reduce noise or sharpen...

[bnnrcn]

Thank you Geoff,I will try that one

I would suspect that Bicubic (smooth gradients) is the one which doesn't automatically add 'enhancements' so that is the one I would try. There has to be a neutral option for doing nothing except resizing; otherwise professionals wouldn't use the software.

[Gigi71]

I like the second

[bnnrcn]

Thank you Brigitte,it looks like an abstract,it came out like this while I was trying to reduce the crispy look of my image after resizing.So,I actually didn't do it intentionally

I like the second

[ajohnw]

I generally post 1200 px wide as I suspect if fits most peoples browser windows. I feel shots like this one can be difficult to do much with unless they are kept at a large size - too big for the web. My wife nagged me to shoot some blue bells in the wood, couldn't see anything to frame so shot and thought I would look at crops. Nothing really works - way too many blue bells for one. Don't want to hijack the thread but will show you what I mean - gosh it even has a leading line



Yes i know a crop of the the right would improve it but still don't like it. I have improved the lighting which I do like. Sharpen on reduction or don't sharpen makes no real difference. Maybe I should have used a soft filter on the lens but I don't think that would work out either.

John
-

[bnnrcn]

Thank you John,I completely agree with you.Photos with so many small details don't work well when downsized.So it is better not to shoot them at all This is the lesson I got out of this thread

I generally post 1200 px wide as I suspect if fits most peoples browser windows. I feel shots like this one can be difficult to do much with unless they are kept at a large size - too big for the web. My wife nagged me to shoot some blue bells in the wood, couldn't see anything to frame so shot and thought I would look at crops. Nothing really works - way too many blue bells for one. Don't want to hijack the thread but will show you what I mean - gosh it even has a leading line



Yes i know a crop of the the right would improve it but still don't like it. I have improved the lighting which I do like. Sharpen on reduction or don't sharpen makes no real difference. Maybe I should have used a soft filter on the lens but I don't think that would work out either.

John
-

[Colin Southern]

Thank you John,I completely agree with you.Photos with so many small details don't work well when downsized.So it is better not to shoot them at all This is the lesson I got out of this thread

Binnur,

Every time you hit the "." key or the "," key, hit the space bar after it!

[ajohnw]

Thank you John,I completely agree with you.Photos with so many small details don't work well when downsized.So it is better not to shoot them at all This is the lesson I got out of this thread

I wouldn't say don't shoot them more appreciate that there can be problems. With a bit of luck I might have been able to crop something out of it. One big problem is that the bluebells in that shot could be anything. The shot looks far more interesting when it's a bit larger than a 27in PC screen.

John
-

[bnnrcn]

It is time consuming Colin.

Binnur,

Every time you hit the "." key or the "," key, hit the space bar after it!

[bnnrcn]

Your shot reminds me Monet's paintings. May be a Monet-like effect can be obtained by editing with some functions of photoshop.I'm not an advanced photoshop user, but I will certainly try it in the future. And then, they can be happly viewed in smaller screens

I wouldn't say don't shoot them more appreciate that there can be problems. With a bit of luck I might have been able to crop something out of it. One big problem is that the bluebells in that shot could be anything. The shot looks far more interesting when it's a bit larger than a 27in PC screen.

John
-

[ajohnw]

You mean like this - not so sure personally.



The light had gone when I was painting the tree trunks in places so had to stop.

John

-

[bnnrcn]

Well it might as well work with more colourful scenes May I ask which function you used to get this effect?

You mean like this - not so sure personally.



The light had gone when I was painting the tree trunks in places so had to stop.

John

-

[Colin Southern]

It is time consuming Colin.

Itsmoretimeconsumingfortherestofustryingtoreadit!

[IzzieK]

ajohnw -- I love your edit...!!!

[bnnrcn]

You are right Colin. I think retirement has made me too relaxed, but I like the members of CIC and I don't want them to suffer

Itsmoretimeconsumingfortherestofustryingtoreadit!

[bnnrcn]

You are right Colin. I think retirement has made me too relaxed, but I like the members of CIC and I don't want them to suffer

Itsmoretimeconsumingfortherestofustryingtoreadit!

[Colin Southern]

You are right Colin. I think retirement has made me too relaxed, but I like the members of CIC and I don't want them to suffer

Yay - you're my new hero

[ajohnw]

Well it might as well work with more colourful scenes May I ask which function you used to get this effect?

I used Fotoxx. It's a jack of all trades for dealing with photo's and has a paint effect. 5 colours and played with the patch size. Then changed the brightness distribution in several ways. It only runs on Linux.

I would have thought google would come up with something for PS. You would need to find one with artist styles though. Another alternative might be the GIMP. I would be surprised if there wasn't something very similar for that.

John
-

[LocalHero1953]

Thank you John,I completely agree with you.Photos with so many small details don't work well when downsized.So it is better not to shoot them at all This is the lesson I got out of this thread

Binnur, I strongly disagree, unless you are only taking photos to post at small size on the web. You can post at large size on the internet (e.g. when you have you're own website), or you can print your photos at large size to put on your wall. Photos with many small details really come into their own then

[ajohnw]

I just use this site if I want to post a large image. It's free but none commercial use and also a fee option to allow more uploads. No nags or anything else from them.

Talking detail this is an example of another problem I had a while ago with macro shots. Beautiful flower life size by eye but nvg much bigger. I was so surprised I checked that it really did look like this with a magnifying glass.

http://www.23hq.com/ajohnw/photo/8345688/original

The links take people to a view that fits in the browser, click on it and it expands to full sized. Perhaps not as nice as a flickr light box but much easier to get at a full res shots.

John
-

[bnnrcn]

Thank you John. Now I have to learn basics of PS because I need them for editing my photos, but I also want to use some special effects for my photos in the future. I have had a look at my photoshop book and I found a section related to painting effects towards the end of the book. I'm only on lesson 5 in the book. So, I when I come to the end of the book, I think I will learn something about these effects too

I used Fotoxx. It's a jack of all trades for dealing with photo's and has a paint effect. 5 colours and played with the patch size. Then changed the brightness distribution in several ways. It only runs on Linux.

I would have thought google would come up with something for PS. You would need to find one with artist styles though. Another alternative might be the GIMP. I would be surprised if there wasn't something very similar for that.

John
-