How do I make my photos look like this?

[bob345]

36 minutes ago, .spider. said:

Run a Photoshop action 120 times. 

Maybe it is not the methodology could be your limited knowledge about scaling, thought about that?

yeah, and for some reason you think it is possible to scale down the same image to a set resolution 120 times. Doesn't seem like i am the one with "limited knowledge" here. Like i said before, when you scale down an image you are effectively super sampling it. If what you said where true, processes like anti aliasing or sharpening filters would not be possible because they all operate on the same fundamental principle of averaging the values of surrounding pixles. Why would nvidia dsr exist if down scaling an image hurt quality? Give me some proof other than a video about youtube compression and a flawed test and then you will have a point to argue.

[ShadowCaptain]

11 hours ago, bob345 said:

SNIP

Yep you are right, and there are plenty of in depth explanations online too, found this one for example

https://photographylife.com/why-downsampling-an-image-reduces-noise

Obviously it only really improves the "percieved" sharpness when viewed on a display, and if somebody zoomed in, the image would look worse than the full resolution sample as it would be lower resolution,


Dont forget, if you view a 38mp image on your screen, it uses a downsampling algorithm to display the image in the sharpest way, different browsers, websites, apps etc use different algorithms to display the image

if you want the sharpest image onscreen for all viewers, you should downscale to an appropriate resolution to avoid scaling as much as possible, that means there is no interpolation or downsampling done to your image

(did that make sense) 

[.spider.]

7 hours ago, ShadowCaptain said:

Yep you are right, and there are plenty of in depth explanations online too, found this one for example
 

No he is not

 

7 hours ago, ShadowCaptain said:

https://photographylife.com/why-downsampling-an-image-reduces-noise
 

This article is not about generational scaling

 

7 hours ago, ShadowCaptain said:

Obviously it only really improves the "percieved" sharpness when viewed on a display, and if somebody zoomed in, the image would look worse than the full resolution sample as it would be lower resolution,

It improves the percieved sharpness because of the kernel's overshot and averaging noise

7 hours ago, ShadowCaptain said:

Dont forget, if you view a 38mp image on your screen, it uses a downsampling algorithm to display the image in the sharpest way, different browsers, websites, apps etc use different algorithms to display the image

if you want the sharpest image onscreen for all viewers, you should downscale to an appropriate resolution to avoid scaling as much as possible, that means there is no interpolation or downsampling done to your image

 

It is important to do it in one iteration, where as this post recommends 

 

On 21.5.2016 at 1:55 PM, ALwin said:

 24MP is 6000x4000, try reducing the image size to half of that on the final export.

 

to scale an image from 4000px hight -> 2828px -> 1080px (eg full HD screen)

 

It makes sense if you write "24MP is 6000x4000, try reducing the image to the native resolution of your monitor"

[.spider.]

18 hours ago, bob345 said:

yeah, and for some reason you think it is possible to scale down the same image to a set resolution 120 times. Doesn't seem like i am the one with "limited knowledge" here. Like i said before, when you scale down an image you are effectively super sampling it. If what you said where true, processes like anti aliasing or sharpening filters would not be possible because they all operate on the same fundamental principle of averaging the values of surrounding pixles. Why would nvidia dsr exist if down scaling an image hurt quality? Give me some proof other than a video about youtube compression and a flawed test and then you will have a point to argue.

Oh I did not know that nvidia dsr is doing generational scaling.

Oh and wait did you ever hear about the nyquist-shannon sampling theorem? 

 

[ShadowCaptain]

6 minutes ago, .spider. said:

 

It makes sense if you write "24MP is 6000x4000, try reducing the image to the native resolution of your monitor"

yeah ok, that would be a way to explain it

like to avoid a web browser from incorrectly messing with the image its best to downscale the image to view at the monitors native resolution, to avoid any incorrect compression/downscaling algorithms

 

Whoever said supersampling AA, this is actually kind of the opposite, as you are removing information to make it appear sharper, not upscaling a photo to show it at a lower resolution  

[byalexandr]

Talk about thread derailing

[ALwin]

1 hour ago, byalexandr said:

Talk about thread derailing

Yeah.

 

Some person are just too anal retentive for their own good.

 

@byalexandr

Long story short:

 

If you want to make your high ISO noisy images appear less noisy after you finish all the editing and are ready to export (for printing, for attaching to an email or to publish online somewhere), one method is to reduce the size from the original.  It doesn't matter if you make it 10%, 50% or 99% smaller, as long as the exported size is what you are comfortable using.  You don't necessarily need to export it to the exact resolution of a 1080p monitor or a postcard.

 

The biggest reason you should or want to export to an exact resolution and perhaps pixel density is for the sake of preventing someone else from using your work for their profit.  For example, you are a professional photographer who wants to publish one free image a month that people can download and use as a wallpaper on their computer.  Instead of sharing the original resolution of the image, you create (again I repeat for example) a 1920x1080, 1900x1200, etc. versions for common computer monitor resolutions.  This way you prevent someone from being able to take an original 24MP or whatever image size and trying to profit off your work.  It doesn't necessarily mean that they cannot profit off the highest resolution version they can download, it just gives them fewer opportunities.

 

(Keep in mind photo cameras often use a 3:2 aspect ratio sensor while most modern computer displays use a 16:9 or 21:9 aspect ratio, so when you reduce the size of a high MP image to a screen resolution you also need to change the aspect ratio or you risk distorting the image.)

 

Another reason is for the sake of optimizing files for websites.  If your website uses thumbnail images that are 150px by 100px, you should avoid using 1500x1000px images and having the HTML width/height attribute resize the image for you.  One or two images might not matter, but when you have hundreds to thousands of images, that adds up to several megabytes or more of file storage space you can save and site load times for the visitors.

 

When printing, a 24MP image is more than enough for a large billboard.  So if you want to take a 24MP image and print out a postcard sized image, you're already losing a lot of details with the print because the paper you are printing on is very small.  So there's no point arguing about whether you need to resize the image before you print onto that small piece of paper or let Photoshop handle the image scaling for you.

[.spider.]

1 hour ago, ALwin said:

 

If you want to make your high ISO noisy images appear less noisy after you finish all the editing and are ready to export (for printing, for attaching to an email or to publish online somewhere), one method is to reduce the size from the original.  It doesn't matter if you make it 10%, 50% or 99% smaller, as long as the exported size is what you are comfortable using.  You don't necessarily need to export it to the exact resolution of a 1080p monitor or a postcard.

 

 

Just export it in full res the image viewer will scale it anyways. 

The scaling to to lets say 50% will just reduce the image quality while just the final scaling to the monitor's resolution is really necessary and would reduce the noise in the same amount. 

 

 

Oh wait we already discussed about that here but some persons are not be able to understand what's basic knowledge even for amateurs. 

[bob345]

49 minutes ago, .spider. said:

Oh wait we already discussed about that here but some persons are not be able to understand what's basic knowledge even for amateurs. 

And some people for some reason go around thinking they know what they are talking about throwing around buzzwords they saw on a google search to make themselves sound smarter when in reality haven't the slightest clue about what they are talking about.  You still have yet to provide any valid proof of your claim.

[ALwin]

11 minutes ago, bob345 said:

snip

Account settings > (look on the right side of screen) Ignored Users > type in user's name and voila!

[.spider.]

On 23.5.2016 at 7:47 PM, .spider. said:

It is pretty much like this

 

 

 

Scaled the image in 120 iterations from 5170*3447px to 1321*882px

 

Scaled the image in 1 iteration from 5170*3447px to 1321*881px

 

It is clearly visible that every single scaling process (at least for odd scaling factors like sqrt(2) or 98.87%) process worsens the image quality.  

Here I did but you are not even be able to explain why it is not valid. 

1 hour ago, bob345 said:

And some people for some reason go around thinking they know what they are talking about throwing around buzzwords they saw on a google search to make themselves sound smarter when in reality haven't the slightest clue about what they are talking about.  You still have yet to provide any valid proof of your claim.

 

[.spider.]

1 hour ago, ALwin said:

Account settings > (look on the right side of screen) Ignored Users > type in user's name and voila!

It is much easier just hover over the user's nick name and the option will appear. 

BTW: It is an excellent idea.