|
Post by vikingken on Nov 29, 2011 17:06:37 GMT
You have got me experimenting on eyeballs now and I constructed these using exactly the same method as the last picture. I tried to make them less hypnotic though.
|
|
|
Post by vikingken on Nov 29, 2011 18:13:00 GMT
Full picture with home made eyes
|
|
|
Post by vikingken on Nov 29, 2011 18:47:46 GMT
Original picture with applied magic and a lot of layers. I think I have found a way of reducing the noise and still keeping it reasonably sharp. They say practice make perfect, so practice on something you like. It might be far from 100%, but remember I'm using PSP Photo Pro and not Photoshop. At least the eyes are blue.
|
|
|
Post by nike on Nov 29, 2011 22:19:48 GMT
The good part about using a RAW image is there is no loss of colour or definition, and you can save all the edits as .jpg files. The more you play with a .jpg, the more detail you lose.
If I remember correctly, Ray just takes his photo's in RAW format, and then edits them from there. With my new camera having two SD slots, I take a picture in both RAW and .jpg. One card has the raw file, and the other the .jpg.I can go into the .jpg files, have a look through them quickly, and pick out the ones I want to edit from the .raw image.
|
|
|
Post by vikingken on Nov 29, 2011 23:53:15 GMT
When I download a picture from the net like that one Kev, I save it as PNG. In fact I save everything as PNG and only reduce them to Jpeg if I need to. PNG allows me to work a picure and produce invisible backgrounds for layering. As you know I take things out and put things in, you cant do that with Jpeg. If you have saved as a Jpeg, you have lost a lot before you convert and the finished product isn't as good. I used group layering on the last picture. If I can master that, I think I can overcome the noise issue. That last picture printed out a treat at A4, so anything smaller would be great.
|
|
|
Post by Filly on Jan 8, 2012 17:21:24 GMT
You cant do as much with a jpeg I dont know if you both shoot in raw, I can see Kev does - your right about png and jpeg mentioned above. I like your latter picture of the child Ken the eyes are much improved.
|
|
|
Post by vikingken on Jan 8, 2012 23:42:08 GMT
Kev uses RAW Ann, but neither of my two small cameras save as anything except Jpeg. Their redeeming virtue is the pictures are monsters and print well even at A3 size. If I want to touch them a bit, I convert them to PNG first. Then at least if I reduce the size, I've retained as much detail as possible. The Xacti is primarily a movie camera, the sound is great and it takes very good stills as well. The Olympus is a still camera and the pictures are sharper, twice the price paid off. It takes pretty good movie clips, although the sound is mediocre.
My old Nikon gives a choice of file formats, but I rarely use it now. Them old digital cameras are heavy on the juice and I'm forever changing the batteries. Its a good job I like the viewfinder, I haven't got enough spare batteries to use the monitor. Picture quality is very sharp for a 5 Mpix camera.
|
|
|
Post by Skhilled on Mar 10, 2012 0:11:06 GMT
How does this look?
|
|
|
Post by nike on Mar 10, 2012 2:07:56 GMT
Not bad, except her skin colour. She looks oriental and she is actually alabaster English.
|
|
|
Post by Skhilled on Mar 10, 2012 7:03:25 GMT
Ooops, I was focusing on the eyes so much I didn't think about that. LOL She is such a cutie!
|
|
|
Post by nike on Mar 10, 2012 7:45:45 GMT
That's it mate. You got it perfect without add-in's too.
|
|
|
Post by Skhilled on Mar 10, 2012 17:58:27 GMT
Lightroom works wonders. It's even better with RAW files.
|
|
|
Post by judymcl on Mar 10, 2012 19:07:33 GMT
Very nice!
|
|
|
Post by vikingken on Mar 10, 2012 19:52:22 GMT
Some friends of mine are using Lightroom. They are on a photography course and I think they got free downloads. I think it will have to at come down by at least by 50% before I get round to buying it.
|
|
|
Post by Skhilled on Mar 13, 2012 13:18:30 GMT
Yes, it is a tad expensive.
|
|