'Growing Better With Time'

This photo was posted long ago after its taking in 2007 in a dimly lit,

historic and famous restaurant in Paris and long was a favorite of mine

but was one I considered 'ruined; because of camera shake due to a very

long exposure under the dim light. Recently with Adobe Creative Cloud,

Adobe Photoshop introduced 'shake reduction' under 'sharpening.. This

is a test of the previous, reduced post and has artifacts and pixellation

which will be removed when the original file is found and processed with

'shake reduction' but if you compare with the original,posting this shows

the vast improvement over the original (found far, far down in my very

large portfolio under the folder 'Worth Looking At' but never regarded as

worthy of being rated. Please consider this is an intermediate work with

pixellation that will disappear when the original capture is found and

processed and to show how serious 'shake reduction can be at rescuing

a promising but ''ruined' photo. Your ratings, critiques and observations

are invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly, very critically, or wish

to make a remark, please submit a helpful and constructive comment;

please share your photographic knowledge to help improve my

photography. Thanks! Enjoy! john (Yes, I know about the artifacts

which in the next step will disappear. jc)

It may take a while for the original posted image to work its way through PN's at least three servers.

 

The first uploaded image was overly processed by being run through 'shake reduction' two times, and I decided to replace the image with one with 'shake reduction' used only once at 'default' settings to reduce the pixellation that the prior version showed, although despite the pixellation it looked quite, quite sharp.

 

In the end, the artifacts and pixellation were just too bothersome, hence the image replacement.

 

I felt a sense of loss that this photo was 'ruined' because it was taken in 2007 indoors with a D2X Nikon in conditions in which a D3200 nowadays could handle with ease with the same lens, a 12~24 mm f 4.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

encontro a foto bem interessante...a margem da questão técnica, abraços e um bom fim de ano.

I'd be interested in seeing the original version. The processing to "fix" the problems added some odd and distracting artifacts. I can often accept noise and all sorts of imperfections as aesthetic elements, but this one just doesn't work for me. Perhaps the original blurred version didn't really need to be fixed in that way, but I'd like to see it out of curiosity.

Believe me, the original version of this could not be posted for comment; it was posted early on as 'noteworthy' but not something that was up to standard because it was incredibly 'soft'.

 

You are right about the 'artifacts', but I'm not sure which version you are seeing - the one I uploaded first with terrible artifacts or the revised version which I replaced it with, which had been 'enhanced' with 'shake reduction' only once,, not twice.

 

I'm equally upset with the artifacts but this is from the 'bad' upload at 72 dpi uploaded previously and downloaded on a whim just to 'try out', and I was amazed that it actually was viewable.

 

It may take months to search the 1200 or so downloads that occupy so many hard drives that I cannot count them, so don't go looking for a workup from the original version soon, but when I come across it, it will come.  I've been trying out 'shake reduction', and it does have 'artifact suppression' that works, but it does leave weird artifacts if not controlled carefully.

 

I'll be interested how the next step works out; your feedback is welcome, but I hope it's not the final word.  If it is, however, I'll accept a final verdict but only when I've found the original and worked on it to the end result.

 

Your comments and feedback are always welcome.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

With all due respect, what is the point? Even with the title I have no clue.

Meir, can we then call you clueless?

 

You seem so acute on nearly everything else and so erudite too.

 

Now you're clueless?

 

Hmmmmm. . . .

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

You are right about weighing the 'interesting photo' against the technique.  Thanks for a very interesting comment.

 

I am grateful.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)