![]() Mike Peel ( talk) 12:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC) Reply El Grafo: Also, File:At Barcelona 2019 092.jpg is now a QI, thank you for suggesting it! I'll use it as a ruler to measure other possibilities against. I'll also look into the CA reduction - that's not something I've tried doing before. ![]() I'll have a think about changing lenses - I also have a 10-18mm, example at File:At São Paulo, Brazil 2019 071.jpg (and others in that category), perhaps that fares a bit better. Hth, - El Grafo ( talk) 13:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC) Reply El Grafo: Thanks for the feedback! The 90D is new, so perhaps the extra noise was from my old 60D. So again a) this is much less of an issue for pictures taken on sunny days and b) a better lens may help here. I suspect that it is introduced during post-processing: With a soft lens you'll have to sharpen a lot, and that will amplify any noise. Regarding the noise: with the 90D, you've got a new camera with an excellent sensor, so I'm quite sure the noisiness is not your camera's fault. ![]() I guess that would be my recommended strategy: look at the images you took under bright conditions, check for sharpness, re-edit them in order to get rid of the CA (if Lightroom doesn't cut it, maybe try the "defringe" tool in rawtherapee) and try nominating these. It has some red and green CA along high-contrast edges, but if you can get rid of that (should be easy in Lightroom) I think it would be worth a try at QI. This one taken at f/9, for example, looks pretty good in terms of sharpness. Note that this is much less of an issue on sunny days, though, as you can stop down to f/8 to maybe f/10 where this kind of lens tends to peak in terms of sharpness. The softness and the CA are to be expected from a super-zoom like this – as convenient as they may be, optically most of them are OK at best. The folks over at QI tend to be picky, and from what I've seen, many of your uploads are both noisy and soft (especially the ones taken on overcast days) and suffer from very visible lateral chromatic aberration. Hate to say it, but if you want to produce QI-level photographs consistently and under all conditions, you will probably have to look for alternatives for that 18-300mm lens of yours. Mike Peel ( talk) 18:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Reply In the case of your last picture At_Cagliari,_Sardinia_2019_060, if you whant less noise reduce the iso number or take pictures in raw mode and use software like: Adobe Lightroom o Rawtherapee( free to use) that way you can improve light on your photos, and I recomend You to use a photo editor software like Adobe Photoshop (it requieres to adquire a commercial license) or Gimp( ) that is free to use, regards - Cvmontuy ( talk) 23:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC) Reply Hey Mike, I've had a look at some of your recent uploads. You might also want to read COM:PT for a lot of photography tips. :-) - Cart (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Reply W.carter: Thanks for the pointer, I've moved my question here accordingly. Mike Peel ( talk) 17:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Reply Hi there Mike Peel.The place for such questions, tips and discussions is at Commons:Photography critiques. The Sharpening tool is applied to the full image, before the Resize tool. If anyone's willing, I'd appreciate feedback on whether I should keep trying or not, and if there are any of my recent uploads that might stand a chance of passing. This article describes the tool called 'Sharpening', however RawTherapee contains other tools which can be used to perform various types of sharpening - see Edges and Microcontrast and the Wavelets tools. However, I've had relatively little success in the past ( current count is 6, latest attempt was Commons:Quality_images_candidates/Archives_January_09_2020#File:At_Cagliari,_Sardinia_2019_060.jpg), which makes me reluctant to nominate more in the future. I take a lot of photos for Commons (~40,000 uploaded so far), and I keep thinking I should nominate the best of them for QI status. * GNU General Public License for more details.Hi all. * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY without even the implied warranty of * RawTherapee is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, * the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or ![]() * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by * RawTherapee is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |