The examples appear to show that the content aware fill is just creating the content by cloning the remaining area (watch the rocky beach foreground) - i.e. copy/paste.
Is it my imagination or is it correct that the dynamic range in the RAW files is not very wide? They seem to have blown highlights and plugged shadows in some of the concert shots.
Roland Karlsson: Nice, but I would not call it creative. It is a very common trick.
I originally thought the photo was going to be disqualified.
I tried a few diferent things...this was lighter fluid.
tbcass: So far the only one that qualifies. It may win by default.
@tbcass - this is definitely not the only one that qualifies.
oilpiers: I got disqualified for reportedly not using the sample image. I used it, just changed the orientation, which is something you can do in post processing. I was not allowed to respond to the message, so I am posting it here.
The orientation of #16 was changed - or was your change of orientation quite different?
After seeing the winning images I withdrew mine in quiet protest. Never done that for a challenge before but felt that was the only way to protest how this specific challenge was handled.
Really? "God beams" without an atmosphere and with the "light" coming from the wrong direction?
How does this exsample "bring out the detail of the moon surface"? It's a mess.
Noise is not detail!
So much detail lost in this one.
Hmmm...let's see, the rule states: "Showcase your post processing skill in bringing out the detail of the moon surface." The winning shot seems to have clearly brought out all the jpeg artifacts that apparently cover the Moon's surface. Amazing.
darngooddesign: It would be great to see a comparison between this and B&W images from a color M. Take the same photos with either camera; it would help illustrate the benefits of a dedicated b&w sensor..
Yes, because looking at the studio shot comparison - the jpeg images look soft and lacked detail compared with the color shot. Not impressive at all.BTW I looked at the B&W Civil Warish fellow and compared it with the Sony a57 and a77ii (just because that's what I use).
Gee, already 26 people say that they've "had it." Maybe they have a different meaning for the term "had it."
huyzer: There is a LOT of blocking in areas where there isn't detail. The gradations aren't as detailed, but blocky, in those areas of limited color range that are just an expanse of similar colors.
1) Open both images for the brussel sprouts(?) at 100%.2) Go to the upper right corner so that the images align easily.3) Flip back and forth between the two.
You will notice blocking of the color; and the detail/noise, gone.Especially easy to see in the darker leaf.
For me, I wouldn't want to lose that much information for savings in size.
Flipping between the two images is a perfectly valid way to see where any differences may be.If you evaluate by just looking at one image and it's JPEGmini version, yes, you may not see a difference. But that, in part, is because humans have a very poor memory for image content when doing that kind of comparison. I would argue that pretty much any JPEG compression except for the most intense will not result in an image that is perceptually different than the original if you just evaluate by looking at the full original image and then looking at the compressed version. So, there's no special value to adding an extra step, and cost, to the workflow.
On the contrary, Huyzer used a very valid comparison method to isolate where differences, if any, are located and how they compare to the original.
Just tried the Brussel sprouts shot. Saving the original with PShop at a setting of 7 gave basically the same image size as the JPEGmini - but the PShop jpeg image had fewer artefacts. I.e. PShop did a better compression job - i.e. fewer artefacts - than jJPEGmini did for the same final file size.
So, at least for that image, JPEGmini wasn't performing as claimed. The claims need to be properly tested in a studio with imagery that will show the difference clearly.
ProfHankD: Much more interesting with wifi. Still a bit pricey.
The video quality of the Cube is outstanding especially considering its price point.