rx100m6 Elliott's edits of daytime photos

elliottnewcomb

Forum Pro
Messages
19,637
Solutions
13
Reaction score
4,410
Location
Plainfield, NJ, USA
I edited some night shots, they are in that thread, with too much yap

here are edits of the daytime shots, starting with flowers

originals ooc, no pp



3ad1ee036c78409f969bbebe18cc0b38.jpg



6843a79b3e2744279931d29cd2127e51.jpg



951b62469f524b5cb24e9f34f16cdd7f.jpg



1e41b391958548e19063d38f704d34a9.jpg

alternate crop



6f26016c4b14442ab837c712aceed259.jpg



b4ca80d27e0a49a2bb46e90a625e8b67.jpg



2373ae10aa1c47febd3c0023c6e90413.jpg



65e23da49a994764bf8578269a985051.jpg



7b39b40cecc9402f800d541573fbc510.jpg

alternate crop

008ab61e5eb946288a8efd302dbdd47e.jpg



9987a4de1340406e80efb9082b763f97.jpg

this one I actually darkened



fce55c92556e4ec1a3121693f3657145.jpg

This camera is pretty impressive.



--
Elliott
 
some house detail shots edited.

02626e08f77f4a11b4690423cd1f49d2.jpg

alternate crop, lighten shadows just a bit, if too much color of morning light changes

9060ccea567f49118eebbe140c681db5.jpg

59dfb330b1e14248b38dc09423e84a1e.jpg

too bright for me, there's no mood left, not a great photo, just a test, but still ...

c666a6f14b344d4ab4f4944651c41c13.jpg

0600f41b51be4d449fb4319a8b78ca42.jpg

4478f9f384db4057a274d772b6e3c4ec.jpg

936a618405fd4063b883895c9f9a4f79.jpg

again, perhaps too bright

917aef2a75e14b96abe73e3345842347.jpg

fa98a5c47d1245a98162ee39071f4249.jpg

294240e5be9648f38d4cce53955d010e.jpg

3d6cb18dc54c46dca6a07fb563e76109.jpg

a172d68bd8da4b0084d7f6dd82b140ed.jpg

orig

2b0e43143e234c2b94630e37b569e590.jpg

shows why it has to stay dark

99d2082d57224a4db6609846b6508e52.jpg

all in all, it confirms my preference for darker than many other people, even after I edit them. Normally I would have used CPL.


Elliott
 
Last edited:
anybody ordered one this am?

beach shots (without CPL)



f918763dc370426595908013e49cf9de.jpg



bd5142ae606d466db4ef17ea1c020986.jpg



e1a44147baa24f388430447818c2d66f.jpg



8301ed565d9c4b4798e174a048561100.jpg



f6c83e69fb994086b8eabc3e69d9163a.jpg



61096dee41b04206a4ead9fc667e1371.jpg



I forgot to level this one

98a4eefd16d6431fa6826d20a4b04b73.jpg



7edad25b811545c4abb5dc40af46d50d.jpg



3357f23ecbfd48a2ba5763065db795c4.jpg



2fc38f0aedea49df89a77eb618b51eff.jpg





4c573869cd03454a855288df6adeb931.jpg



e85378ac1e33438c81bf437fbf651292.jpg



--
Elliott
 
zoom shots



20d596ce32154b49b22df9a9ff210418.jpg



195e48b4cd78410184086f48598adac8.jpg





8c86c872457b49d18f31ad0cbcd9d594.jpg



677a764184344313b753d900d29f81ae.jpg



95cd283077294b498df5bd2a7c34704b.jpg



b91939f348ac4190b05ca34162421e09.jpg



--
Elliott
 
Nice photos. You are able to pull out a lot detail from that 1" sensor.

Were you shooting RAW or JPEG?
 
sunrise,

I should have used longer shutter speeds, and perhaps ISO MFNR, I see more noise in these than others



02f5ce82076949ce9341fe80bb6073b1.jpg



8359cd144ba147e1ba4e9479d878d2a6.jpg



b8830360effb48898617b1f6a6e368b6.jpg



c2b3c4c381a4493a9ae545720b73e8eb.jpg



c4937901e2de4f83b209c6935acd5c75.jpg



ff92dc3ffb6e4a01b08ed741761e6256.jpg



3d1f4144c2214136b3b87a77305cf56d.jpg



8246caaf73284c2f943b2c96e26a5695.jpg

after seeing the night shots I took a few days later, I think I could have done better with these.

--
Elliott
 
That's a fun one



d604f378badd499da3b472bbb5ed26b8.jpg



--
Digital Camera and Adobe Photoshop user since 1999.
Adobe Lightroom is my adult coloring book.
 

Attachments

  • 61364228fecb4de9b048fbee5508cd37.jpg
    61364228fecb4de9b048fbee5508cd37.jpg
    9.6 MB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Nice photos. You are able to pull out a lot detail from that 1" sensor.
There may be differences of this m6 sensor, but you can pull a heck of a lot out of the shadows from any Sony rx100, RX10, or RX1.

Without CPL, I often shoot underexposed, both avoiding problems and capturing better sky detail and color, knowing I can lift the shadows later. It's surprising how much info lurks there.

With CPL, you can see and shoot more detail in the shadows in your original and get better skies, more detail and color. CPL does change other colors, you will want to pay attention to your greens,
Were you shooting RAW or JPEG?
Originals: Handheld, Jpeg, Extra Fine, OOC, no PP, a few are cropped,
 
I think my job is done. Now I will check my past photos using the rx100m3 and Stylus 1, and decide whether to keep it or not.

Votes Yay or Nay?
 
you picked my favorite of the trip
 
Dave,

Thanks.

It was a treat for me to see these again, due to the Pandemic we have skipped our yearly visits to Cape May and Ocean Grove for two years now.
 
I edited some night shots, they are in that thread, with too much yap

here are edits of the daytime shots, starting with flowers

originals ooc, no pp
First the original followed by after processing.

1e347c88946e458fb804b0f6dceb1129.jpg

Shot was straightened, frequency separation was used keeping the high frequency to improve detail. A little adjustment for light and finally a line gradient color change on the grass with the dark going towards green. Yes, the light is on in the middle of the day.

I used noise reduction but it didn't make a big difference. Putting the lens profile in ACDsee on curved the light post and obviously distorted the shot so I didn't use it.

2fe7b317396241f9a13a75d146b0b46c.jpg
 
Last edited:
I edited some night shots, they are in that thread, with too much yap

here are edits of the daytime shots, starting with flowers

originals ooc, no pp
First the original followed by after processing.

1e347c88946e458fb804b0f6dceb1129.jpg

Shot was straightened, frequency separation was used keeping the high frequency to improve detail. A little adjustment for light and finally a line gradient color change on the grass with the dark going towards green. Yes, the light is on in the middle of the day.

I used noise reduction but it didn't make a big difference. Putting the lens profile in ACDsee on curved the light post and obviously distorted the shot so I didn't use it.

2fe7b317396241f9a13a75d146b0b46c.jpg
Sorry, but on my screen the original looks best, the second one far too "digital" and "crunchy". And way worse to look at if pixel peeped. In my case I would have simply straightened it and maybe some very gentle fine tuning to sharpening.

I took the liberty of downloading and playing with image 1. On testing my program indicated 0.83EV under-exposure and made it look a bit better when corrected. Then straightened it and looked good, a tiny amount of extra sharpening did not really improve things much, so that really was an optional step for me.

Oh, and I always try FastStone Auto Adjust and it lifted the look a little but was still 0.36 EV short of the exposure testing program I used (Silkypix).

To me it's just a photo, but I know that my wife would say "Why the lamp post? And why those darn garbage bins? (She has a thing about garbage bins intruding in pictures). :-) I won't critique any further.
 
I edited some night shots, they are in that thread, with too much yap

here are edits of the daytime shots, starting with flowers

originals ooc, no pp
First the original followed by after processing.

1e347c88946e458fb804b0f6dceb1129.jpg

Shot was straightened, frequency separation was used keeping the high frequency to improve detail. A little adjustment for light and finally a line gradient color change on the grass with the dark going towards green. Yes, the light is on in the middle of the day.

I used noise reduction but it didn't make a big difference. Putting the lens profile in ACDsee on curved the light post and obviously distorted the shot so I didn't use it.
Sorry, but on my screen the original looks best, the second one far too "digital" and "crunchy". And way worse to look at if pixel peeped. In my case I would have simply straightened it and maybe some very gentle fine tuning to sharpening.

I took the liberty of downloading and playing with image 1. On testing my program indicated 0.83EV under-exposure and made it look a bit better when corrected. Then straightened it and looked good, a tiny amount of extra sharpening did not really improve things much, so that really was an optional step for me.

Oh, and I always try FastStone Auto Adjust and it lifted the look a little but was still 0.36 EV short of the exposure testing program I used (Silkypix).

To me it's just a photo, but I know that my wife would say "Why the lamp post? And why those darn garbage bins? (She has a thing about garbage bins intruding in pictures). :-) I won't critique any further.
Thanks for the feed back.

The lamp post and lamp that was on during the day was what "got my eye" . The frequency separation is the likely candidate for the crunchiness.

Before and after shots are more meaningful when the steps taken are explained.
 
Thanks for the feed back.

The lamp post and lamp that was on during the day was what "got my eye" . The frequency separation is the likely candidate for the crunchiness.
I got used to using global sharpening and never got involved with frequency separation methods.
Before and after shots are more meaningful when the steps taken are explained.
Exactly, we maybe learn new things when it is explained properly.

As for sharpening I now only ever use Unsharp Mask with radius of 0.3 and amount can vary like crazy depending on the image. Same radius works for me whether it is full resolution or downsized for web display.

Maybe too many years of film use made me used to the very soft look of film, so with digital images then getting sharpening "just right" or slightly under-cooked works for me. Edge halos from sharpening annoy me so I avoid them.
 
Hi,

First, let me clarify for those that don't know:

my originals were taken as my first use of my new to me m6 while on vacation. I refused to edit at that time on my laptop, I don't trust what I am seeing.

I posted them, and others, earlier, un-edited so others could see what the camera could do, kinda ... assuming people that know me would want some early feedback of what the then newest model could do.

When I returned home, I then did what I do: crop, lighten shadows, done. That all the PP I do to my OOC Jpegs.

Occasionally I use Spot Fix, to get a spot of chewing gum out of a sidewalk, ...

..............................

Now to your interesting church photo which I like,

original

a9a3874d8d6d41b1822c4b332298ffe7.jpg

I too might have been tempted for your composition of the lampost in the valley of the tower,

but, the flag blew over, narrowed the gap, so the lamp doesn't float fully free. a little closer might have solved a few things: moved the lamp up to float free in the sky, reduced concrete foreground, and lose some of the distracting left side elements. But, it would have obscured the windows to it's left. The solution, my knees don't even want me to type this, was to get a bit lower to position/compose the lamp head higher.

I'm not a big fan of straightening, however you could certainly straighten my edit, just to see it.

my lazy edit (using Windows Photo Editor, my Photoshop would be better)

8f501b8d51da4c06ba5a3191cc72b8fd.jpg

OK, what did I do,

Any Crop gets you closer to the detail, plenty of that here

crop bottom, lose concrete curb, lose grass with red line in it

crop left side, lose distractions. I compose/shoot wider than I want, always aware of my edges, like the million miles of corridors I visualized while designing Corporate Office Space. Cropping decisions, again examine my edges, get rid of meaningless distraction to the eye, via crop, spot fix, ...

spot fix: got rid of a lot of grub on the sidewalk. I learned a new trick. Usually some of the bottom of the image is obscured by an on-screen message. This time I realized I could rotate the image, move the sidewalk to the left side, use spot fix, then rotate back.

spot fix: goodbye orange blob. here is where Photoshop using cut and paste would have done a better job, just lazy.

Pixels: so far not straightened, however, I have read that it is best to do your edits together, then save once. I saved, spot, saved, spot too many times trying to cover the orange blob.

So, I would do my edits, save. Them make a straightened copy. After crops, after shadow lightening, after spot fix, so the straightening would only see my retained and pre-adjusted pixels.

Pixels/Straightening: now, when you straighten, isn't it moving, creating new, generally messing with the pixels? My brain sees as it sees, so I am surprised when people point out key-stoning. Architectural Elevations, Real Estate Photos, Interior Photos, ... I see it's value. Again, I'm lazy.

Noise Reduction. I never do any, I take the Jpeg In-Camera NR. The m6 and m7 models have more aggressive NR than prior models. I see no detriment, and that, combined with more aggressive Image Stabilization is the double whammy that let's the m6,m7 lens achieve like a brighter lens.

..........................

I think the stone is a bit bright, if I lightened the shadows myself, maybe I would have cut the highlights 'very slightly'. You get in trouble very quickly cutting highlights, especially skies.

All this yap is because I like your photo.

--
Elliott
 
Last edited:
Hi,

First, let me clarify for those that don't know:

my originals were taken as my first use of my new to me m6 while on vacation. I refused to edit at that time on my laptop, I don't trust what I am seeing.

I posted them, and others, earlier, un-edited so others could see what the camera could do, kinda ... assuming people that know me would want some early feedback of what the then newest model could do.

When I returned home, I then did what I do: crop, lighten shadows, done. That all the PP I do to my OOC Jpegs.

Occasionally I use Spot Fix, to get a spot of chewing gum out of a sidewalk, ...

..............................

Now to your interesting church photo which I like,

original

I too might have been tempted for your composition of the lampost in the valley of the tower,

but, the flag blew over, narrowed the gap, so the lamp doesn't float fully free. a little closer might have solved a few things: moved the lamp up to float free in the sky, reduced concrete foreground, and lose some of the distracting left side elements. But, it would have obscured the windows to it's left. The solution, my knees don't even want me to type this, was to get a bit lower to position/compose the lamp head higher.

I'm not a big fan of straightening, however you could certainly straighten my edit, just to see it.

my lazy edit (using Windows Photo Editor, my Photoshop would be better)

OK, what did I do,

Any Crop gets you closer to the detail, plenty of that here

crop bottom, lose concrete curb, lose grass with red line in it

crop left side, lose distractions. I compose/shoot wider than I want, always aware of my edges, like the million miles of corridors I visualized while designing Corporate Office Space. Cropping decisions, again examine my edges, get rid of meaningless distraction to the eye, via crop, spot fix, ...

spot fix: got rid of a lot of grub on the sidewalk. I learned a new trick. Usually some of the bottom of the image is obscured by an on-screen message. This time I realized I could rotate the image, move the sidewalk to the left side, use spot fix, then rotate back.

spot fix: goodbye orange blob. here is where Photoshop using cut and paste would have done a better job, just lazy.

Pixels: so far not straightened, however, I have read that it is best to do your edits together, then save once. I saved, spot, saved, spot too many times trying to cover the orange blob.

So, I would do my edits, save. Them make a straightened copy. After crops, after shadow lightening, after spot fix, so the straightening would only see my retained and pre-adjusted pixels.

Pixels/Straightening: now, when you straighten, isn't it moving, creating new, generally messing with the pixels? My brain sees as it sees, so I am surprised when people point out key-stoning. Architectural Elevations, Real Estate Photos, Interior Photos, ... I see it's value. Again, I'm lazy.

Noise Reduction. I never do any, I take the Jpeg In-Camera NR. The m6 and m7 models have more aggressive NR than prior models. I see no detriment, and that, combined with more aggressive Image Stabilization is the double whammy that let's the m6,m7 lens achieve like a brighter lens.

..........................

I think the stone is a bit bright, if I lightened the shadows myself, maybe I would have cut the highlights 'very slightly'. You get in trouble very quickly cutting highlights, especially skies.

All this yap is because I like your photo.
All this yap is actually about photos too :-). There will always be differences in what is done because we all have different taste, monitors set differently, different software to use ...

I have a couple lilly shots around from last summer too. They were quite pretty but didn't have the smell lillies are capable of.

Grant.

e2a465b2d6be4f6ba8b50fb63b5b4f6e.jpg
 
Nice, let's see some more Lily's, other colorful life!
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top