This Rose of Sharon was in just the right place in my back yard. My wife has a Nikon S8100 P&S camera. I didn’t read up on the camera when I bought for her. Just the other day, I was looking at the specs and a review. This little camera, not only has 12.1 Mpixel sensor, but will focus down to 4.0 inches in macro mode. So, to try out the S8100 in macro mode, I shot this picture about an hour ago at a distance of about 6 inches using the macro mode and auto everything else. I did take the picture into PSP X6 to resize and snuck in a wee bit of Topaz Detail. I boosted the small detail, darkened the blacks, and lightened the shadows, all just slightly. Back in PSP I did a quick slight unsharp mask and called it good. Added a water mark in Faststone Image Viewer and here it is. My main objective was to check out the macro mode on the camera. I think it did a pretty good job. The image is not a show stopper, but certainly not junk. What do you think???
Jeffrey Anderson
(This post was last modified: Aug 13, 2014, 12:34 by pixbyjnjphotos.)
I like it! I am not the expert here, but I would have liked to see just a smidge more on the top of the photo. I am also seeing a white speck on one of the petals on the left side.
I agree with Barbara G...I dunno if the white speck she's referring to is the one at about 9.30 on a clock (which might be a speck of pollen,) or the odd little bluish smudges at about 6 and 8...either way, I don't think they spoil the shot, and could be (probably) easily removed with ps
Thank you both, Barbara G. and Vik, for looking and your comments. I agree that I didn't compose the picture quite right and should have had some greenery at the top of the picture. I went back to the original which also has the petal at the top even with the edge of the picture. I would have to clone a strip in at the top. I enlarged the original 100% and the spec in question is indeed a spec of pollen. It is a bit distracting. Also the deformities on the petals identified by Vik could definitely be repaired. I did very little to this photo in the way of post processing because I was mainly interested in the performance of the camera. IMO, for a $250 P&S, the S8100 performed pretty well. The colors a very very close to actual and the focus is pretty good for the very close range. Thanks again for looking and the comments.
Here is my rework. I added a little to the top, fixed the two imperfections and removed the little bright spot and a couple of others that I deemed bothersome. This is my final image. Thanks for the critiques. I think it has become a little better image with the rework. All my work was accomplished with Paintshop Pro X6 Ultimate with the Topaz Detail plug-in.
Jeffrey Anderson
(This post was last modified: Aug 14, 2014, 23:01 by pixbyjnjphotos.)
(Aug 13, 2014, 12:33)pixbyjnjphotos Wrote: This Rose of Sharon was in just the right place in my back yard. My wife has a Nikon S8100 P&S camera. I didn’t read up on the camera when I bought for her. Just the other day, I was looking at the specs and a review. This little camera, not only has 12.1 Mpixel sensor, but will focus down to 4.0 inches in macro mode. So, to try out the S8100 in macro mode, I shot this picture about an hour ago at a distance of about 6 inches using the macro mode and auto everything else. I did take the picture into PSP X6 to resize and snuck in a wee bit of Topaz Detail. I boosted the small detail, darkened the blacks, and lightened the shadows, all just slightly. Back in PSP I did a quick slight unsharp mask and called it good. Added a water mark in Faststone Image Viewer and here it is. My main objective was to check out the macro mode on the camera. I think it did a pretty good job. The image is not a show stopper, but certainly not junk. What do you think???
I understand why you put such an conspicuous watermark on this, but it doesn't completely erase the date/time on the image.
Wall-E
Valley of the Sun, Arizona
D2Xs, D200's, D100's, LightRoom, CS-CC
2HowardsPhoto.biz
(Aug 20, 2014, 16:15)Wall-E Wrote: I understand why you put such an conspicuous watermark on this, but it doesn't completely erase the date/time on the image.
Wall-E
Thanks for bringing that to my attention. You are very observant. I had already seen that and I have cloned out the time/date stamp on my personal image. I simply ran out of time so I posted the image as it was. Now there is no watermark or time/date stamp on my personal image.
...
