On 8/2/2015 8:23 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-08-02 23:46:14 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/2/2015 7:24 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-08-02 22:57:13 +0000, PeterN said:
On 8/2/2015 5:57 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-08-02 21:16:41 +0000, Eric Stevens
said:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 22:12:08 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

This afternoon we stopped for a snak of roasted corn. This guy loves
corn, and risked becoming the key ingredient in a pot pie. He
happily
posed, hoping I would drop a few kernals. (I did.)


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150801_Orient_0567.jpg


I seem to be standing in for Savageduck. :-)

Why thank you. I will do my best to see that you get your "Savageduck
Proxy" T-shirt.

I hadn't commented as remarks seemed to be heading toward cuisine
rather
than photography.

The image gives the impression that it is printed on velvet - or old
carpet - or something. Whatever. Anyway, I don't like the apparent
texture.

Closer examination shows that in places it carries an oversharpening
halo. The background, and no doubt the foreground, has the appearance
of being viewed through very fine ripple glass.

Yup!
http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fdl.dropboxuserconten t.com%2Fu%2F97242118%2F20150801_Orient_0567.jpg



or
http://tinyurl.com/ozbm6gx


Examination

of the Exif data shows what I suspect may be the main
culprit.

Sharpen Radius +3
Sharpen detail 43
Sharpen edge masking 0

In other words, you have sharpened everything within the body of the
chicken, and it shows.

There is more. Not the least of which is a Vibrance setting at +41.
He has also tried to fix the noise generated by over sharpening by
pushing Color NR to 63 with Color NR Smoothing at 59.
I suspect that Clarity has also been tweaked.

Peter has the Sharpness amount set at 141, when 80-100 would
probably be
best.
Setting the Sharpen radius at +3 is basically maxing it out where
1.3-1.6 is going to do the job and minimize halo.
Adjusting the Sharpen Detail is in most cases unnecessary, but Peter
likes to over-cook sharpening. I usually leave that at the default.

As far as masking goes Peter hasn't used it at all, effectively
applying
the over-cooked sharpening parameters to the entire image. Not a good
move.

I think a lesser Sharpen Radius would help and, particularly, so
would
some Sharpen Edge Masking.

Yup! I suggest something around 98 for amount, 1.3 for radius, and
quite
a bit of masking somewhere around 80-95

In making these comments, I fully accept that you may like it the
way
it is.

I believe, for whatever reason, Peter likes to over-cook Post,
especially sharpening. In this case I suspect what is showing in the
Metadata is only the tip of the iceberg.

Nope. Not this time.

What do you mean not this time?
Just looking at what you did with sharpening in ACR tells a story of
over-cooking post.

Those settings are undeniably too radical, the +3 radius alone is way
too much, 0 masking tells me you just pushed those settings to the max
with no thought of ameliorating anything.

The point in the image is the emphasis on his wattle and ruffled head
feathers. They must be extremely sharp.

That might be your intention. However, you are not going about it
sensibly. More is not better, especially considering that you have
applied those out of whack sharpening settings to the entire image,
rather than masking and sharpening a little more selectively with a
pinch of subtlety.

If I am overdoing it,

Not if, you are over doing it.

when the new monitor arrives, I will make what I deem to be,
appropriate adjustments.

...er, OK.

I do take your comments seriously, but I don't agree with all of them.

Be specific, what in this case do you not agree with?
That the sharpening amount is too high?
(It is)
Point of disagreement.

That you unnecessarily maxed out the sharpening radius?
(You did)

For the image I wanted the radius to be high. Thus the radius was not
necessary. Only maxed out in ACR. The radius can go much higher using a
CC filter.


That you applied the sharpening parameters to the entire image without a
thought to masking?
(...and this you did)

Agreed.


The sharpness of your image should start with the quality of your glass
and accurate focus at capture. At f/13 it should be plenty sharp, and
things actually seem to be in focus.

Although the image was in focus, I preferred the image in part to be
sharper, for emphasis.

You have pretty good Nikkor glass with the 105mm f/2.8. However, once
again you have a TC stuck on it. Tsk, tsk.

Nothing wrong with using the TC, except for the loss in f stops. For my
use, it is worth the almost imperceptible losses to gain the additional
focal length, combined with the ability to use the shorter length.
Please note that the TC does not affect the minimum focusing distance.
This gives me greater than 1:1, if I want it.

--
PeterN