On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> And it's a really first rate gallery!
>
> > Are you certain that they should not look as I have rendered them?
>
> "Should" is a tricky word. If you think they look the way they should, you
> are right.
>
> I do believe that a rendition more true to the original subject is
> possible.
>
Thanks again, Moose, for your kind words.
A second effect, both of clipping and of JPEG engines/conversions that
> compress the top of the histogram, is a loss of
> visual detail. The variations in the red channel that help define details
> of the subject all go to the same or only very
> slightly different colors, and the detail disappears.
>
> You can see the effect pretty clearly in the detail of the vein structure.
> Also in the rough, grainy structure of the
> underside of the orange ones. In both cases, there are still areas where
> tonal detail was not recoverable, and thus they
> remain without detail.
>
> Does that answer your question?
>
Yes, in the sense that it is what I would have expected you to say about
it. The point in my questions was to ascertain that you do truly believe
that you are able to render an image "true to the original subject" without
having actually having seen the original subject. This seems to be what
your words mean. Am I missing something?
But I suspect this is mainly how you respond to other people's
images, rather than how you work with your own. We have had this
conversation before, and my recollection is that you admitted to being as
locked onto the memory of a subject as your guide as I am. In my case, I
would not argue that my memory is perfect or that my rendering is perfect,
but the memory prevents me from doing some things that other people might
do if they had no experience of the original subject in its original
setting.
These are your studies of the red and orange orchids:
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Wilcox/3159746w.htm>
< http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Wilcox/3159740w.htm>
Red orchid: I think your examples sufficiently demonstrate how far one can
go with what you call "recovery." However, your version of the red
orchid looks less like what I saw than mine. The red is just OK (as
a representation of the scene) in yours, but the weakening of the yellow is
not acceptable to me. (I realize you were mainly focused on "taming the
red.")
Orange orchid: My original of the orange flower already had some reduction
to match color to detail, I hoped without sacrificing the glow. Your
version is a bit lifeless, IMO. If you don't feel that, it's not
surprising. You don't have the crucial information (experience of the
original subject) to guide you, though I think you succeeded in what you
meant to demonstrate. I obviously failed to make my vision compelling to
you. It is not perfectly realized for me either. In my version, there is
already more detail visible than I actually had seen at the point of
capture, and the right flower was lit up like a Chinese lantern. While
successful to your point, your demonstration takes the actual photo in the
wrong direction if representation of the original is the goal.
I reworked the red one, this time using Viewer 3, which I think produces a
more accurate red (more accurate to my memory of the orchid):
http://jfwilcox.jalbum.net/Wallace%20Garden%20Center%20Orchid%20Show%202014/#_3159746vw.jpg
I think you will approve of the histogram, but I am not sure you will like
the overall effect any better. Because I made the background nearer to
black in this one using the curves tool, I edited the previous version made
with ACR to match it:
http://jfwilcox.jalbum.net/Wallace%20Garden%20Center%20Orchid%20Show%202014/#_3159746w.jpg
Not too much to choose between them, but the glow and color of the new
version made with Viewer is my final preference.
I studied these flowers pretty hard. (I don't mean the photos of them -- I
mean the actual flowers.) The color of these flowers is so intense that it
obscures most detail. In fact, it is surprising how much detail the sensor
captures despite that amazing intensity of color. I did do some "recovery"
adjustment -- consulting the histogram, of course, but making my
determination more by the visual impact on the monitor. I stopped when I
got the balance of detail-to-color that triggered, to the extent
possible, the feeling I had when I made the photograph.
Actually, I felt as though this would be the most difficult image for most
folks:
http://jfwilcox.jalbum.net/Wallace%20Garden%20Center%20Orchid%20Show%202014/#_3159756w.jpg
That little paph is a corker!
My in-camera setting on the E-5 is "vivid," but that is primarily to
enhance playback on the LCD. In raw development, ACR ignores that, and if
I use Viewer 3, I switch to "normal" in raw development. On most of the
flower shots I tend to use a moderate amount of "vibrance" and just a dab
of saturation if vibrance doesn't get the result where I want it, but I
don't use either when the main color is red, usually. If the exposure is
right on, the reds often are the best they are going to be, to my eyes.
Occasionally, even a bit of saturation reduction improves the balance
between detail and intensity. Sometimes the highlight slider helps a bit,
but not too much. I think exposure is the most important factor, and even
lighting. In short, I doubt there is too much difference between us in
methodology, but in these cases I had something in mind that you didn't
have and really couldn't have. Your versions do look like they would print
nicely on an inkjet, which is a problem I would have to face with mine if I
wanted to print mine.
It's a pain that I can't quite get away from Viewer 3, but it still seems
to be the best for reds. With my previous E-system bodies, ACR tended to
take the red slightly towards yellow. With the E-5 it seems to err a
little more towards blue.
Joel (let 'em bleed) W.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
