail. Probably I shouldn't.
Because my issue is in the artifacts left by what appears to me to be a bit of over-processing.
Things go from plausible, to what-the-hell-happened.
And maybe things get jacked around between your computer, the forums software to handle it, and me as the viewer. The Internet can certainly do that.
I'm generally not so good in the kitchen either. I tend to go overboard on seasoning sometimes. One time I made pepper steak on the Bar-B-Que. I didn't mean to, but I learned not to add seasoning in the dark.
The next day I installed an LED flood lamp that lights up the grill. :lol:
Maybe I'm weird. (Well, actually, that is a given.)
Me, and Ted Nugent...
I feel many of these Photographs lose something in processing.
I always download and zoom in for detail. Probably I shouldn't.
Because my issue is in the artifacts left by what appears to me to be a bit of over-processing.
Things go from plausible, to what-the-hell-happened.
And maybe things get jacked around between your computer, the forums software to handle it, and me as the viewer. The Internet can certainly do that.
I'm generally not so good in the kitchen either. I tend to go overboard on seasoning sometimes. One time I made pepper steak on the Bar-B-Que. I didn't mean to, but I learned not to add seasoning in the dark.
The next day I installed an LED flood lamp that lights up the grill. :lol:
Maybe I'm weird. (Well, actually, that is a given.)
Me, and Ted Nugent...
Jan 17, 2016 14:24:39 #
Sorry, I am with Sonny.
I prefer the undercooked original version.
The second ones is starting to look smeared to me.
I prefer the undercooked original version.
The second ones is starting to look smeared to me.
Jan 17, 2016 17:49:20 #
Thanks for the feedback.
Idle hands in face of the constant clouds and rain leave me searching for what else I can try.
I did something else this time. Loaded the original and the modified one into Photoshop as layers and then dialed back the transparency on the modified one so that 70% of the unmodified one is passing through. This tones it down quite a bit.
Idle hands in face of the constant clouds and rain leave me searching for what else I can try.
I did something else this time. Loaded the original and the modified one into Photoshop as layers and then dialed back the transparency on the modified one so that 70% of the unmodified one is passing through. This tones it down quite a bit.
Jan 17, 2016 20:42:58 #
JimH123 wrote:
Thanks for the feedback.
Idle hands in face of the constant clouds and rain leave me searching for what else I can try.
I did something else this time. Loaded the original and the modified one into Photoshop as layers and then dialed back the transparency on the modified one so that 70% of the unmodified one is passing through. This tones it down quite a bit.
Idle hands in face of the constant clouds and rain leave me searching for what else I can try.
I did something else this time. Loaded the original and the modified one into Photoshop as layers and then dialed back the transparency on the modified one so that 70% of the unmodified one is passing through. This tones it down quite a bit.
Now this is great Jim H.
Craig
Jan 18, 2016 09:23:18 #
Sorry, but I have to go with the crowd here. The processed one looks a bit 'crunchy' to me. The original could possibly do with a touch more contrast, but that is about all... Just my opinion, of course!
Jan 18, 2016 13:44:23 #
JimH123 wrote:
Thanks for the feedback.
Idle hands in face of the constant clouds and rain leave me searching for what else I can try.
I did something else this time. Loaded the original and the modified one into Photoshop as layers and then dialed back the transparency on the modified one so that 70% of the unmodified one is passing through. This tones it down quite a bit.
Idle hands in face of the constant clouds and rain leave me searching for what else I can try.
I did something else this time. Loaded the original and the modified one into Photoshop as layers and then dialed back the transparency on the modified one so that 70% of the unmodified one is passing through. This tones it down quite a bit.
A lot better than the first. ;)
Still looks like Sonny was at the controls.
Some of the whites seem glarey.
Back in the early 1990's I was learning to publish pictures on the WWW.
I discovered I had to use the Winderz Exploder, and Netscape to fine tune my pages.
What looked OK in one, looked like crap in the other. And how they moved through the MaBell creeky crappy wiring sure slowed things down.
Things have improved a bit in the last 25 years or so... ;)
Jan 18, 2016 13:51:29 #
SonnyE wrote:
A lot better than the first. ;)
Still looks like Sonny was at the controls.
Some of the whites seem glarey.
Back in the early 1990's I was learning to publish pictures on the WWW.
I discovered I had to use the Winderz Exploder, and Netscape to fine tune my pages.
What looked OK in one, looked like crap in the other. And how they moved through the MaBell creeky crappy wiring sure slowed things down.
Things have improved a bit in the last 25 years or so... ;)
Still looks like Sonny was at the controls.
Some of the whites seem glarey.
Back in the early 1990's I was learning to publish pictures on the WWW.
I discovered I had to use the Winderz Exploder, and Netscape to fine tune my pages.
What looked OK in one, looked like crap in the other. And how they moved through the MaBell creeky crappy wiring sure slowed things down.
Things have improved a bit in the last 25 years or so... ;)
I kinda miss Netscrape..
sigh..
Jan 18, 2016 15:54:30 #
Albuqshutterbug wrote:
I kinda miss Netscrape..
sigh..
sigh..
Firefox, Dude. http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/
Netscape morphed into Firefox.
Try it out and see how you like it. It's almost all I use.
Check out the bottom line here (last paragraph):
http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/10/history-of-netscape/
Jan 18, 2016 15:58:37 #
SonnyE wrote:
Firefox, Dude. http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/
Netscape morphed into Firefox.
Try it out and see how you like it. It's almost all I use.
Check out the bottom line here (last paragraph):
http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/10/history-of-netscape/
Netscape morphed into Firefox.
Try it out and see how you like it. It's almost all I use.
Check out the bottom line here (last paragraph):
http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/10/history-of-netscape/
I use Google Chrome now but I used to use the FiredFox :D
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.