Proud Father

[jiro]

I saw this friend of mine taking pictures of his kid getting some medals at a school program. I thought it would be a good subject to photograph so I immediately look for something middle gray in tone and metered it to get the exposure.



As a side question, this image was resized to 700pixels on the larger dimension and then sharpened inside photoshop. When I uploaded it here, I lost all the sharpness. Seems a bit odd to me because I've been uploading before and I did not lose any sharpness by this much. You can click here to see the original uploaded image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/willieb...1805/lightbox/

---------
Nikon D70, 18-70mm lens set at 18mm, Exposure at f3.5 at 1/30 of a second handheld in Manual Mode, Weird lighting all throughout the room that is why I converted to B&W. Post processed using Silver Efex Pro and Photoshop.

[Captured]

good capture, Willie. BW adds to the effect of a memorable moment.

[jiro]

good capture, Willie. BW adds to the effect of a memorable moment.

Thanks, Krisz. The colored version has weird lighting so off it goes to Silver Efex for processing to b&w.

[jeffmoll]

Very nice, Jiro! I love the composition. My eye wants the rest of his shoe to be there, but that's my only criticism.

[jiro]

Very nice, Jiro! I love the composition. My eye wants the rest of his shoe to be there, but that's my only criticism.

I agree with you, Jeff. If I would have a next time I'll try to make his foot complete. The moment was really very fleeting. In a matter of a second after I pressed the shutter, somebody bumped me at the back! We had about 200 parents inside that small cafeteria. Thanks for viewing, Jeff.

[jeeperman]

Nice capture Jiro, way to be at the ready! Also, must say I like the compositon here. So many would have missed the ceiling.

[ilovelucydog]

Nice image, Jiro. I like the black and white. If Paul hadn't mentioned it, I still would have missed the ceiling.

[jiro]

Thanks, Paul and Mary. The school cafeteria has a small stage (the one in front of the picture). The actual ceiling is way higher than this one and is filled with pipes and HVAC duct works. I think the 18mm field of view of the lens prevented me from getting the higher ceiling in the frame.

[jeeperman]

I was simply happy to see that you included the one you had. I like it. I see many shots like this were they frame to the top of the wall. This is far mor interesting. Nice work jiro.

[jiro]

Thanks, Paul.

[jiro]

Here are the 2 lovely kids of this proud father. He's not too confident in his photography skills so he asked me if I can take a quick snapshot of his two lovely kids. I really like the way the young daughter smiled and placed herself close to her brother in a snap. I'll be giving a copy of this in an 8" x 10" size to him this Sunday.

[ilovelucydog]

That's a great picture. What beautiful kids.

[jeeperman]

Nice shot Jiro, he will be happy.

[jiro]

He haven't seen this yet, Paul. I bet he'd really be happy. I'll be giving him some of my photography books so he can start reading and learn more. I can sense from his enthusiasm that he really wants to learn how to take good pictures but can't seem to know where to start. By the way, his camera is the new Pentax model! I'm envious. LOL! Just kidding.

[Dave Humphries]

As a side question, this image was resized to 700pixels on the larger dimension and then sharpened inside photoshop. When I uploaded it here, I lost all the sharpness. Seems a bit odd to me because I've been uploading before and I did not lose any sharpness by this much. You can click here to see the original uploaded image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/willieb...1805/lightbox/

Hi Willie,

When I look at the image here, I see the 640 pixel size (maybe you swapped that out later?).

When I look at the "Large" (original) on Flickr, it is 729 pixels on longest side - I suspect you added the border after the downsize to 700, thus, as far as CiC is concerned, the image is 729 x 491 and so it gets resized again to 700, causing the loss of sharpness.

Mystery solved I think,

For a non-vignetted image of a busy scene, great composition has at least made the subjects stand out.
A tough subject, well done,

[jiro]

Hi Willie,

When I look at the image here, I see the 640 pixel size (maybe you swapped that out later?).

When I look at the "Large" (original) on Flickr, it is 729 pixels on longest side - I suspect you added the border after the downsize to 700, thus, as far as CiC is concerned, the image is 729 x 491 and so it gets resized again to 700, causing the loss of sharpness.

Mystery solved I think,

For a non-vignetted image of a busy scene, great composition has at least made the subjects stand out.
A tough subject, well done,

Probably so, Dave. I had to remember my old method of resizing to find out what happened. From the RAW data, I convert it to Jpeg then after the post-processing I downsized the finished image to about 1056pixels on the largest dimension. Then upload the resized image to Flickr and picked the 640pixels option on the size menu. Yeah, I think what messed up the sharpness issue was that I added the borders AFTER I resized the image to 700pixels. I should have resized the entire image with the border to 700X and then applied the sharpening. I'll probably try that process on my next post. Thanks for the clarification, Dave.

I'm quite happy with this kit lens from Nikon, It doesn't seem to show any vignetting even at the widest setting and at the largest aperture available. I wish I could buy a Tokina 10-17mm soon. Too many nice lenses to drool upon.

[Dave Humphries]

Probably so, Dave. I had to remember my old method of resizing to find out what happened. From the RAW data, I convert it to Jpeg then after the post-processing I downsized the finished image to about 1056pixels on the largest dimension. Then upload the resized image to Flickr and picked the 640pixels option on the size menu. Yeah, I think what messed up the sharpness issue was that I added the borders AFTER I resized the image to 700pixels. I should have resized the entire image with the border to 700X and then applied the sharpening. I'll probably try that process on my next post. Thanks for the clarification, Dave.

Hi Willie,

Personally I would do the following (maybe this is what you meant anyway) if I wanted two pictures...

After editing, cropping, framing/bordering, et al, the image is say; 3,907 x 2,876 pixels.
If I want 1000 and 700 pixel sizes;
Downsize, Sharpen, Save As (with "_1000.jpg" suffix on filename)
Undo, Undo (gets us back to where we were at 3,907 x 2,876 pixels)
Downsize, Sharpen, Save As (with "_700.jpg" suffix on filename)
If I decide I want a printable version ...
Undo, Undo (gets us back to where we were at 3,907 x 2,876 pixels)
Sharpen, Save As (with "_fs", or no, suffix on filename) .jpg

I wouldn't 'daisychain' the downsizings, as I'm sure that would adversely impact sharpenss too.
The above based on the way Elements/PS works, i.e. the Save As isn't a processing step as such, thus the double Undo's are undoing the sharpen and downsize steps.

Cheers,

[Katy Noelle]

Here are the 2 lovely kids of this proud father. He's not too confident in his photography skills so he asked me if I can take a quick snapshot of his two lovely kids. I really like the way the young daughter smiled and placed herself close to her brother in a snap. I'll be giving a copy of this in an 8" x 10" size to him this Sunday.

They're precious! I'm not going to take either of these photos for granted. They're clearly and beautifully (and sweetly) captured moments.

[jiro]

Thank you, Katy.

[jiro]

That's a great picture. What beautiful kids.

Thank you, Mary. I agree, they're really adorable kids, and smart, too!