Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Photo Critiques

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 7, 2006, 7:46 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 493
Default

After
Attached Images
 
nelmr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2006, 7:54 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 493
Default

E.S. Crawfordthanks for the compliment. Your rendition of my shot made me think about something. Which is better a more vibrant contrasty image or a more subdue dynamic image?

Saturation was already boosted in my image from the original (Remember this was shot raw and raw images from the S5100 have no saturation boost). I have noticed that this image takes very well to high saturation boosts with little or no noticable artifacts.

The hardest thing for me is to try to find a balance between dynamic range and contrast with this image. With Crawford's version the image definetly has more pop and "standoutishness." Mine are more flat but maintain more detail.

I've seen some Ansel Adams shoots of waterfalls in yosemite park. I noticed that he had several blown highlights between the waterfall and snow in the image. Is it okay to blow the highlights to achieve more contrast? Adams shots were B&W though and that probably makes a difference too.

I realize this is more an issue of personal taste but it makes me wonder. Thoughts everyone?


nelmr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2006, 8:17 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 493
Default

Here some experiments. Below you will see my current edit verses 3 jumps in saturation adjustments.

The below image is a crop from the center of the image and size has been reduced by 50%.

The first pic is my original edit (which already had saturation boost). The second pic is boosted overall by 33. Third is 66. Fourth is 100. Remember, I am using GIMP here at work (Photoshop elements is at home). 100 is the highest I can go. I saved theimaged with subsampling at 4:4:4 to maintain color and compressed to 60%.



Attached Images
 
nelmr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2006, 8:23 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 493
Default

The following set of four images is like the one above but this time it is a comparison of contrast. I used the curve tool in a S-curve fasion to achieve contrast here. Each image is a more extereme adaptation of the S-cureve (with the exception of the first as that is my original edit). I saved this at 4:2:2 subsampling as color isn't as important here and a compression of 70%.

So after seeing these two examples which is better?

Regarding Contrast: More subdued, flat look with greater dynamic range? Or more pop with moreblown shadows and highlights?

Regarding Saturation: More subdued look? Or More vibrance?

Again the answers are probably personal taste but I wanted to know peoples opinons on this matter and the arguements from both camps. For me I tend to the more natural, more dynamic range. Kindof like a flat speaker system that doesn't over emphisize the bass or treble which can be likened here to shadows and highlights. I'm curious.




Attached Images
 
nelmr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2006, 8:43 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 493
Default

Here is a final comparison of both saturation and s-curve adjustments.

Original, followed by 50 overall saturation and mild s-curve, followed by 75 overal saturation and moderate s-curve. Image saved at 4:4:4 subsampling and 65% compression.

To me the middle looks really nice but I alsoknow that in the full version I havelost highlight and shadow detail in the full image. Hmm... choices choices choices.


NOTE: it didn't display so I made it smaller:



Attached Images
 
nelmr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2006, 11:58 AM   #16
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

saturation and contrast often comes down to both personal preference and your specific mood or look you are trying to convey to your viewers.. therefore, there is no real wrong or right, well, sometimes you can over-do-it.. but in the middle range of technically correct, the differences and preferences will vary..

for me, one of my preferences is to err slightly on the side of underexposure on nature shots, i love what it does to saturation and contrast.. others like a brighter more vibrant look..

for me, commenting on the composite shots on the last post, the one on the far right is overdone and is not technically sound.. the other 2 are both viable options.. but for me i prefer the first, and i think it will look the best printed..
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2006, 12:44 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 493
Default

Thanks Hards. Going back to my original question here are some GIF animations that show the dynamic range differences better regarding the technique posted above. Notice that the water and the bottom half of the image are affected but the trees on the left and right are not.

The more dynamic pic (that uses the alpha blending) is the slightly darker one.
Attached Images
 
nelmr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2006, 12:47 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 493
Default

Another example:


Attached Images
 
nelmr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2006, 12:48 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 493
Default

And one more:


Attached Images
 
nelmr 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 9:16 AM.