11-6-2011 Weekly landscape show and tell.

[Ben_Egbert]

The original version is better. The water was darker and the reflections were clearer. The mountains were lighter and actually appear to stand out more clearly in the original. The same for the trees - lighter and stand out better in the original version. The second version also seems to have some sort of blurring on the trees on the right side. Maybe this has to do with the change in lighting. Your must be blending, burning or dodging and these steps may cause some minor degradation. Sharpening on the midground grasses really does not seem much different. I would not try to remove what appears to be white speckles due to way the dead grasses are reflecting light. The "oversharpening" appearance immediately goes away when you view downsized or if you printed this.

I appreaciate your detailed reply. The big issue with digital images is the really lousy appearance of the raws. No matter how sharp or well exposed they are, they need so much work that you never know when to stop.

You are correct, the image is pretty good as is, but I would hesitate to show the raw because if is so flat and dull. I would have no idea what minimal processing is, the choices are infinite.

It seems you are spending a great deal of time trying to reach unattainable perfection. I wonder if all the effort is really making any substantial improvement. Would you consider posting a control image with virtually no processing except for minimal universal adjustments in saturation, contrast and sharpening? I would really be willing to bet you started with a great image and are not making any substantial improvements. Also when I spend a great deal of time on PP I cannot help but wonder what happens if I print the image. Even with a best printers and color management tools, prints always seem to require processing which is different than what is preferred for monitor viewing.
--

I did spend a lot of time on this image, It was my only keeper from this trip to the Tetons and it will be my last and I knew it. I suppose I was just trying to salvage the tirp.

I did learn something with this redo, that I could add a curve to just the mountain and later, I did one for the reflection as well. That means I could do the same to the original posting. But the sharpening of the grass cannot be undone which is why I started over.

I always process for print, and show the same image on the WEB. I make one image, send the full size to SmugMug as a jpg for web and save the same image as a TIFF for print. I downsize one more to fit my monitor and save it as a screensaver.

I refuse to do special processing for the web other than to dumb down the image to an 8 bit sRGB jpg. For one thing, no two web viewers have the same monitor or cal or image size.

Jim, AKA camperjim, formerly from liny, Long Island New York

--
When you can't focus, nothing else matters
Once you can, everything else does.

http://ben-egbert.smugmug.com/

Ben

 

[Ben_Egbert]

You got some great color there Andy. The first and last are best in my opinion.
--
When you can't focus, nothing else matters
Once you can, everything else does.

http://ben-egbert.smugmug.com/

Ben

 

[Rick Knepper]

You and I have discussed this before. Fine detail such as grasses bare branches in the mid-ground get blurred no matter what one tries. You might consider resizing to the desired dimensions before you leave the RAW converter aznd see of that helps. Would rule out jpeg artifacts.

I upload full size to SmugMug and they do the resizing and sharpening which I can control. I think its as good as I have seen for web resizing. Anyway, the problem with the grass is at the raw level and appears even in print, or on my screen at 100% while still 16bit PSD.

I just want to be clear about what you are saying. Are you saying there is no detail in the grass stalks and the tree leaves are globby as you described it even in the RAW? Is this before or after applying effects in the RAW converter?

I just did a new version with less sharpening of the grass and more on the mountians. I think the grass looks better, but the mountains still look flat. I am pretty sure the mountians were in focus, but I wonder now if my ND grad is causing some softness?

When I try to test focus issues at home, I never can repeat them. In the field, it is impossible to judge.

Anyway, I think I am still oversharpening to compensate for clarity. Some of my sharpening actions allow a very high amount of halo free sharpening which allows me to go too far.

 

[photoPhlow]

The clutter and shadows seem to detract from the image. I guess they are part of the story. The image is ok but just does not capture my interest. It looks like the building has some character and might be worth another visit. Maybe closeups would work better.
--
Jim, AKA camperjim, formerly from liny, Long Island New York

I'm not sure about the story behind the clutter. I like the building though. I will try to remove the power lines, and I did do some close-up shots.

You're right -- I should go there again and figure out some better compositions of individual elements, now that I know what is there. Thanks.

 

[Montana500]

You can see a forest fire in the upper left on the next one. My camp was below the fire. The previous night had well over a hundred lightning blasts. I heard the crack as lightning wrecked that tree. Needless to say I didn't sleep for a bit.



--
Grizzly bears of Glacier National Park
http://www.parkcamper.com/Glacier-National-Park/Glacier-grizzly-bears.htm

 

[Rick Knepper]

I like the contrast of the white steam against the dark clouds. Playing with the scroll bar in my browser, removing a bit of the foreground doesn't hurt.

 

[Rick Knepper]

Very impressive. I sometimes can't get images this sharp when I am standing on solid ground.

 

[Rick Knepper]

Both are excellent images. I prefer the composition in the first. The ocean in the first seems to have a light color which I suspect may be due to blurring from a slow shutter speed.

The day after visiting Bowling Ball beach, the tide was still a very low -1.4 at sunset, so despite the lack of interesting clouds I went to Rodeo Beach. Rather than shooting the featureless sunset my attention fell on this seaweed which was catching the setting sun.





I had to pick up the tripod between the waves and quickly back up, as the camera is at a very low position.
Mike K

--
Rick Knepper, photographer, photography not for sale, check my profile.

 

[Rick Knepper]

Excellent composition and even without sun in the image, a beautiful sky. The blurring of the water is slightly more than I prefer but I do recognize that this is a matter of taste.

 

[Rick Knepper]

I dunno. This building seems unremarkable other than the red arrow which I cannot read. The image is a good exposure. I would be tempted to sharpen this image just a skosh more.

Seagram's is a distillery from the mid 1800s, starting business in Waterloo, Canada. They are known for their whiskey.

I drove by this museum, with late afternoon light, and thought it would be a great subject. 7D with EFS 15-85.

--
Rick Knepper, photographer, photography not for sale, check my profile.

 

[Rick Knepper]

I prefer the composition in the first over the third - more symetry. I checked your EXIF and if it is correct it indicates you used f16 with 65mm. I am surprised that wasn't enougn DoF to get the tree on the left sharp.

just when I post, I forget the name of the falls
Off Hiway 20 in NE corner of Washington State
5D + 24-105





I like the colors in this one but feel the composition is wrong

--
Rick Knepper, photographer, photography not for sale, check my profile.

 

[Rick Knepper]

We don't get the kind of fall color here in Texas that you fellows get in other parts of the country so forgive the ignorant question about to tumble out of my mouth. Are you saturating these images or is this basically how fall color looks?

I like the first and last compositions a lot.

--
Rick Knepper, photographer, photography not for sale, check my profile.

 

[Rick Knepper]

I like this composition. The sky is sort of bluish. I can't decide whether this is accurate or not.

--
Rick Knepper, photographer, photography not for sale, check my profile.

 

[SeaScout851]

Hey Rick,

I've added a little bit of saturation but not much. If you get the light right and just as important get the color at it's max, the colors will be good. The colors were only 'good' for one or two days. Friday of last week we had clouds with a light mist. The light was 'perfect' but the colors were already starting to fade and the leaf drop was too high to make it worth getting shots.

On another note: There is some type of maple tree in the area that was particularly yellow this year. I do not remember ever seeing them as brilliant. But all were in people's yards and did not make for good photographs.

Andy

We don't get the kind of fall color here in Texas that you fellows get in other parts of the country so forgive the ignorant question about to tumble out of my mouth. Are you saturating these images or is this basically how fall color looks?

I like the first and last compositions a lot.

--
Rick Knepper, photographer, photography not for sale, check my profile.

--

 

[SeaScout851]

Beautiful area and nice representation of the area.

Andy
--

 

[Ben_Egbert]

en at 100% while still 16bit PSD.

I just want to be clear about what you are saying. Are you saying there is no detail in the grass stalks and the tree leaves are globby as you described it even in the RAW? Is this before or after applying effects in the RAW converter?

Grass stalks small tree branches look nice and sharp and no detail is expected when they are at the distance across the river. Which to my mind confirms focus was ok. But seed heads, leaves, and other roundish objects tend to be featureless and all one color and tone. This is in the raw before conversion even. I can make them sharp around the edges, but cannot get any detail inside them because none is there. This is either a problem of lens sharpness or the AA filter, and I tend to blame the AA filter, but don't really know.

When you sharpen them, it only draws attention to the fact that they lack internal detail. If you leave them unsharpened and expect the mass of lines and dots to represent the true image like a pointalism style painting technique, then we are speaking about abstract art.

You can see my original complaint on this several years ago when I was using a 5D and complained about rocks looking like worms.

 

[Ben_Egbert]

I dunno. This building seems unremarkable other than the red arrow which I cannot read. The image is a good exposure. I would be tempted to sharpen this image just a skosh more.

Not sure if you know this about images posted from a DPreview gallery, but you can click it two times and it gets larger. The largest image is pretty sharp and the sign is easy to read. In fact that was my tip off that you probably did not double click it.

Viewing DPreview images at the posted defualt size renders a pretty poor version of the image. Of course it will only post as large as the owner placed in the gallery, so some may be small originals to start with. This one is not.

Seagram's is a distillery from the mid 1800s, starting business in Waterloo, Canada. They are known for their whiskey.

I drove by this museum, with late afternoon light, and thought it would be a great subject. 7D with EFS 15-85.

--
Rick Knepper, photographer, photography not for sale, check my profile.

--
When you can't focus, nothing else matters
Once you can, everything else does.

http://ben-egbert.smugmug.com/

Ben

 

[Ben_Egbert]

I like both of them, and the second for the clouds and smoke. But the first is better for me. I like the soft light, the soothing feel of the stream with good shutter speed for moving water. The PP is also good, I need to get my sharpening toned down a bit and this would be a good example.
--
When you can't focus, nothing else matters
Once you can, everything else does.

http://ben-egbert.smugmug.com/

Ben

 

[SeaScout851]

I was also using a Circular Polarizing Filter. Which as you know adds to the intensity of the colors too.

Andy
--

 

[Sadja Herzog]

I prefer the redo for its saturation of the trees and the mainTeton peaks; the distant range on the R looks oversharped or too contrasty. IMO you over obsess on sharpness, but of course, it's your prerogative. This scene, like a few others of yours that I've commented on, achieves a very, very high level of technical perfection. As a print it would be suitable in a motel room or lobby, but I find it soulless, so I would not want to hang a print in my living room or a gallery. Just my 2¢.
--
Sadja
http://www.sadja.smugmug.com
http://www.pbase.com/sadja