*** CTF Challenge 77 – Triangles and diagonals ***

[Nugar]

The pictures are:

001.jpg this is the unauthorized original image
002.jpg another picture that I took at the same "session"
003.jpg the poster with curves added

talking about?

I just noticed you had 2 shots of the same bridge?

Which one are we comparing here?

--
Nugar
http://nugar.com/

 

[alexeig]

My youngest daughter, Sarah, whom you've met in Challenge 67,

My daughter does everythidng exactly opposite to what I do. Photography? No way!!!

But, she is a bit younger than yours, so I still have a (very slim) hope

Regards

alexeig

http://www.pbase.com/alexeig

 

[thefly]

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=11814927

--
Lee

~ Be the person your dog thinks you are. ~

http://www.flyfamily.org

 

[SlackJeep]

Ok, i added a bit of contrast on another layer and then brought it to 47% opacity. it's a very subtle change.

here is the original



and the new one



am I on the right track?

--
Dorys
http://www.pbase.com/slackjeep

 

[Gayle159626]

Yep....I like the change, subtle though it is. You've now brought out the wood tones in the fence and added depth to the image by making the lighting on the hills stand out more. Well done (and I don't care what Rod thinks, I like it!)

Gayle

--

'We don't make a photograph with just a camera. We bring to the act of photography all the books we have read, the movies we have seen, the music we have heard and the people we have loved.' Ansel Adams



http://www.shot2shot.com

 

[Nugar]

I agree.

Yep....I like the change, subtle though it is. You've now brought
out the wood tones in the fence and added depth to the image by
making the lighting on the hills stand out more. Well done (and I
don't care what Rod thinks, I like it!)

Gayle

--
'We don't make a photograph with just a camera. We bring to the act
of photography all the books we have read, the movies we have seen,
the music we have heard and the people we have loved.' Ansel Adams



http://www.shot2shot.com

--
Nugar
http://nugar.com/

 

[photocat]

Nugur,
Very sorry to hear about your situation.

I know you recently switched to EOS 20D. 20D has a special feature, it can put a digital code into the picture, which can be uniquely identified. In such a situation, you could run the "stolen" picture through the hardware+software and it will tell you whether it was taken by your camera or not.

I am not sure whether your bridge picture was taken with any such tracking or not, however if you have not turned on this feature on your 20D, I would highly recommand it. I have enabled it for my pictures.

-- Cat.

But surely they can't use a low res shot off the internet. I know
nothing of the fractals program you talk of, could that turn a low
res shot into a printable image of that size? What is the procedure
from your agencies. Do they just sell the image & send the money at
some point, or do they ask you if they can sell it? From what you
say your lawyer will have no problems proving it's yours so all
will end well without you being hesitant posting on the internet.
Regards Rod

--
--Photocat
http://www.pbase.com/photocat

'It is what we think we know already that often prevents us from learning' -- Claud Bernard.

 

[Richard Higgs]

Dorys,

The second photo looks much better.

Don't feel quilty post-processing your images, its what makes the difference between a casual Sunday point and shoot photographer and one who takes their hobby seriously!

Even Ansel Adams post processed all his images in his dark room... Probably to a greater extent than today's photographers using digital software.

No digital camera I have used, including my recent dSLR I bought produces the very best images straight out of the camera.

As a minimum, I would always use USM, levels, local contrast enhancement and selective colour adjustment on any keepers.

IMHO, a person is not really a "digital photographer" unless they use a digital darkroom.

Even when Rod gets his dSLR, he find that his images will require more post-processing than his G2 that does it all for him in-camera

Kind Regards
Richard Higgs
http://www.pbase.com/rhiggs1

See my Profile for Camera & Equipment listing

“Don’t feel you have to take photos of impressive subjects….
Rather, try to take impressive photos of any subject”.

Photography is 50% photographer, 40% light and 10% equipment.

 

[thefly]

... What type of photography does she want to do?

--
Lee

~ Be the person your dog thinks you are. ~

http://www.flyfamily.org

 

[Richard Higgs]

Pops,

As an Aussie, I'm not familiar with those colleges in the US that you mention, however I'm sure they are some of the best.

You must be a very proud dad !

I have 3 kids... a 9, 21 and 22 year old.

My son (22 yrs) is in his final year at the Australian College of Natural Medicine, studying to be a naturopath. I am very proud of him as you are of your daughter, as he won a four year scholarship worth $20,000 to attend this college.

Kind Regards
Richard Higgs
http://www.pbase.com/rhiggs1

See my Profile for Camera & Equipment listing

“Don’t feel you have to take photos of impressive subjects….
Rather, try to take impressive photos of any subject”.

Photography is 50% photographer, 40% light and 10% equipment.

 

[thefly]

This gallery is really great.

http://www.dpchallenge.com/challenge_results.php?CHALLENGE_ID=315

--
Lee

~ Be the person your dog thinks you are. ~

http://www.flyfamily.org

 

[lonnit]

This gallery is really great.

http://www.dpchallenge.com/challenge_results.php?CHALLENGE_ID=315

--
Lee

~ Be the person your dog thinks you are. ~

http://www.flyfamily.org

--
Please visit my gallery at http://pbase.com/lonnit

and offer your comments. Tell me what you like and what you don't, and why. I welcome all opinions. Then vote for your favorites!

 

[PhotoNUT]

Oh ya, it works, 2nd image is great!!

Ok, i added a bit of contrast on another layer and then brought it
to 47% opacity. it's a very subtle change.

here is the original



and the new one



am I on the right track?

--
Dorys
http://www.pbase.com/slackjeep

 

[Nugar]

Hi Cat,

No that image was taken with the G3.

Best regards,

Humberto

I know you recently switched to EOS 20D. 20D has a special
feature, it can put a digital code into the picture, which can be
uniquely identified. In such a situation, you could run the
"stolen" picture through the hardware+software and it will tell you
whether it was taken by your camera or not.

I am not sure whether your bridge picture was taken with any such
tracking or not, however if you have not turned on this feature on
your 20D, I would highly recommand it. I have enabled it for my
pictures.

-- Cat.

But surely they can't use a low res shot off the internet. I know
nothing of the fractals program you talk of, could that turn a low
res shot into a printable image of that size? What is the procedure
from your agencies. Do they just sell the image & send the money at
some point, or do they ask you if they can sell it? From what you
say your lawyer will have no problems proving it's yours so all
will end well without you being hesitant posting on the internet.
Regards Rod

--
--Photocat
http://www.pbase.com/photocat
'It is what we think we know already that often prevents us from
learning' -- Claud Bernard.

--
Nugar
http://nugar.com/

 

[PhotoNUT]

and if someone in a foreign country took and used one of your photos, what would you do?

I know you recently switched to EOS 20D. 20D has a special
feature, it can put a digital code into the picture, which can be
uniquely identified. In such a situation, you could run the
"stolen" picture through the hardware+software and it will tell you
whether it was taken by your camera or not.

I am not sure whether your bridge picture was taken with any such
tracking or not, however if you have not turned on this feature on
your 20D, I would highly recommand it. I have enabled it for my
pictures.

-- Cat.

But surely they can't use a low res shot off the internet. I know
nothing of the fractals program you talk of, could that turn a low
res shot into a printable image of that size? What is the procedure
from your agencies. Do they just sell the image & send the money at
some point, or do they ask you if they can sell it? From what you
say your lawyer will have no problems proving it's yours so all
will end well without you being hesitant posting on the internet.
Regards Rod

--
--Photocat
http://www.pbase.com/photocat
'It is what we think we know already that often prevents us from
learning' -- Claud Bernard.

 

[PhotoNUT]

Okay, I see the similarity now, BUT I still cant see that tiny photo enlarged and still look that good.

Let us know what happens.

good luck.

: )

Please re-read my post. 001 and 003 are the ones that are the same.
002 is the one that is not the same.

On 001 and 003 the rotation of the starbursts is identical and the
quantity of rays on each light source is the same. It shouldn't be
the same unless the other photographer used a G3 to take his/her
photo too.

002 is a third photo that I took and it can clearly be seen that
even same photographer, same place, same time the bursts are not
the same.

As I already noted,003 is a photo of the photo and with an acrylic
cover over it, so it reflects extra light and I may have not placed
my camera exactly parallel to the poster.

Look at the star burst from the lights, they don't match (the
rotation of the burst).

I used my photo explorer program I switched back and forth quickly
the photos and I can’t match up the star burst, beams out are not
at the same angles.

Try to Overlay the image in Photoshop. IMO, these are two
different photos.

Another thing I still** can’t see that tiny photo enlarged that
big and still look good.

If you are concerned about theft of your photos, design a SIMPLE
PROFESSIONAL watermark and insert it into the photo. I would make
it just enough visible that the photo could not be used in
publication, yet not so bold that it wrecks the photo. Remember,
I’m not an expert in these field, its up to you.

Ok guys (and gals),

I have uploaded three new pictures for comparison. The pictures are
at the same location:

My points:

1. 001.jpg and 002.jpg, shot by the same photographer with minutes
of difference are clearly different. Look for the star patterns,
which are almost like fingerprints

2. Bear in mind that there is an acrylic screen in front of the
poster 003.jpg that has some reflections of the street behind me at
the time I took it.

3. The poster may have been skewed a little, since they don't
exactly match or it may be a paralax (sp?) difference due to how I
took

Opinions?

--
Nugar
http://nugar.com/

--
Nugar
http://nugar.com/

 

[PhotoNUT]

when its printed, how are you going to tell???

I know you recently switched to EOS 20D. 20D has a special
feature, it can put a digital code into the picture, which can be
uniquely identified. In such a situation, you could run the
"stolen" picture through the hardware+software and it will tell you
whether it was taken by your camera or not.

I am not sure whether your bridge picture was taken with any such
tracking or not, however if you have not turned on this feature on
your 20D, I would highly recommand it. I have enabled it for my
pictures.

-- Cat.

 

[rodbam]

My daughter does everythidng exactly opposite to what I do.
Photography? No way!!!

It's the differences that make us interesting, not always the similarities
Alexeig.

But, she is a bit younger than yours, so I still have a (very slim)
hope

Pops may be an exemplary father but the academic achievements of his offspring have nothing whatsoever to do with good parent bad parent. Upbringing only contributes around 10% to how the kids turn out. Blame or praise the genes for how they turn out. 25% yours 25% your wife's the rest from the grandparents etc. My biggest pride in my kids comes from them being caring & pleasant adults. The achievement each of them makes is pleasant for me to hear about but irrelevant to my love & so called pride.
Regards Rod

 

[photocat]

Thanks Lee
That was really nice of you. Thanks for all your comments too.
-- Photocat

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=11814927

--
Lee

~ Be the person your dog thinks you are. ~

http://www.flyfamily.org

--
--Photocat
http://www.pbase.com/photocat

'It is what we think we know already that often prevents us from learning' -- Claud Bernard.

 

[rodbam]

Dorys,

The second photo looks much better.

I dissagree it's now a technicolour yawn. The original had a special quality not often seen here...For example MOOD.

Don't feel quilty post-processing your images, its what makes the
difference between a casual Sunday point and shoot photographer and
one who takes their hobby seriously!

The question isn't whether to post process or not, Dorys already post processed her shot, the question is does it need more processing as Gayle amm & Alexeig suggested.

Even Ansel Adams post processed all his images in his dark room...
Probably to a greater extent than today's photographers using
digital software.

Yes he processed them to where he exactly wanted the shot to look like. Be nice if we had his ability.

No digital camera I have used, including my recent dSLR I bought
produces the very best images straight out of the camera.

On this we all agree, that's why we all post process. Doesn't mean every shot has to look like a technicolour yawn does it?

As a minimum, I would always use USM, levels, local contrast
enhancement and selective colour adjustment on any keepers.

Mostly agree.

IMHO, a person is not really a "digital photographer" unless they
use a digital darkroom.

Agree again.

Even when Rod gets his dSLR, he find that his images will require
more post-processing than his G2 that does it all for him in-camera

I don't think i will do any more to me shots as all me G2 shots are too overprocessed now in me bid to win a challenge
Regards Rod