photo sharing and upload picture albums photo forums search pictures popular photos photography help login
ctfchallenge | all galleries >> Challenge 152 - Déjà vu >> Challenge 152- Eligible > Red
previous | next
31-JAN-2008 Britt

Red

NE

Canon EOS 300D Digital Rebel
1/100s f/6.3 at 30.0mm iso1600 full exif

other sizes: small medium original auto
comment | share
ctfchallenge12-Feb-2008 14:47
indeed, it is a lovely shot - my only nits would be a) I see the noise in the eyes as well - but I do not find it distracting - and b) I would wish for a bit more sharpness on the red fabric ...anyhow, I really like the shot!
Armin
Guest 11-Feb-2008 02:28
Lonnit, I wonder if maybe you have a larger monitor than most of us. When I look at the picture from a normal viewing distance the eyes look fine. When I get close to the monitor I can see the color noise of which you speak. So either (a) you have a monitor that is 19 inches or larger (b) you have keener vision than the rest of us or (c) the opposite is true you have a normal size monitor but lousy vision and you have to sit only millimeters from the screen to see anything. All of this has nothing to do with my point, which is...

Britt, this is a lovely photo!
Rod 09-Feb-2008 08:07
I'm on a high res monitor but like lots of others here I'm half blind & wear glasses:-)
ctfchallenge07-Feb-2008 21:23
Britt - none of it was supposed to sound like an insult to you! LOL! I just figured it was typical noise from 1600 ISO - which would not be shocking at such a high ISO - amplified by jpg compression. It's got nothing to do with you or your abilities - it's just a technical observation. I'm sorry if I insulted you. {{{{{{hugs!}}}}}}} As for that lens, I'm telling you, you got better quality images out of it than I ever did! I recall the first image you posted with it - I was thinking, "I never got that quality out of that lens on my camera!". So, I was thrilled that it was performing better for you b/c I really wanted you to be happy with it.

So, in a nutshell, what I'm seeing here is noise exaggerated by jpg artifacting. What I don't understand is why I'm the only one seeing it! I mean, here, I see the noise before I see the eyes! How can it be so prominent on my monitor, yet nobody else is seeing it. Does that mean my monitor is such excellent quality that it is picking up more detail that others, or does it mean it's so poor that it's breaking up on that part of the image. This is supposed to be a very good monitor. ~ Lonnit, very confused!!!
Britt 07-Feb-2008 15:05
Lonnit: Thanks for clarifying your original gripe with the photo. I agree that I may have oversharpened a bit on the eyes as I was going for the eyes to be the focal point. Your second post was a bit easier to read for me because it wasn't using words like "ugly and terrible," without offering why you think that or how to change it. (I sure hope it wasn't the lens you sold me that fubar'ed up the eyes! hehehe) j/k. :)
Thanks for the comments as well to Doug, Troy and Janey. Next time, I will definitely try harder not to get over-zealous on sharpening to make my point.
janewigginsphotography07-Feb-2008 02:34
5 o'clock Abstract is my fav Britt :) jano
Guest 07-Feb-2008 00:36
I don't remember looking closely at this before or what you have done for improvements (if any) but on my monitor the eyes look sharp and I don't notice any pixels of red or noise on the face. The blanket looks natural with the noise level there. I like the soft look also.
ctfchallenge06-Feb-2008 22:26
Maybe it's my monitor that is exaggerating it? I'm just hypersensitive to noise right now, after the G9 fiasco. Bought the camera, was terribly disappointed with the horrible noise, so I returned it. I was shocked by how bad the images were. It really irked me. It was getting this level of noise at ISO 400. Now, the thing is, the noise is only in the eyes. Did you do extra sharpening there? I can see individual pixels of red. It's all at the lash lines, the inside corner of her left eye, and the picture-left sides of the iris rims. There doesn't appear to be noise elsewhere of any significance. That makes me think you may simply have just oversharpened the eyes. I'm really wondering if it's my monitor capturing too much detail. Anyone else viewing this on a Dell 2007WFP? ~ Lonnit
ctfchallenge05-Feb-2008 02:24
I too noticed the noise in the eyes. I chose to ignore it. It is shot at ISO1600 so a little noise is to be forgiven. The seductive stare is one of excellence. -COAmature
Britt 04-Feb-2008 22:57
Well thanks so much for commenting that the eyes look terrible. LOL Whatever Lonnit. I get the point that you don't like it. My eyes look like that all the time since I got sick. :)
ctfchallenge04-Feb-2008 13:43
No, what I'm trying to say is that it is overwhelmed with noise and artifacts in the eyes. ~ Lonnit
Rod 04-Feb-2008 08:16
I think wot Lonnits trying to say is she's not too keen on this picy:-)
ctfchallenge03-Feb-2008 17:22
Ok, I'm confused here - everyone is saying how wonderful and clear the eyes are, and for me, it's the eyes I have issue with. They are gritty and overwhelmed with jpg artifacting! They look terrible. Everything in the image is soft and the skin of the forehead is so smooth, and then the eyes and the rims are horribly pebbled with really ugly noise. ~ Lonnit
ctfchallenge03-Feb-2008 02:37
Very nice Britt, the expressiveness of the eyes is wonderful.
~Brent
Canon DSLR Challenge01-Feb-2008 04:12
This is beautiful now, Britt. Th eyes are great... perhaps a tad red around them... but the mood is what counts. This has softness written all over it.. then the eyes pop out with startling clarity. ~Lydia
ctfchallenge01-Feb-2008 01:41
Thanks again JV..i toned down the exposure a bit to make it softer. Thanks for the nice comment as well, CO. :) Britt
ctfchallenge01-Feb-2008 01:28
It's all about the eyes and their seductive stare. Well done Britt. -COAmature
Guest 31-Jan-2008 22:24
You can do either. Recreate it, or do your own take. All I'm saying is a different lighting angle would be more dramatic. -J.V.
ctfchallenge31-Jan-2008 21:09
Thanks for the comment. I agree about the forehead. I am confused to your other comment however. I didn't think we were supposed to "recreate" the original...I thought we were supposed to do our own thing based on the original?? -Britt
ctfchallenge31-Jan-2008 19:48
Hey Britt, nice entry. It is a quality photo, but I still have a couple nitpicks. There is a little bit of a sharpness issue on the forehead (induced by pp?). Also, I think using light that is a little less head-on would help re-create the drama of the original. -J.V.