C.H.Ling wrote:
> ....
> Even I finally settled with a FF Canyon I'm not really happy with the tonal
> rendering of the images, they need a lots of post processing (curve/level) to
> look good.
I agree that most shots require post. On the other hand, I am often
shooting in anticipation of post. That is, I fairly often take a shot
knowing full well that if I shot it on film without scanning and post,
it wouldn't work at all - so I just wouldn't take it.
Thus, I find post a mixed blessing. I wish didn't need to use it for
many simple shots, but I revel in the freedom it gives me to capture
images I otherwise couldn't. There's a little island in one of the ponds
in the arboretum that some whimsical gardener has made into a turtle. In
the old film days, I'd have simply skipped the shot. If I were serious,
I'd try to guess what time of day, and possibly what time of year the
light would be right. The foliage is quite complicated around it and
shadows unpredictable, I think.
But today, I can simply take the shot and rearrange the light in post.
So much better for someone like me, who is neither a pro with an
assignment nor wishing to spend much of my time revisiting places for
better light.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/GGPark/TurtleIsland.htm>
As you can see, direct sun caused deep shadows and "cut off" the head. A
useless shot without processing beyond simple RAW conversion. The ACR
examples are default and adjusted slightly to minimize shadow and
highlight clipping, but with no effort to adjust it for presentation.
Using Canon's Digital Photo Professional for RAW conversion probably
shows what a JPEG would have looked like direct from the camera.
For the gallery, I chose to bring up the shadows in the background just
enough to lose the all black feeling, but leaving them quite subtle. It
is possible, though, to bring them up quite a bit, giving a version less
true to the original, but perhaps more pleasing.
I then tried a deeper, richer take on the island. Then a combination of
that with a slightly brighter background.
Take your pick, or mix and match.
> For mixed light I even have to go to the color palette to balance the color.
>
Have you tried one of the neutral color targets? I don't use them often,
but always have a WhiBal in my bag. It can really help in odd, mixed
light. If there is different light on different parts of the subject,
it's possible to take test shots with the target for each major area and
adjust using masks, but it's a lot of work. :-)
> As for the images from Moose, I have the same feeling as you, they are
> missing the richness I generally preferred.
I already commented on this in reply to Ken. Perhaps you like the darker
version of Turtle Island better than the original?
> At the mean time I found they are a little harsh and over sharpened to my
> eyes.
I'm still stuck with physiological differences of vision. You and others
here, mostly not young, have posted to many threads about focusing
difficulties. You may notice I mostly use AF. But that doesn't mean I
don't pay attention to focus. I can see focus quite well in the
viewfinder with the standard screen. Rather than mess with manual focus,
I use the central AF spot and may try focus more than once with slight
movement of the frame until I get it where I want it. Most shots only
involve one half-press, but some involve 2 -3 or more. I didn't have
much problem with the smaller, dimmer finder on the 300D, either.
If you look at the image numbers in this gallery, you will see that I
posted 67% of the shots I took. Considering that many not posted were
bracketing of some sort, the number with missed focus is just tiny. For
example, I took six shots of the ducklings. All are in focus, but not
all are good compositions, as they moved around. And this image is a
composite of two shots to get the DOF I wanted. F18 was already flirting
with troublesome diffraction limits on sharpness, but didn't have enough
DOF, so I took two shots at two different focal points.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/StrybingArboretum/slides/_MG_5727-28aia.htm>
The point is, I see the world differently than you do. Completely apart
from photography, I view a world that's sharper and more detailed than
the average person, and perhaps even more so than most older folks, like
my age, with declining vision. So when I process an image, I tend to
want to see sharp edges, as that's what appears natural to me. As it is,
I usually back off sharpening somewhat on my images to accommodate more
"natural" tastes. A lot of images other people post simply look soft to
me. I wish I could show you what 20/10 vision looks like, but I don't
know how.
> Just like the below sample, it seems too much LCE were used and the
> color/tone is a bit odd:
>
> http://galleries.moosemystic.net/StrybingArboretum/slides/_MG_5731ia.htm
>
You caught me there. That one jumped out as off to me, too, when I ran
through the slide show, but I somehow didn't get it on the list to fix.
I've replaced it with a version I hope you find more to your liking.
> Other than these the images were nicely captured and composed.
>
Thanks!
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|