If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Risked a pot pie
On 2015-08-02 22:38:56 +0000, PeterN said:
On 8/2/2015 5:16 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: 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. :-) 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 vey fine ripple glass. 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. I think a lesser Sharpen Radius would help and, particularly, so would some Sharpen Edge Masking. In making these comments, I fully accept that you may like it the way it is. Thank you for commenting. I really appreciate all comments. especially constructive negative ones. The combo I used is extremely sharp. The Nikon 105 Micro with the new APO teleconverter. (I traded in my old 1.7.) The sharpening was all in ACR. I added a levels layer to emphasis the bird, while toning down the background by desaturating the green channel and toning down its luminosity. I slightly blurred the background, with the blur tool, and used a slight blur vignette to emphasise the eyes and waddle. Therefore, the sharpness of the head is emphasized more than it otherwise would be with just a sharpness of 43. BTW Here is a different shot, taken the same day where I used the sun coming through the sunflower's petals, with a strobe to highlight the shadows. I toned down all, or almost all of the specular highlights. I wound up with the monochrome glow. as you can see it is not the stereotypical bug on a flower. (I have not yet decided whether I like it.) https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150801_Orient_0575.jpg You are still not dealing with ACR sharpening and NR rationally. You seem to pushing things to the extreme in the hope of getting the sort of sharpening you favor. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Risked a pot pie
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. If I am overdoing it, when the new monitor arrives, I will make what I deem to be, appropriate adjustments. I do take your comments seriously, but I don't agree with all of them. -- PeterN |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Risked a pot pie
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) That you unnecessarily maxed out the sharpening radius? (You did) That you applied the sharpening parameters to the entire image without a thought to masking? (...and this you did) 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. You have pretty good Nikkor glass with the 105mm f/2.8. However, once again you have a TC stuck on it. Tsk, tsk. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Risked a pot pie
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Risked a pot pie
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 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. 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. 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? 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. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Risked a pot pie
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 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. 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. I prefer that many of my images be highly sharpened, but not my blurs, and many of my abstracts. Not highly sharpened, and still being worked on. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150802_0678.jpg 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. As you know, I have a strong preference to work in Photoshop, and make my adjustments there. 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. I think that images are intended to be taken at face value. Exif analysis is simply a diagnostic tool, not a standard. -- PeterN |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Risked a pot pie
On 8/3/2015 8:56 AM, MC wrote:
I wouldn't bother trying to help him at this point. That's always your call. He posts his images, often inviting constructive criticism (posting alone on a ng like this you are going to get that anyway), yet when you point out even the bleedin' obvious he is in denial he has done anything wrong. We have all gone over with him the same errors in his "enhancement" techniques (be it heavy cropping, shappening etc.) time after time after time yet he still uses the same methods to hide his inefficiencies in the actual mechanics of taking a photograph. The only way he can improve his photography is to dump the post-processing malarky and practice getting it right in-camera, posting the images straight out of camera for critique if he wants "advice" rather than try and attempt to salvage and post the rubbish in the hope we will not notice. It's easy to say "get it right in the camera." That is rarely possible, or practicable, especially with the type of work I like to do. Could you ever get either of these images in the camera? https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/baboon%20%20bliss.jpg https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/swooper.jpg Also, "A bad workman always blames his tools", this time I notice it is his monitor taking the blame. I don't think even you could work on a dead monitor, or even a 14" laptop screen. -- PeterN |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Risked a pot pie
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Risked a pot pie
On 8/3/2015 1:17 PM, Savageduck wrote:
snip ...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. If I only wanted compliments, I would post to Flickr. I have never posted an image on FB, either. You know I expect to be told what others see is wrong. And yes, I do push limits, something i do in life, as well. -- PeterN |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Risked a pot pie
On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 20:13:33 GMT, "MC" wrote:
PeterN wrote: On 8/3/2015 8:56 AM, MC wrote: I wouldn't bother trying to help him at this point. That's always your call. He posts his images, often inviting constructive criticism (posting alone on a ng like this you are going to get that anyway), yet when you point out even the bleedin' obvious he is in denial he has done anything wrong. We have all gone over with him the same errors in his "enhancement" techniques (be it heavy cropping, shappening etc.) time after time after time yet he still uses the same methods to hide his inefficiencies in the actual mechanics of taking a photograph. The only way he can improve his photography is to dump the post-processing malarky and practice getting it right in-camera, posting the images straight out of camera for critique if he wants "advice" rather than try and attempt to salvage and post the rubbish in the hope we will not notice. It's easy to say "get it right in the camera." That is rarely possible, or practicable, especially with the type of work I like to do. Could you ever get either of these images in the camera? https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/baboon%20%20bliss.jpg https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/swooper.jpg Neither example is becoming of a good photographer. They just show just someone who can play about with a computer (first one is rather tacky and horrible, by the way). Trouble is, you need to get the basics right first before you try and be something you are not. Gold is easy to make shiny because you have a naturally shiny sunbstance to begin with. However, no amount of polishing will make **** shiny. Also, "A bad workman always blames his tools", this time I notice it is his monitor taking the blame. I don't think even you could work on a dead monitor, or even a 14" laptop screen. Well then, don't use them. Wait until you have the tools to work properly, not blame your own inadequecies because your tools are broken. What on earth makes you think that your opinion is worth having after a diatribe like that? -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|