Grimes Mill, 2007 B&W (for Jim Phelps)

You're right, Jim. There is definitely something in the BW version. I think that the trick is converting from the file that is NOT croppedso tight. Just tell me how to get those strange artifacts off therails when resizing from this: photo_id=5744613

 

COMMENTSWELCOME FROM EVERYONE ON THIS SERIES--and on these issues. I needyour help. Thank you.

 

--Lannie

Take a look at this

Jim Phelps

That's very good, Jim. I like the overall effect. I don't see nearly as many artifacts (if any) in the tracks. For some reason, when I switched to this computer after the other one was fried by lighting back in August, I have seen more artifacts on diagonals. I am puzzled by this. Perhaps it is the monitor. I really don't know.

 

Is there something that you are doing as well to reduce the artifacts?

 

Curiously, I don't see any artifacts on this large color version that I put up long ago: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5744613&size=lg If I resize downward from this larger version, I get artifacts, but I do not see that in your version. I am deeply puzzled. I don't think that this would not be a problem on prints of any particular size, of course. I would typically send an entire file to the printer, no matter what size output I wanted. The problem seems to be with the screen display. This is not the only subject that I have photographed in which I see this kind of problem.

 

Thanks for your input on this one.

 

--Lannie

What software are you using to resize and save the image? Since I am able to reproduce the problem on my system, the artifact is real, it is not in your monitor. I suspect that it is occuring after the resizing when the jpg conversion is done.

 

Jim Phelps

Jim, I used Adobe CS2 (Photoshop 9) on this one.

 

How did you manage to avoid it so well on the one you posted? Mine looks fine at full size, but begins to appear when I start downsizing the file.

 

With the "original" TIFF file, I even have problems--not at full size but as I begin resizing. I do not seem to have the RAW files, which is curious. I have all TIFFs, making me wonder if I shot with JPEGs and converted all to TIFFs. That would certainly not be a path that I would typically take, and so I am puzzled myself as to ultimate origin of these files.

 

I should point out, however, that I have seen these types of artifacts on pics made with the 1Ds II and processed on this computer with this monitor. Grimes Mill was shot using the 5D.

 

This is most curious.

 

--Lannie

 

 

So this image was originally shot in raw and converted to TIF? Do you see the same type of artifact appear when the TIF is downsized, and then "fit on screen" used in photoshop?

 

 

 

Are you saving the image, reopening it, downsizing, then saving, then repeating the process? If so, this is the cause of the problem.

 

Try repeating what I did to get the version I posted, i.e.:

 

Downsize the image in one step, and then convert to B&W.

 

Examine the tracks after each step and determine where the artifacts appear.

 

Jim Phelps

Unfortunately, Jim, I can trace these back no further than TIFFs, which is curious. I have no RAWs on this one, which is curious, too, and so I do not know if the TIFFs were converted from RAWs or JPEGs. If the latter, that would be very strange to do as a batch job--perhaps individually if I liked the shot and intended to do more manipulations with it.

 

I am therefore assuming that I converted RAWs to TIFFs and then tossed the RAWs, but I do not know that.

 

--Lannie

Jim, I just looked at some more recent pics of a friend's son (a concert pianist) made with the 1Ds II, shot in RAW and then converted to TIFFs--my usual workflow. I see the same artifacts upon downsizing.

 

Oh, well, I am sure that you have other things to do, and right now do so I. I will have to let this go for now.

 

Thanks for your time. I really appreciate your help.

 

--Lannie

Since the artifiacts are not in the original TIF, they are being introduced (or at least magnified) by either your computer H/W(improbable) or S/W(much more probable). The idea is to determine where the artifacts are being introduced, the actual resizing or the saving to JPG.

 

Try repeating what I did to get the version I posted, i.e.:

Downsize the image (to 975 pixels on the long side) in one step, and then convert to B&W.

 

Examine the tracks after each step and determine where the artifacts appear.

 

Jim Phelps

Jim, I did exactly as you said and got about what you got. I notice that, if I desat first, there is no difference. It is in the downsizing phase that it occurs. It is simply more pronounced at certain ratios. Even at 975xABC, I see artifacts--just not as intrusive.

 

I didn't follow you on the "H/W" and "S/W."

 

--Lannie

The H/W S/W means is it a hardware issue or a software issue.

 

It is obviously a S/W issue, and looks to be caused by the interpolater that photoshop is using to downsize the image.It appears to be creating an interference pattern. I will look at it more tomorrow.

 

Note that one thing that might help is to work in 16 bits as opposed to 8 bits. Are you using 16 bit TIF's or 8 bit TIF's??

 

Jim Phelps

Jim, I am already using 16 bits in an RGB colorspace. Those have been my default settings for some time now.

 

I appreciate your help very much. One thing that is pretty clear is that I am going to have to get used to doing all the work and saving once. I think that saving more than once was the biggest single factor here. I am not sure if that goes for TIFFs, too, since I routinely have saved TIFFs at various stages with notes in the file name as to what I have done.

 

In the meantime, I have just reworked it again similar to your file, but not quite as nice. I have uploaded it again, but it will likely take some time before it appears.

 

Thanks again, Jim. I really don't know very much after all these years, but I keep learning a bit here and there--typically in between all the other things that I have to do to stay alive.

 

--Lannie

16 bit TIFFs should not have a problem with saving. JPEG's do have a problem because they use a "lossy" compression that loses some data each time they are saved.

 

PS. I suffer from getting old too fast also.

 

Jim Phelps