On 2015-08-03 16:53:46 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/2/2015 9:01 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-08-03 00:44:24 +0000, PeterN said:
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



Exmination

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.

Obviously. Sharpening in ACR or LR is not the same as sharpening with
any of the sharpening tools in the PS Sharpen filter gallery.

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.

Exactly, maxed out in ACR.
You have to think a little differently when using ACR adjustments.

The radius can go much higher using a CC filter.

Sharpening in ACR or LR is not the same as sharpening with any of the
sharpening tools in the PS Sharpen filter gallery.


I look only at the final results.

The evidence of your posted images tells another story.

I prefer that many of my images be highly sharpened,

To the point of ruining the image?

but not my blurs,

Then why sharpen the entire image, rather than selectively, or using masking?

and many of my abstracts.

Who could tell with those?

Not highly sharpened, and still being worked on.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150802_0678.jpg

You have something else going on there.

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

Agreed.

OK! ...but to what purpose?

As I wanted to see the overall image. then the image tells me what to do.

....and you didn't hear the image screaming, "FIX ME!"?

That also defeated your stated intention of emphasizing the "wattle and head".

As you know, I have a strong preference to work in Photoshop, and make
my adjustments there.

So what? All my comments apply equally to adjustments made in
Photoshop, ACR, or Lightroom. You over-cook your post processing,
especially when it comes to shrpening, and your images do not benefit.

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.

Then why apply sharpening to the entire image?

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.

You know how I feel when it comes to TCs. Especially with the crop
leeway you have with the D810.
I don't have that luxury and yet even with some of my severe crops I
seem to be able to get by without a TC.


You seem to have a thing against TCs. I often prefer using one,
especially for macros, and long telephoto work.

TCs have their place, but should not be depended on as you do.

I think that images are intended to be taken at face value.

Unfortunately many of your images do not pass muster on their face
value. Not because of subject, or what in many cases has been a great
and fortutitous capture, but because of what you did to them in post.
Sometimes it has been because of pilot error behind the lens, and
sometimes it has been becuse you pushed the limits of the capability of
your equipment.

Exif analysis is simply a diagnostic tool, not a standard.

....and in that respect it is a useful tool to see why an image appears
the way it does, and what can be done to fix it. You asked for
comments, the image raised some questions, and a look at the EXIF data
helps to make those comments truly constructive. Sometimes the truth is
not what you want to hear, but there it is.

--
Regards,

Savageduck