Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 28, 2008, 8:54 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
NonEntity1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lake Placid Florida USA
Posts: 2,689
Default

These are the last of the shots I took on vacation; unlike most of my photos, these were taken in RAW. I processed them in Lightroom for strong color saturation (a Velvia look, although I have never used Velvia film). My wife likes them much better than shots with more accurate color. I am torn between liking the "punchy" color and not liking the fact they are not totally accurate. I would be interested in input from the forum and any critcism on the colors or any other aspect of these shots.

Thanks,
Tim

These four were with the K20d and 10-17mm FE lens, which proved ideal for this kind of shot.









And these were with the Sigma 24-60mm lens. They were processed the same, but the result seemed less saturated than the 10-17mm.






As always, any input is appreciated,
Thanks,
Tim



NonEntity1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 28, 2008, 9:22 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Black Knight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Oxford, CT
Posts: 1,309
Default

Tim

Just My Two cents. Overall i like the pictures. However, when i first looked at the pictures, the Shells Did not stand out as much as the (TO ME) unnatural Color of the Sky/water. I also think It Exaggerates the OOF Sky/water.
To Me the best of the bunch is Number 3.

Phil
Black Knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 28, 2008, 9:28 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Goldwinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 6,515
Default

Wow,
I like them Tim.
Where were you on vacation? A nice collection of shells like that are getting harder and harder to find.
GW
Goldwinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 28, 2008, 10:13 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
ennacac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,198
Default

Hi Tim, I like the first three the best, both color and sharpness. Very nice shots.

Tom
ennacac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 28, 2008, 10:56 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

I like the third one best, also. Since you are using LR, you might want to lower the blue saturation a bit (you can adjust each color separately) in the first couple to get the sky and sea better color-wise. So often shells are dull and they can use some push when it comes to saturation. I wouldn't do it for everything, though. The Sigma lens doesn't tolerate this type of thing at all well, does it? Or is it my lousy laptop monitor that's making them look much poorer?

It's always interesting to me to see the difference in color and contrast between lenses. I've gotten a real respect for the 77 Ltd this week - it's been a joy to use. And I've also had good results with the DA 12-24, though it sometimes throws the camera's light meter off. Does that happen with the 10-17, or is it my camera?
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 29, 2008, 9:01 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
NonEntity1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lake Placid Florida USA
Posts: 2,689
Default

Thanks Phil, GW, Tom, and Harriet. Phil, you touched on exactly what is bothering me about how I have processed these, the sky looks good but too unnatural. Harriet, I don't use LR that often and I had forgotten I could lower saturation in individual colors. I picked a preset that looked good on several shots and then applied it too all of them. I think my choices in LR did not do justice to the Sigma shots, the jpegs from the camera looked better than what I came up with, though the 10-17 seemed to work best for these.

Thanks again for the feedback and advice. I think I will take advantage of LR's vaunted non-destructive editing and see what I come up with next.

Tim
NonEntity1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 29, 2008, 10:04 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
nhmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southern New Hampshire
Posts: 5,202
Default

I think I like the first one best, Tim. Might just be me, but the others are making me crosseyed until I can focus on something after I back away from my monitor.

Where were you that you saw all these shells? I love the brown one in the sixth photo. All we mostly see is periwinkles around here. Every once in a while a sand dollar will show up. But, more when we first moved here 20 years ago.

The sky did look a little unnatural to me as some said. But, my first thoughts had been that you were in some exotic place that had nicer skies than my beach.:-)

Patty
nhmom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 29, 2008, 10:48 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

Hi Tim, I really liked the first image. I have seen all the colors before and just took forgranted that they were true. Plus I have always gotten accurate colors with my 10-17 lens. I do like very much, what you have done.

One aspect of the images that I have not seen addressed is the composition, especially with the blured background, captured with a lens that is suppose to have an unlimited depth of field. For such a specialized lens, I think that your showing that a talented photographer can apply the lens out side the typical set of expectations. The sizing, porportations, shapes, scale and inter-relationships between the foreground objects all apear to be true. Nothing that would suggest a fisheyed effect.

Yes, there are color differences between the images of the 10-17 and the 24-60, however, the overall effect captured by the 10-17 I think is great. The 24-60 makes the shells in the foreground appears to be more flat, while the 10-17 gives them more of a 3 dimensional feel. Also the 24-60 appears to have broken the image in half - with a different feel between the foreground and background.

I bet that if you did not indicate that a FE lens was used, that no one would be able to either tell or guess. Also, its not really an expected way to use a wide angle lens. It really is a remarkable little lens.
interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2008, 11:11 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
NonEntity1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lake Placid Florida USA
Posts: 2,689
Default

Thanks Patty, the shells (and photos) are all from Gasparilla Island, Boca Grande FL. We spent a week there in July and my son and I went shelling most mornings. It is a great spot for shelling and nearly deserted in the summer.

I/O, thank you. It was the near macro capability of the 10-17mm that decided my wide angle dilemma, when I bought it I had these shell photos in mind. I found that PSP X2 seems to defish pretty well. I really liked how the shells looked prior to defishing but of course the horizon had a noticable bend. On the fourth shot I used layers to defish the top of the photo and leave the shells with their original FE perspective. I agree, it is a great lens and I am still learning its possiblities.

Tim
NonEntity1 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:05 AM.