Hi Paul the picture does n o t look fine at the presented size here, I did not enlarge it to see the artifacts. The noise removal on the skin is ugly at first sight for me and easy to see. I really think that we just have discovered that some people on the list seem to like or accept a certain amount of "air brushing". We had that before with the photo of "witch women", a heavily overdone portrait of a young woman which one prominent member qualified as "Well done".
What do you think? greetings Markus >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 5:56 PM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: Re: Peso: A recent portrait >> >> >>I've been wondering the same thing. It's a ten inch tall >>(approximately) 72 dpi image. Viewed as presented, it looks fine. >>If it's blown up to say 200%, it becomes effectively a 36 dpi >>image. Artifacts will appear at that level of pixelization that >>may not be present in the hi-res image. I firmly believe that >>it's impossible to determine image quality from anything that >>small. In my opinion, all one can really derive from web images >>is an overall judgement of composition, color and framing. >>Paul >> >> >>> Shel Belinkoff wrote: >>> > Bill, there are lots of artifacts around the lower tip of the >>nose, around >>> > the nostrils, Likewise where the ear meats the face, around the eyes >>> > (eyelashes). There's a blurred area where the boy's shirt >>collar blends >>> > into the skin of his neck (in the front of the shirt), and lots of >>> > artifacts along and around the collar of the shirt up near both his >>> > shoulders. The area around his lips shows the same problem, >>as well as a >>> > slight blurring where the red of the lips runs into the paler >>skin. There >>> > are many more such areas throughout the photo ... I was about >>to send you >>> > an off list mail about this, but since Markus brought it up >>I'll just join >>> > him and confirm his observations. I'm surprised no one else >>has seen these >>> > problems or that they've chosen not to mention them. >>> > >>> > Shel >>> >>> What do you do? Blow them up to 12 X 16" or something? >>> IOW, how is it you examine these jpegs? >>> >>> keith >>> >>
