Okay, I'm back with something I posted and deleted last week because the original version bugged me.
-
Okay, I'm back with something I posted and deleted last week because the original version bugged me. This one will stick around.
Post-processing is a tricky business, especially if you pixel-peep like I tend to do with my photos.
The original version had multiple problems that were introduced at various stages of the processing. The biggest problem was banding / posterization. The gradients in the sky broke into distinct bands of luminescence and color shifts. There are lots of reasons for this: JPEG compression, poorly applied vignetting and curve adjustments, and color space remapping.
The second biggest problem? Sharpening. Mastodon, in an attempt to resize photos for various apps and devices, can make a sharp photo appear extra crispy. The original version I posted looked totally fried, especially when viewed in a browser. This one is slightly better: I toned down my own sharpening to compensate.
Anyway, here is Los Angeles. At night. 1/30th of a second. ISO 6400. Handheld.
-
Okay, I'm back with something I posted and deleted last week because the original version bugged me. This one will stick around.
Post-processing is a tricky business, especially if you pixel-peep like I tend to do with my photos.
The original version had multiple problems that were introduced at various stages of the processing. The biggest problem was banding / posterization. The gradients in the sky broke into distinct bands of luminescence and color shifts. There are lots of reasons for this: JPEG compression, poorly applied vignetting and curve adjustments, and color space remapping.
The second biggest problem? Sharpening. Mastodon, in an attempt to resize photos for various apps and devices, can make a sharp photo appear extra crispy. The original version I posted looked totally fried, especially when viewed in a browser. This one is slightly better: I toned down my own sharpening to compensate.
Anyway, here is Los Angeles. At night. 1/30th of a second. ISO 6400. Handheld.
@BobHorowitz I didn't see the first post, but I appreciate the details on how it went wrong. A little peek behind the scenes. Lovely shot as well.
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
-
Okay, I'm back with something I posted and deleted last week because the original version bugged me. This one will stick around.
Post-processing is a tricky business, especially if you pixel-peep like I tend to do with my photos.
The original version had multiple problems that were introduced at various stages of the processing. The biggest problem was banding / posterization. The gradients in the sky broke into distinct bands of luminescence and color shifts. There are lots of reasons for this: JPEG compression, poorly applied vignetting and curve adjustments, and color space remapping.
The second biggest problem? Sharpening. Mastodon, in an attempt to resize photos for various apps and devices, can make a sharp photo appear extra crispy. The original version I posted looked totally fried, especially when viewed in a browser. This one is slightly better: I toned down my own sharpening to compensate.
Anyway, here is Los Angeles. At night. 1/30th of a second. ISO 6400. Handheld.
