|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#11 |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
|
![]()
Thanks for all the comments.
I don't think there was a dynamic range problem in this instance, the histogram is pretty clean, no clipping at the top and most of the bottom stop wasn't used at all. It was pretty humid, the mountains having been covered with cloud, mist and rain the day before and after. So the haze is due to the conditions. A polarising filter would have been a good idea, unfortunately the lens I'm using suffers from dreadful vignetting at the wide end of the zoom if any kind of filter is used, so I don't use filters on it. This shot was at the telephoto end so it would have been useful for sure. There are often real-world restrictions on these things though; I was walking with my wife, and although she doesn't mind me taking photos, she doesn't stop and wait either. Swapping lenses and putting filters on and off isn't something easily or safely done while walking on rugged trails. Win some, lose some. :-) As to precise colour and saturation - this was slightly tricky for me because I'm not used to processing JPG, but I'd switched over to JPG because I was running low on space on my CF. I know also that the print will have bolder looking colours than the web output. I agree that the extra contrast helps the small shot, but the contrast boost seems to lose detail at higher resolutions, so I'll just have to try to optimise for the print. (I'll be back in the UK next week and will have access to my printer again!) The colours in the version I posted are pretty close to what I remember seeing, the sky was a fairly pale blue, the clouds were just beginning to break up, and I love the way they were rolling around the summit. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,940
|
![]()
Peri, you are a very good critique of yourself. That is the spirit. Regards. Jaki
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,915
|
![]()
peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,093
|
![]()
Hards80 wrote:
Quote:
You can get the camera's internal algorithm to behave itself in these circumstances by various methods. First, you canlower the "sharpness" or "contrast" settings on the camera if it offers you that entry point. Most cameras do. Second, you can use a GND, although the extent to which that would help in this particular case is limited because the Sentinel juts into the region that you would naturally be toning down, so the contrast with the sky on either side of it would not be helped. I think it would be more effective in dealing with the same, although more muted, effect between the foreground bluff and the valley leading up to the Sentinel. My sense is that photographers tend to overlook the effects of these kinds of issues, which is why I raised the point in the first place. Of course, I may still be off base in this case. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
|
![]()
I'm intrigued now...
I usually shoot RAW, but not long before this shot I switched to JPG because I was starting to run low on space on my CF card. I was somewhat disappointed in the image quality here. Is the histogram useful here? What else could you use to decide? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
|
![]()
Here is a 100% crop from the image.
I'm pretty sure I have my JPG settings set for very conservative sharpening - you can always add more but it's hard to take away. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,093
|
![]()
peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
Yes, the histogram has value. But, for what I am thinking of, the most useful diagnostic is to graph a line or column of luminosity data. Just plot each point on a graph as it appears in sequence. What you get is a graph of the grayscale transition between adjacent pixels. (You can do this for the color component if you like, but usually the luminosity graph will tell you anything that you need to know.) What you'll see in the case of extreme sharpening is a ripple in the line around a sharp edge. It may just dip down before it shoots up, or may even dip up and down at one side of the sharp edge before it shoots up at the other, and ripples again at the top of that. In either case, the mathematical term for this dip is the "Gibbs effect." If you have an infinite number of frequencies to reconstruct the sharp transition, you get a line that overshoots the top of the square wave. If you have a truncated series of freequencies (as in the case of a digital camera), you get a more gentle dip down before the sharp rise (which never quite manages to go vertical), and then there is a hump at the top of the rise before it settles back down to the new height. This kind of thing is a graph of oversharpening. The more that you have higher frequencies present, the less pronounced the "mistracking" of the sharp transition -- detail in the image around the sharp edges limits the apparent effect (but the basic underlying circumstance is an inevitable mathematical limitation of trying to track a singularity. You can just limit the visual impact of it.) Unfortunately, just as most folks prefer almost cartoonish color saturation, most folks also prefer cartoonishly over-sharpened edges. If you look at the professional photographs offered at most vacation spots, they are all sharpened to a point that I find physically uncomfortable to view. I confess I don't quite "get" the normal taste for such things. This image does not have anything like that level of problem. But it appears to me to be there to some extent. My tastes are certainly not universally shared, so please take my comments for what they are worth. And I do want to reiterate that I like the composition very much. I just would prefer more "natural" transitions around the sharp edges. Of course, as always, YMMV. ETA: I have sometimes experienced this sensation when viewing nature, which I presume is due to an artifact of my visual system (I have rather severe astigmatism). So I would suggest that you may want to pay attention to the original scene, and if the photo captures faithfully what you have seen, it's not a problem in the camera's algorithm. These things are always tricky... |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 | |||
Super Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
|
![]() Quote:
Would you then expect to see more of these artifacts from 8-bit (JPG) images than 12-bit (RAW) images converted to 16-bit TIF files? (Please forgive me if I have grasped the wrong end of the stick here - I'm quite happy to let go. :-) ) In this particular image though it was converted to JPG in the camera, but my parameters for sharpening, saturation and contrast were all at the relatively conservative defaults for the 20D. As a general principle the last thing I do, after all my editing (if I ever need to use JPG) is to convert to 8-bit mode. Quote:
I must admit to finding the desparate attachment to "sharpness" as the overriding quality a lens must possess to be rather tiresome. There are so many other factors to consider. Quote:
I'll be posting a few more images of the day here in the next week or so, as I get a chance to work on them, so you will be able to see what I mean. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,093
|
![]()
peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
|
![]()
Tclune.
thanks for the technical information. i am familiar with the concepts, more specifically, the results of these concepts. so it is really nice to have a little more background information regarding these phenomenon. very interesting read. -dustin |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|