----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose"
> 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.
If I have to choose one, I like the ACR adjusted one better, too much shadow
will make an image look flat. At the mean time I like the softer feel of the
island, the LCE ones (Richer Island) is not bad but I see finer details on
the ACR adjusted one.
>
>> 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. :-)
Balance with a neutral target will lost the original mood of the scene, I
usually just reduce the warm tone a bit to make it look more natural,
unfortunately the green usaully not right and need to involve the color
palette.
>> 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?
>
Not necessary darker but I like the smoother tonal transaction of the ACR
adjusted one.
>> 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.
>
I'm not sure if this is true, I can see the details on not sharpened images
I don't need the enhanced version to feel the sharpness. Focusing is a issue
to me may be I demand a very sharp image and I shot a lot at F2.8 and 4,
very little at F8 and almost never at F11 and smaller except the insect
macros.
>> 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.
That one is much better to my eyes, I will like it even more if the
background is slightly darker (I think you had lighten it up?).
C.H.Ling
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|